Calimesa City Council
May 16, 2022

Regular Meeting of the Calimesa City Council
May 16, 2022

CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: MAYOR DAVIS, MAYOR PRO TEM CERVANTEZ, COUNCIL MEMBER DUVALL, COUNCIL MEMBER HEWITT AND COUNCIL MEMBER MOLINA.

STAFF: CITY MANAGER JOHNSON, CITY ATTORNEY BARROW, CITY CLERK

GERDES, FINANCE DIRECTOR REID, PLANNING MANAGER LUCIA, PUBLIC

WORKS DIRECTOR MONSON, CITY ENGINEER THORNTON, FIRE CHIEF O’CONNELL AND SHERIFF CAPTAIN SALAS.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
City of Calimesa
Regular Meeting of the Calimesa City Council
Meeting Agenda
Monday, May 16, 2022 – 6:00 p.m.

Norton Younglove Multipurpose Senior Center
908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, CA 92320
William Davis, Mayor  Jeff Cervantez, Mayor Pro Tem
Wynona Duvall, Council Member  Wendy Hewitt, Council Member  Linda Molina, Council Member Bonnie Johnson, City Manager  Quinn Barrow, City Attorney The Calimesa City Council will be conducting this meeting in the Norton Younglove Senior Center. Members of the public may participate in this meeting in one of two ways:
1) In person at the Norton Younglove Senior Center, 908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, CA 92320. 2) By viewing the meeting on Facebook Live, beginning at 6:00 p.m. at https://www.facebook.com/cityof.calimesa Submission of Public Comments: If attending the meeting, public comment will be allowed by completing a blue speaker slip and providing it to the City Clerk at the meeting. Please observe a time limit of three (3) minutes when giving your presentation. When called upon, please step forward to the microphone, state your name for the record, whom you represent and any statement you wish to make. Please be advised that you may not defer your three (3) minutes to another speaker. Otherwise, public comment will be accepted via email. Please send comments via email to the Calimesa City Clerk at [email protected]. Identify public comment or the specific agenda item you wish to comment on in your email’s subject line. You may submit comments on any agenda item. Emailed comments must be submitted by 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 16, 2022 and will be read into the record by the City Clerk. Electronic comments on agenda items may only be submitted via email and comments via text and social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) will not be accepted.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Clerk’s Office, (909) 795-9801. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.

Any public writings distributed by the City to at least a majority of the Council Members regarding any item on this regular meeting agenda will be made available at the public counter at City Hall located at 908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, CA 92320.

Regular Meeting of the Calimesa City Council
May 16, 2022

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Anyone wishing to address the Council on any item within the Council’s jurisdiction that is not on the agenda may do so at this time. This is not a time for City Council discussion of non-agenda items. After receiving public comments, Council Members or staff, after being recognized by the Mayor, may briefly respond to statements made by the public or questions posed by the public. In addition, Council Members may ask questions for clarification or make a referral to staff for factual information to be reported back to the Council at a later meeting.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
RECOMMENDATION: Move to approve the agenda
Motion____________________ Second____________________ Vote____________________ CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 – 7)
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Council will act upon them at one time without discussion. Any Council Member or staff member may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

1. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES.
a) City Council action minutes of a regular meeting of May 2, 2022.

2. RECEIVE AND FILE CITY COMMISSION & BOARD MINUTES.
a) Library Commission minutes of April 5, 2022 regular meeting. b) Planning Commission minutes of April 11, 2022 regular meeting. c) Parks, Trails & Community Services Comm. minutes of March 2, 2022 regular meeting

3. APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTERS.
a) Check Register Report with a total of $240,578.57 (Check Nos. 38598 to 38656) b) April 28 2022 Payroll of $76,809.07
May 1, 2022 Council Payroll of $1,673.25

4. WAIVE FULL READING OF ANY PROPOSED ORDINANCES ON THE AGENDA.

This permits reading the title only in lieu of reciting the entire text of the Ordinances. This does not take policy action on the Ordinances or approve or disapprove any Ordinances on the agenda.

5. TRAVEL EXPENSES
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council move to approve the Council Travel Training and Meeting/Mileage Expenses Report through April 30, 2022.

6. CALIMESA FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY AMENDMENT.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 2022-18, A Resolution of the City of Calimesa approving amendments to the Calimesa Fire Department Policies and amending Resolution No. 2018-03.

7. PARCEL MAP NO. 38117 – FINAL APPROVAL
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
a) Approve Parcel Map No. 38117 and authorize City Clerk to approve the map, b) Accept the offer of dedication for public use subject to improvements in accordance with City Standards, and
c) Forward the map to the County Recorder for recordation.

Regular Meeting of the Calimesa City Council
May 16, 2022

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORTS

POLICE CHIEF COMMENTS & REPORTS

FIRE CHIEF COMMENTS & REPORTS

MAYOR & COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTING OF COUNTY & REGIONAL MEETINGS This is the time for comments, announcements and/or reports on meetings attended at public expense as required by AB 1234.

BUSINESS ITEMS

8. AMENDMENT 2 TO AGREEMENT WITH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO CHERRY VALLEY BLVD. INTERCHANGE
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Amendment 2 to the Service Agreement with the County of Riverside to recognize funding for the next Phase of the Project, i.e., Plans, Specifications and Estimates..

9. COUNTY LINE ROAD AND CALIMESA BOULEVARD ROAD IMPROVEMENTS -

PROJECT UPDATE AND INITIAL STUDY (IS)/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution 2022-19 Approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Road Improvements.

2. Authorize staff to begin the right-of-way acquisition process.

COUNCIL MEMBERS’ COMMENTS & REPORTS
This is the time for additional general comments, announcements, reports on meetings attended at public expense as required by AB 1234, requests of staff, and other issues of concern to Council Members may be presented briefly at this time. The Council may not legally take action on any item presented at this time other than to direct staff to investigate a complaint or place an item on a future agenda unless (1) by a majority vote, the Council determines that an emergency situation exists, as defined by Government Code § 54956.5 or (2) by a four-fifths vote, the Council determines that there is a need for immediate action and the need for action arose subsequent to the agenda being posted as required by Government Code § 54954.2(b).

CITY MANAGER COMMENTS & REPORTS

ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the Special Meeting of the City Council on Monday, May 23, 2022 at 3:30 p.m.

City Council Meeting
Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 1
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022
PREPARED BY: Darlene Gerdes, Deputy City Manager/City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the action minutes as presented for the Regular City Council meeting of May 2, 2022.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: City Council action minutes of May 2, 2022 regular meeting.

City Council Action Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of May 2, 2022

City Of Calimesa
City Council Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 2, 2022
Members of the public were encouraged to participate in this meeting in one of two ways:
1) In person at the Norton Younglove Senior Center, 908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, CA 92320, maintaining a 6-foot distance from others.
2) By viewing the meeting on Facebook Live, beginning at 6:00 p.m. at https://www.facebook.com/cityofcalimesa
Submission of Public Comments: Those attending the meeting were allowed to speak during public comment by completing a blue speaker slip and providing it to the City Clerk at the meeting.

Otherwise, public comment was accepted via email to the Calimesa City Clerk at [email protected] with a deadline of 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 2, 2022.

CALL TO ORDER 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Davis
ROLL CALL: MAYOR DAVIS, MAYOR PRO TEM CERVANTEZ, COUNCIL

MEMBER DUVALL AND COUNCIL MEMBER HEWITT
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER MOLINA.

There was Council consensus to excuse the absence of Council Member Molina.

STAFF: CITY MANAGER JOHNSON, CITY ATTORNEY BARROW, CITY

CLERK GERDES, FINANCE DIRECTOR REID, PLANNING

MANAGER LUCIA, CITY ENGINEER THORNTON, PUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR MONSON, FIRE CHIEF O’CONNELL AND SHERIFF
CAPTAIN SALAS.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Pledge of Allegiance was led by City Engineer Thornton.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Kevin Walton, San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency Director greeted the Council and introduced himself as a recently appointed Director to the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HEWITT, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER DUVALL, CARRIED 4-0-1-0(COUNCIL MEMBER MOLINA WAS ABSENT) TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.

Attachment 1A

City Council Action Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of May 2, 2022

Mayor Davis asked if there were any items to be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Council Member Hewitt requested that Item No. 6 be pulled for discussion.

CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 – 10)
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. Council will act upon them at one time without discussion. Any Council Member or staff member may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

1. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES.
a) City Council action minutes of a regular meeting of April 18, 2022.

2. RECEIVE AND FILE CITY COMMISSION & BOARD MINUTES.
a) There are no minutes ready for approval at this time.

3. APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTERS.
a) Check Register Report with a total of $619,367.74 (Check Nos. 38529 to 38597) b) April 14, 2022 Payroll of $78,556.53

4. WAIVE FULL READING OF ANY PROPOSED ORDINANCES ON THE AGENDA.

This permits reading the title only in lieu of reciting the entire text of the Ordinances.

This does not take policy action on the Ordinances or approve or disapprove any Ordinances on the agenda.

5. TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED MARCH 31, 2022 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the Investment Report for the month ended March 31, 2022.

7. AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES – CITY MANAGER
RECRUITMENT.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a professional services agreement with HR Dynamics & Performance Management, Inc.in an amount not-toexceed $22,585. 8 RENEWAL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve renewing the law enforcement contract with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.

9. EMERGENCY CLEANUP OF SEPTIC TANK LEAK ON HARRUBY DRIVE.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-17 making findings in support of a waiver of public bidding requirements and amending the FY 2021-22 budget to include an appropriation in the amount of $22,569.97 for emergency cleanup services.

10. APPROVE AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT

OF HOUSING, HOMELESS PREVENTION AND WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS (HHPWS) FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROJECT

City Council Action Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of May 2, 2022

NO. 5.CM.01-21, NORTON YOUNGLOVE SENIOR CENTER ADA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 2020-02.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an amended agreement with Riverside County Department of Housing, Homeless Prevention and Workforce Solutions (HHPWS) for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Project No.

5.CM.01-21 for the amount of $46,067.70 for the construction of the Norton Younglove Senior Center ADA Improvement Project No 2020-02.

MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM CERVANTEZ, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HEWITT, CARRIED 4-0-1-0(COUNCIL MEMBER MOLINA WAS ABSENT) TO APPROVE ITEM’S 1-5 AND 7-10 OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED.

ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION

6. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2021-20 APPROVING A CPI RATE INCREASE BY CR&R, INCORPORATED EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2021.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-16, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Calimesa, California approving a CPI rate increase by CR&R, Incorporated effective July 1, 2022.

Council Member Hewitt wanted to make sure that the public understood that the rate increases are high due to the high increase in the CPI and asked Alex Braicovich of CR&R to speak regarding the increases.

Alex Braicovich of CR&R spoke regarding the annual rate increases and the increases due to the new SB 1383 State Law regarding organic waste requirements. He stated that the residential rates are increased by the CPI only, adding that the residential rates do not include SB 1383 charges. He further stated that the SB 1383 charges are for commercial customers only.

Mike Barron, 670 W. Avenue L, Calimesa spoke regarding monies due to the residents effected by the Sandalwood Fire, adding that those who lost income due to street closures during the fire, have not been compensated for those losses.

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HEWITT, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM CERVANTEZ, CARRIED 4-0-1-0 (COUNCIL MEMBER MOLINA WAS ABSENT) TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2022-16, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF CALIMESA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A CPI RATE INCREASE BY CR&R INCORPORATED EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2022.

POLICE CHIEF COMMENTS & REPORTS
Captain Salas reported 277 calls for service between April 18th and May 1st, with 3assaults, 6 domestic violence, 2 burglaries, 2 DUI’s, 11 thefts, 4 felony thefts, 1 robbery, 1 sex crime, 13 traffic citations, 4 traffic collisions, 4 stolen vehicles with 1 recovered and 2 vandalism calls.

City Council Action Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of May 2, 2022

FIRE CHIEF COMMENTS & REPORTS
Fire Chief O’Connell reported 584 calls for service since January 1, 2022, 405 of those calls being medical aide, 20 fires, 14 mutual aid out of the City and 4 mutual aids into the City. 129 miscellaneous calls for public assistance. He further reported that the department has staff members in paramedic school getting ready for the transition to ALS.

MAYOR & COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTING OF COUNTY & REGIONAL MEETINGS This is the time for comments, announcements and/or reports on meetings attended at public expense as required by AB 1234.

Council Member Hewitt reported that she attended a WRCOG meeting where they spoke about the budget, TUMF revenues and the fate of the fellowship program, as well as a closed session for various items.

Mayor Pro Tem Cervantez reported that he attended a meeting of the RCA where they amended the joint project review application in an effort to clarify MSHCP.

BUSINESS ITEMS

11. NEW CALIMESA WEBSITE REVEAL.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the report received on the new website.

Deputy City Manager/City Clerk Gerdes provided a demonstration of the new City website that was planned for launch on May 5, 2022.

The report was received and filed by a consensus of the City Council COUNCIL MEMBERS’ COMMENTS & REPORTS
This is the time for additional general comments, announcements, reports on meetings attended at public expense as required by AB 1234, requests of staff, and other issues of concern to Council Members may be presented briefly at this time. The Council may not legally take action on any item presented at this time other than to direct staff to investigate a complaint or place an item on a future agenda unless (1) by a majority vote, the Council determines that an emergency situation exists, as defined by Government Code § 54956.5 or (2) by a four-fifths vote, the Council determines that there is a need for immediate action and the need for action arose subsequent to the agenda being posted as required by Government Code § 54954.2(b).

Council Member Hewitt reported that she attended Beaumont Boys and Girls Club Breakfast of Champions on April 22, 2022. She further reported that she attended the Molina’s Bra Drive at Riverside County Medical Center on April 29, 2022, adding that the Bra donations were for those sexually assaulted. She stated that Amazon donated 25,000 bras to the drive. She announced the Calimesa Chamber Scholarship Tea to be held May 11, 2022 at the Calimesa Event Center and the Smiles for Seniors Umbrella Awards to be held on May 14, 2022.

Mayor Pro Tem Cervantez stated that he had received a lot of good comments on the Countyline Road Project.

City Council Action Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of May 2, 2022

Council Member Duvall reported that she attended a Veterans Expo Meeting on April 14, 2022 where they received a Homeless Outreach Presentation and Information. She provided the following email address for those veterans needing housing assistance:
[email protected] for Anita Worthen. She further reported that she attended the Crafton Hills College Foundation Gala on April 21, 2022, adding that there were 300 guests in attendance. She provided a shout out to Michelle Riggs, the Director of Development at Crafton Hills.

Council Member Duvall gave a “Shout out” to Deputy City Manager/City Clerk Darlene Gerdes for a great job to ensure all City employees and Council members follow all process and procedures within the City, State and Federal guidelines. She gave an additional “Shout out” to Dakota who is an employee at the Marketplace 7/11. The pumps were down and Dakota worked with the technician to validate all services were up and running.

CITY MANAGER COMMENTS & REPORTS
None.

RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Barrow announced the Closed Session Item and Mayor Davis recessed the meeting to Closed Session at 6:56 p.m.

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)(e)(5) - A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council, on the advice of its City Attorney based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City. A threat of litigation is available upon request at the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 908 Park Ave, Calimesa, CA 92320.

CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
a. No reportable action.

ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. to the Regular Meeting of the City Council on Monday, May 16, 2022 at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Darlene Gerdes, City Clerk

City Council Meeting
Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 2
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022
PREPARED BY: Darlene Gerdes, Deputy City Manager/City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the action minutes as presented for the Library Commission meeting of April 5, 2022, Planning Commission meeting of April 11, 2022 and the Parks, Trails and Community Services Commission meeting of March 2, 2022.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: Library Commission minutes of April 5, 2022 regular meeting.

Attachment B: Planning Commission minutes of April 11, 2022 regular meeting.

Attachment C: Parks, Trails & Community Services minutes of March 2, 2022 regular meeting.

City Council Meeting
Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022
PREPARED BY: Celeste Reid, Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Warrant Register as presented.

SUMMARY: The attached Check Register Report for City Council’s approval is as follows:
a) Check Register Report with a total of $240,578.57 (Check Nos. 38598-38656) b) April 28, 2022 Payroll of $76,809.07
May 1, 2022 Council Payroll of $1,673.25

City Council Meeting
Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4
SUBJECT: WAIVE FULL READING OF ANY PROPOSED ORDINANCES ON

THE AGENDA
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022
PREPARED BY: Darlene Gerdes, Deputy City Manager/City Clerk This permits reading the title only in lieu of reciting the entire text of the ordinances. This does not take
policy action on the Ordinances or approve or
disapprove any Ordinances on the agenda.

City Council Meeting
Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5
SUBJECT: COUNCIL TRAVEL, TRAINING AND MEETING/MILEAGE

EXPENSES
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022
PREPARED BY: Darlene Gerdes, Deputy City Manager/City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Council Travel, Training and Meeting/Mileage Expenses Report through April 30, 2022.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: Council Travel, Training and Meeting/Mileage Expenses Report through April 30, 2022.

FISCAL YEAR 2021-22

COUNCIL TRAVEL AND MEETING/MILEAGE EXPENSES
ATTACHMENT 5A
MEETING/MILEAGE 01-1100-7590

DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
TOTAL TRAVEL/TRAINING $ - TOTAL MEETING/MILEAGE $ -
REMAINING BALANCE $ 1,450.00 REMAINING BALANCE $ 600.00 MEETING/MILEAGE 01-1100-7590

DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
17-Jun Registration for LOCC Conference $ 625.00 24-Aug Beaumont State of City $ 45.00 22-Sep Hotel for LOCC Conference $ 526.50 14-Oct Banning State of the City $ 51.25 23-Sep CalCities Riverside Division Meeting $ 60.00
TOTAL TRAVEL/TRAINING $ 1,211.50 TOTAL MEETING/MILEAGE $ 96.25 REMAINING BALANCE $ 238.50 REMAINING BALANCE $ 503.75

JEFF CERVANTEZ TRAVEL - MEETING/MILEAGE EXPENSES
TRAVEL/TRAINING 01-1100-7585

WENDY HEWITT TRAVEL - MEETING/MILEAGE EXPENSES
TRAVEL/TRAINING 01-1100-7585

FISCAL YEAR 2021-22

COUNCIL TRAVEL AND MEETING/MILEAGE EXPENSES
ATTACHMENT 5A
MEETING/MILEAGE 01-1100-7590

DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
TOTAL TRAVEL/TRAINING $ - TOTAL MEETING/MILEAGE $ -
REMAINING BALANCE $ 1,900.00 REMAINING BALANCE $ 600.00 MEETING/MILEAGE 01-1100-7590

DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
17-Jun Registration LOCC Annual Conference $ 625.00
22-Sep Hotel for LOCC Annual Conference $ 526.50
23-Sep CalCities Riverside Division Meeting $ 60.00
TOTAL TRAVEL/TRAINING $ 1,211.50 TOTAL MEETING/MILEAGE $ - REMAINING BALANCE $ 238.50 REMAINING BALANCE $ 600.00

LINDA MOLINA TRAVEL - MEETING/MILEAGE EXPENSES
TRAVEL/TRAINING 01-1100-7585

BILL DAVIS TRAVEL - MEETING/MILEAGE EXPENSES
TRAVEL/TRAINING 01-1100-7585

FISCAL YEAR 2021-22

COUNCIL TRAVEL AND MEETING/MILEAGE EXPENSES
ATTACHMENT 5A
MEETING/MILEAGE 01-1100-7590

DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
25-Aug Cancel Fee LOCC Conference $ 75.00 24-Aug Beaumont State of City $ 45.00 20-Jan New Mayors/Council Academy $ 250.00 14-Oct Banning State of City $ 51.25 27-Jan Beaumont Chamber Installation $ 55.00
TOTAL TRAVEL/TRAINING $ 325.00 TOTAL MEETING/MILEAGE $ 151.25 REMAINING BALANCE $ 1,125.00 REMAINING BALANCE $ 448.75

WYNONA DUVALL TRAVEL - MEETING/MILEAGE EXPENSES
TRAVEL/TRAINING 01-1100-7585

City Council Meeting
Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6
SUBJECT: CALIMESA FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY AMENDMENT
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022
PREPARED BY: Tim O’Connell, Fire Chief
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 2022-18, A Resolution of the City of Calimesa approving amendments to the Calimesa Fire Department Policies and amending Resolution No. 2018-03.

BACKGROUND: On January 16, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-03 adopting a policy manual for the Calimesa Fire Department. From time to time, and as mentioned at the January 16, 2018 meeting, there will be a need to amend the policies as adopted and/or adopt additional policies. Amendments may be made to include language incorporating new regulations that provide for consistency with state and federal laws, as well as conform with City policies and procedures DISCUSSION: At this time, there is a need to adopt one additional policy as follows:

Volume 4 - Policy 505.01 Controlled Substance Accountability: The policy corresponds to the requirements of Riverside County Emergency Medical Service Agency (REMSA) and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to ensure the availibity, supply usage, and accountability of all controlled substance narcotics for Calimesa Fire Department’s proposed Advance Life Support (ALS) Paramedic program.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of the Controlled Substance Accountability Policy is to establish the procedures for the supply, use, and accountability of controlled substances administered by the Calimesa Fire Department advance life support (ALS) providers
POLICY
It is the policy of the Calimesa Fire Department to ensure the availability of the proper medications for emergencies and to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations governing the supply, use, and accountability of all controlled substances (21 CFR 1300 and the Drug Enforcement Agency [DEA]Controlled Substance Act).

Staff recommends approval of Policy 505.01 Controlled Substance Accountability to be added to the Fire Department Policies with the adoption of Resolution No, 2022-18.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: Resolution No. 2022-18
Attachment B: Policy 505.01 Controlled Substance Accountability

RESOLUTION 2022-18

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CALIMESA CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING POLICY 505.01 TO
VOLUME 4 OF THE CALIMESA FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICIES AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2018-03.

WHEREAS, in order to address increasing costs of fire services and to maintain the ongoing financial stability of the City, the City Council has deemed it necessary to establish an in-house fire department; and
WHEREAS, it is imperative that City establish certain policies regarding procedures, conduct and other operational matters in conjunction with the formation of an in-house fire department; and
WHEREAS, the fire department policies have been reviewed and found to be in compliance with applicable existing City codes and policies, as well as all applicable laws; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2018-03 was adopted by the City Council on January 16, 2018 adopting the Calimesa Fire Department Policies; and WHEREAS, there is a need to adopt policy 505.01 – Controlled Substance Accountability to Volume 4 in the Calimesa Fire Department Policies.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIMESA HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Resolution No. 2018-03 (“Adoption of the Calimesa Fire Department Policies”) is hereby amended to incorporate the policy amendments as detailed in Exhibit A attached hereto.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of May 2022. ________________________________

WILLIAM DAVIS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________

DARLENE GERDES, CITY CLERK
Attachment 6A

CALIMESA FIRE DEPARTMENT

POLICY MANUAL
VOLUME 4
Policy: 505.01 Controlled Substance Accountability
05/2022 Page 1 of 13

PURPOSE AND SCOPE
(a) The purpose of the Controlled Substance Accountability Policy is to establish the procedures for the supply, use, and accountability of controlled substances administered by the Calimesa Fire Department advance life support (ALS) providers.

DEFINITIONS
(a) Definitions related to this policy include:

1. Controlled substance - a drug, substance, or immediate precursor listed in any schedule of the federal Controlled Substances Act.

2. Licensed Paramedic – A paramedic who receives a designated paramedic license from the California State Board of Pharmacy (Business of Professions Code 4202.5) and is accredited to practice in Riverside County by the Riverside County Emergency Medical Services Agency (REMSA).

3. Medical Director – A licensed physician or surgeon designated by the Calimesa Fire Department to provide medical control and assure medical accountability of the EMS system (Health and Safety Code 1797.202).

4. Unit – Any ambulance, transport unit, or fire response apparatus.

POLICY
(a) It is the policy of the Calimesa Fire Department to ensure the availability of the proper medications for emergencies and to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations governing the supply, use, and accountability of all controlled substances (21 CFR 1300 and the Drug Enforcement Agency [DEA]Controlled Substance Act).

Attachment 6B

CALIMESA FIRE DEPARTMENT

POLICY MANUAL
VOLUME 4
Policy: 505.01 Controlled Substance Accountability
05/2022 Page 2 of 13

STORAGE AND INVENTORY
(a) To prevent the unauthorized access of controlled substances during an incident, the controlled substances must either be in direct possession of a paramedic or double locked in a second area.
(b) The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) coordinator will determine the secured emergency pharmaceutical supplies container to be utilized on vehicles that contain controlled substances. Controlled substances should be stored in the secured emergency pharmaceutical supplies container any time the unit is parked or unattended. (c) All personnel authorized to handle controlled substances shall follow this procedure unless prior written permission to deviate is obtained from the EMS Coordinator:

1. All Calimesa Fire Department sworn safety personnel are authorized to witness narcotic counts and/or narcotic wasting.

2. All controlled substances are to be secured by department members in a double lock system while carried on apparatus in the designated secured emergency pharmaceutical supplies container provided by the Department. i. First, the controlled medication shall be located in the drug box and locked in the narcotics pouch.
ii. Second, the ALS compartment containing the drug box shall remain locked at all times.

3. The assigned on duty shift paramedic shall maintain the key to the locked controlled substance during the course of the shift.
i. A back-up key locked controlled substance shall be stored in the apparatus “Knox” key safe.

4. Controlled medication inventories on all ALS apparatus shall contain the minimum amounts per REMSA Policy 3303, Drug and Equipment List.

CALIMESA FIRE DEPARTMENT

POLICY MANUAL
VOLUME 4
Policy: 505.01 Controlled Substance Accountability
05/2022 Page 3 of 13

5. At each shift change (every 48 hours) or when a on duty assigned paramedic crew change occurs, an incoming and outgoing paramedic shall, in each other’s presence, inspect the quantities, the integrity of the containers, and the expiration dates of the controlled substance inventories. Both paramedics shall attest to the quantity available by printing and signing his/her full name on a controlled substance daily report. At no time shall an individual enter a name or signature on behalf of another person.

6. Station storage of controlled substance inventory shall also be under a double lock security system.
i. The primary lock will be the door to the Captain’s Office where the vault is stored.
ii. The secondary lock will be a V-Line Narcotic Security Vault.

7. If the inventory of any controlled substance results in a discrepancy, the paramedics must immediately attempt to reconcile the amount missing. If the discrepancy cannot be reconciled, immediate notification shall be made to the Captain, the Duty Chief, and the EMS coordinator. The EMS coordinator shall be responsible for the completion and submission of the online DEA Form 106, Report of Theft or Loss of Controlled Substances (21 CFR 1301.76).

8. If the unit is dispatched to an incident before the daily inventory occurs, the inventory and reconciliation shall be done as soon as practicable upon returning to the station. If the outgoing paramedics have already left the station, the on-duty paramedic and the on duty shift Captain or Duty Chief may conduct the inventory and reconciliation process.

9. In the event that the on duty assigned paramedic works two consecutive shifts on the same unit, the inventory shall be performed by that paramedic and witnessed and verified by either an on duty paramedic, on duty Captain, or an on-duty shift member.

CALIMESA FIRE DEPARTMENT

POLICY MANUAL
VOLUME 4
Policy: 505.01 Controlled Substance Accountability
05/2022 Page 4 of 13

10. A controlled substance daily report and a controlled substance disposition and restock record shall be maintained on board all units. These documents shall be available for random inspection and review by the EMS coordinator and local, state, or federal regulatory representatives to ensure compliance.

11. When a controlled substance daily report is completed on the last day of the month, the on-duty shift Captains shall review the report for completeness and sign the bottom of the record. After review, the on-duty Captain shall forward a copy of the report and a copy of the corresponding controlled substance disposition and restock record to the EMS coordinator as soon as practicable.

12. Controlled medication inventories on all units shall be subject to random inspections to determine policy compliance and inventory control by Department, REMSA, or DOJ staff.
i. Any such inspection shall be conducted and coordinated with the Duty Chief.

13. The assigned paramedic shall make every effort to use controlled substances with the earliest expiration date first.
i. Expired medications shall never be used and shall be placed in the expired medication box found in the Fire Station 1 controlled substance storage unit.
ii. A medication is considered expired if the current date is beyond the date printed on the medication vial. Example: the medication vial has a printed expiration date of January 2022, then the final date the medication can be utilized is January 31, 2022.
iii. The EMS coordinator will ensure all expired controlled substances are packaged and sent to the reclamation service company.

14. If an ALS unit is out of service, the controlled substance shall be removed from that unit and placed in the controlled substance storage vault at Fire Station 1.

CALIMESA FIRE DEPARTMENT

POLICY MANUAL
VOLUME 4
Policy: 505.01 Controlled Substance Accountability
05/2022 Page 5 of 13

15. A copy of the controlled substance daily report and controlled substance disposition and restock record should be maintained in the station files for three years. After three years, the station copies shall be shredded.

STANDARD CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INVENTORY
(a) The standard complement of controlled substances shall be established by REMSA.

1. The following is the Calimesa Fire Department’s par level for all ALS apparatus:
i. Versed: 20mg
ii. Fentanyl: 200 mcg
iii. Ketamine: 500 mg/10ml
iv. Note: REMSA minimum inventory is Morphine 10mg or Fentanyl 100 mcg. Versed 10 mg and Ketamine 100/mg/ml
(b) The supply of controlled substances will be obtained from the Department’s controlled substances vault located at Fire Station 1.
(c) Only the medical director, EMS coordinator, or a paramedic is authorized to remove controlled substances, the controlled substance vault, and shall be observed by an authorized second person. Both individuals shall record their participation by signature. (d) When a controlled substance is received, the paramedic receiving the drug must immediately secure the drug into the secured emergency pharmaceutical supplies container on the unit.
(e) Restock of Calimesa Fire Department’s par levels shall be obtained as soon as possible.

1. Versed is the exception to Item e above.

CALIMESA FIRE DEPARTMENT

POLICY MANUAL
VOLUME 4
Policy: 505.01 Controlled Substance Accountability
05/2022 Page 6 of 13
i. Versed shall be restocked when the quantity reaches REMSA’s minimum of 10 mg. After Versed use, the paramedic, with a witness, may re-seal the narcotic box as long as the quantity does no fall below 10 mg. Narcotic box seals will be kept in the Fire Station 1 storage vault.

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ADMINISTRATION AND DOCUMENTATION
(a) The Department has the legal and moral obligation to account for all controlled medication. (b) Documentation of narcotic inventory, including use and waste, shall be completed in the ePCR and internal Department forms.

1. Documentation shall be made available for inspection within 24 hours.

2. Documentation shall be maintained by the Calimesa Fire Department’s Administrative Assistant/ Analyst in the master file for a period of not less than three years.
i. This file system shall be located at Fire Administration, 906 Park Ave, Calimesa, California
(c) Only paramedics shall administer controlled substances. Each time a controlled substance is administered to a patient, the drug, dose, and administration route shall be documented on the ePCR in compliance with REMSA policies. In addition, the following information shall be recorded on the controlled substance disposition and restock record.

1. Date of administration

2. Incident number associated with the event

3. ePCR number

4. Patient’s full first and last name (when known)

CALIMESA FIRE DEPARTMENT

POLICY MANUAL
VOLUME 4
Policy: 505.01 Controlled Substance Accountability
05/2022 Page 7 of 13

5. Drug and dose administered

6. Printed first and last name and signature of the paramedic who administered the controlled substance.

7. Date and source of the medication resupply.
(d) If a units inventory falls below the minimum REMSA level, restocking shall take place immediately.
(e) Calimesa Fire Department personnel shall not restock controlled medications from the transporting agency.
(f) Controlled medications shall not be transferred to the transporting agency or to hospital personnel as part of the incident.
(g) If the entire amount of a controlled substance is not administered by the assigned paramedic, he/she shall properly “waste” any remaining/unused controlled medication into the approved RX destroyer contained with a witness.

1. Complete the narcotics documentation in the ePCR to include the vial control number, amount administered to the patient and the wasted, if any. All documentation requires a witness.

2. Restock administered from the station vault. The paramedic and a witness shall complete the administration and restock log.
(h) When a controlled substance is restocked, the following information shall be entered on the controlled substance disposition and restock record on the line immediately below the corresponding patient information.

1. The date

2. The restock source

3. The printed full name and signature of the paramedic who restocked the controlled substance into the secured emergency pharmaceutical supplies container.

CALIMESA FIRE DEPARTMENT

POLICY MANUAL
VOLUME 4
Policy: 505.01 Controlled Substance Accountability
05/2022 Page 8 of 13
(i) The paramedic shall notify the station captain, duty chief, and the EMS coordinator anytime controlled medications are restocked for any reason other than direct patient care or medication expirations.
(j) When any controlled substance is used, broken, wasted, exchanged, lost, stolen, moved, or the inventory changes for any other reason, the on-duty assigned paramedic shall notify the on-duty Captain, Duty Chief, and EMS coordinator.

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION FOR TRANSFERER
(a) Anytime a Calimesa Fire Department paramedic administers a controlled medication, he/she should strongly consider escorting the patient during transport to the receiving center.
(b) If a Calimesa Fire Department paramedic transfers the care of a patient to a transporting paramedic prior to the administration of the entire dosage of a controlled substance, any remaining controlled substance shall not be provided to the transporting paramedic. If additional medication is needed after the patient care transfer, the controlled substance shall be used from the inventory of the transporting paramedic.

MEDICATION ERROR OR ADVERSE IMPACT
(a) In the event of a medication error or adverse impact/reaction to controlled medication administration, it is necessary to notify the appropriate personnel and document accordingly.
(b) The following shall occur as soon as possible and before going off shift:

1. At the time of the event the base hospital shall be notified as soon as possible.

2. Upon arrival at the receiving facility, Calimesa Fire Department personnel shall notify the receiving nurse and/or physician.

3. As soon as possible notify the Captain, duty chief, and EMS coordinator.

CALIMESA FIRE DEPARTMENT

POLICY MANUAL
VOLUME 4
Policy: 505.01 Controlled Substance Accountability
05/2022 Page 9 of 13

4. Complete the patient’s ePCR identify the medication error or adverse impact/reaction.

5. Prior to going off shift, the assigned paramedic shall complete a written narrative outlining the circumstances of the event.
i. This document shall be given to the Captain who shall then submit it to the duty chief.

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SUPPLY AND RESUPPLY
(a) Calimesa Fire Department Station 1, located at 906 Park Ave, Calimesa, has been identified as an approved controlled medication site/facility. (b) The EMS coordinator shall be responsible to maintain the controlled medication storage vault located at Fire Station 1.
(c) The medical director or the EMS coordinator shall submit a completed DEA Form 222 to the designated department supplier to order controlled substances in order to maintain established levels.
(d) Upon receipt of the controlled substance from the supplier, the EMS coordinator or the designated paramedic shall inventory the controlled substance received to ensure that the type and quantities ordered match the type and quantities received and are reflected on the corresponding DEA Form 222 (21 CFR 1305.12; 21 CFR 1305.13). (e) The EMS Coordinator or the designated paramedic will immediately place the controlled substance in the controlled substance vault and ensure that inventory is reconciled with any files.
(f) The EMS Coordinator or the designated paramedic will inventory the controlled substance vault weekly to ensure the existing inventory is reconciled with any electronic data files.

The record of these inventories is to be printed and maintained as electronic data files. The record of these inventories is to be printed and maintained as provided in the records

CALIMESA FIRE DEPARTMENT

POLICY MANUAL
VOLUME 4
Policy: 505.01 Controlled Substance Accountability
05/2022 Page 10 of 13
retention schedule and for a minimum of three years (21 CFR 1304.04; Business and Professions Code 4119). A monthly inventory and inventory reconciliation meeting the requirements of Business Professions Code 41119.01 shall be conducted by the medical director or EMS coordinator.
(g) Any inventory or reconciliation discrepancies shall immediately be brought to the attention of the on-duty shift Captain, Duty Chief, and EMS coordinator. A DEA Form 106, Report of Theft or Loss Controlled Substance, shall be completed and submitted if required (21 CFR 1301.76).

AUDITS AND TAMPERING REPORTS
(a) Audits shall be done by the EMS coordinator with the battalion chief on a quarterly basis. (b) Containers shall be checked for tampering on the random medication audits (c) Controlled substance monitoring and reconciliation is accomplished by a monthly audit and ePCR comparison looking for discrepancy and unusually high dosages. (d) Purchasing audit is completed by the EMS coordinator. (e) Any discrepancy shall be reported to the DEA within 24 hours and reported to local law enforcement officials.
(f) Calimesa Fire Department audit program includes an investigation of the following:

1. Ordering, order tracking, receipt, and accountability, master supply storage, which includes security and documentation with checks and balances, labeling and tracking.

2. Vehicle storage is a double lock system with a random check of the ALS compartment door security.

3. Disposal and restocking require checks and balances with paperwork completed and safe forms checked with entry and exit counts.

CALIMESA FIRE DEPARTMENT

POLICY MANUAL
VOLUME 4
Policy: 505.01 Controlled Substance Accountability
05/2022 Page 11 of 13

4. Transfer or exchange of controlled substances between the Calimesa Fire Department and other services or agencies shall not occur. (g) The Calimesa Fire Department has the discretion to test a current employee for alcohol or drugs. Refusing to submit to any alcohol or controlled substances test is prohibited and may lead to disciplinary action.

1. Reference Calimesa Fire Department Policy 102.15 “Drug and Alcohol Free Workplace.”

ACCOUNTING FOR EXPIRED OR DAMAGED CONTROLLED SUSBTANCES (a) Controlled substances due to expire or that are damaged may be replaced as follows:

1. Note the expiration date or damage, the date of replacement, and the source of restock on the department’s-controlled substance disposition and restock record.

2. Place the expired drug or damaged container in the supplied envelope and label with the type of drug, dosage, unit identifier, and name of the paramedic who returned the drug and the date.

3. Put the envelope in the locked return drug box to be returned to the designated supplier.

4. Record the exchange of a damaged or expired controlled substance using the Department’s automated inventory control unit.
(b) This process may also be used to replace controlled substances due to expire. (c) Only the medical director or the EMS coordinator may remove outdated controlled substances or dangerous devices from the controlled substance storage vault located at the Fire Station 1. Any items removed shall be provided to a licensed distributor for the destruction (Business and Professions Code 4119.01).

CALIMESA FIRE DEPARTMENT

POLICY MANUAL
VOLUME 4
Policy: 505.01 Controlled Substance Accountability
05/2022 Page 12 of 13

ACCOUNTABILITY
(a) The EMS coordinator shall:

1. Procure or purchase all controlled medications.

2. Shall follow the procedure outlined in accordance with REMSA and DEA Form 106 Report of Theft of Loss of Controlled Substances.

3. Assist the Duty Chief as needed with any investigations regarding lost, stolen, or compromised controlled substances.

4. In collaboration with the on-duty paramedic, complete the DEA Form 106 Report of Theft or Loss of Controlled Substances.
i. The completed form shall be reviewed by the Duty Chief. ii. All forms shall be sent to the DEA and medical director within 24 hours.

5. Shall conduct unannounced/random audits of the Calimesa Fire Department control substance inventory.

6. Shall maintain and archive all forms and documentation regarding controlled medications.

7. All documents shall be archived as per City policy on records management but will be kept for a minimum of three years.

8. Shall oversee the Calimesa Fire Department Controlled Substance Accountability Policy.

9. Review the controlled substance daily reports and the controlled substance disposition and restock records monthly for completeness, compliance with the established procedure, consistency with the data entered, comparison to the signatures on file, and any other issues that may require follow-up or investigation.

CALIMESA FIRE DEPARTMENT

POLICY MANUAL
VOLUME 4
Policy: 505.01 Controlled Substance Accountability
05/2022 Page 13 of 14

10. Create, complete, maintain, and annually update the Department’s signature log.

11. Randomly inspect controlled Substance daily reports and the controlled substance disposition and restock records on units for completeness, compliance with the established procedure, consistency with the data entered, comparison to the signatures on file, and any other issues that may require follow-up or investigation.

12. Shall follow the procedures outlined in accordance with the REMSA and the DEA in regard to controlled medications.

13. Ensure copies of controlled substance daily reports and the controlled substance disposition and restock records are maintained as provided in the records retention schedule and for a minimum period of three years (21 CFR 1304.04; Business and Professions Code 41119).

14. Notify the responsible Captain of any item that deviates from this policy. (b) The Station Captain shall:

1. Station Captain’s shall be familiar with this policy and shall be responsible for ensuing compliance and have access to the controlled substance vault at Fire Station 1.

2. Station Captains shall promptly notify the duty chief of any problem or ussies relating to controlled substances.
(c) The Duty Officer Shall:

1. The Duty Officer shall be familiar with the Calimesa Fire Department’s Controlled Substance Accountability Policy and shall be responsible for ensure compliance.

2. The Duty Officer shall conduct a thorough investigation with the assistance of law enforcement when criminal activity is suspected concerning controlled medications.

CALIMESA FIRE DEPARTMENT

POLICY MANUAL
VOLUME 4
Policy: 505.01 Controlled Substance Accountability
05/2022 Page 14 of 14

REFERENCES
(a) Riverside County Emergency Medical Services Agency Policy 3302 (b) Drug Enforcement Agency – Controlled Substance Schedules (c) Drug Enforcement Agency Form 106 - Report of Theft or Loss of Controlled Substance

City Council Meeting
Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 7
SUBJECT: PARCEL MAP NO. 38117 – FINAL APPROVAL
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022
PREPARED BY: Michael Thornton, City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
• Approve Parcel Map No. 38117 and authorize City Clerk to approve the map, • Accept the offer of dedication for public use subject to improvements in accordance with City Standards, and
• Forward the map to the County Recorder for recordation.

BACKGROUND: The Owner for Parcel Map No. 38117 has requested final approval of said map.

The final map has been reviewed by the City Engineer and found to be in substantial compliance with the Planning Commission approved tentative map. Therefore, in accordance with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, Chapter 4, Article 66474.1, Council may approve the final map.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 38117 was approved at the Planning Commission meeting held on July 12, 2021 by PC Resolution No. 2021-10. This approval was for a subdivision of an existing 39,150 square foot residential lot into two single family residential lots located at 454 W Avenue L. There is no development or construction proposed with the subdivision at this time; therefore, no bonds are required for this map.

FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: Final Map

City Council Meeting
Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT 2 TO AGREEMENT WITH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO CHERRY VALLEY BLVD.

INTERCHANGE
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022
PREPARED BY: Bonnie Johnson, City Manager
Mike Thornton, City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Amendment 2 to the Service Agreement with the County of Riverside to recognize funding for the next Phase of the Project, i.e., Plans, Specifications and Estimates..

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: For quite some time, the City has been focused on upgrading all four of its freeway interchanges. City staff has been working with Developers coming forward in the community. In December 2016, Council authorized staff to move forward with a Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) process with relation to the Cherry Valley Interchange. The City contracted with the County of Riverside to lead the Caltrans required process.

That initial process was funded by San Gorgonio Land, LLC (the residential developer for the Summerwind Ranch Specific Plan). The City completed the PSR-PDS process in 2018 and was very satisfied with the service provided by the County. The City then continued to contract with the County for the next phase, the Project Approval and Environmental Documents process (PA and ED). The contract for that process was approved by the City Council in October 2018, and by the Board of Supervisors in December 2018.

During the PA and ED process, an ultimate design alternative (Divergent Diamond) was selected by the City Council in June 2020. The draft environmental impact report (DEIR) was prepared and subsequently circulated for public comment as required by law. Once comments are responded to and the revised EIR is prepared, this will be adopted by the County. At that time, the Project can proceed into the Design Phase (also referred to as Plans, Specifications and Estimates). In addition, as part of the Project, the connection of Calimesa Boulevard to Cherry Valley Boulevard will be realigned to provide for greater distance between it and the Interchange ramps as required by Caltrans.

In the same manner as the PSR-PDS process and the PA and ED process, the Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS and E); and Construction Oversight/Management portion of the Project will be funded by a TUMF credit agreement with Jen SoCal, the subsequent owner of the Summerwind Specific Plan residential property. Staff is actively working to fund as many costs as possible in this manner with this developer, as well as other applicable developers.

In addition, the City does have other funding sources secured as well. These include, but are not limited to, a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program grant in the amount of $500,000; a direct allocation from the WRCOG/Beaumont Settlement Agreement in the amount of $2.1 million; secured allocation from other development in the area; as well City

development impact fee (DIF) dollars. Staff is, and will continue to, work with Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) on funding opportunities for construction. As the project progresses, and additional funding sources are secured, staff will bring forward an updated comprehensive funding plan.

Also, the City has a current agreement with Riverside County for services related to the Cherry Valley Boulevard/Interstate 10 Interchange Improvements (Attachment C). Section 1. number 16 of that Agreement allows the City and County to kick off the next phase when funding is being made available. Although no formal amendment is required to the scope of the agreement, the County must amend their contract with their subconsultant to provide services. Thus, they have requested the City sign an amendment confirming availability of funding (recommendation above and Attachment D to this report). The scope of services being provided pursuant to the Agreement with the County has not changed.

Applicable City staff as well as the City Attorney have reviewed the proposed amendment.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The City previously certified a final Environmental Impact Report EIR (No. EA-04-003) for the Summerwind Trails at Oak Valley project (“FEIR”) which assessed the potential environmental effects of the Summerwind project including the proposed Cherry Valley Interchange improvements, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.). The City has independently reviewed and considered the FEIR in evaluating the proposed Amendment 2 (“Amendment”) to the Service Agreement with the County of Riverside regarding funding and determined that entering into the Amendment will have no environmental impact.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The cost of the agreement with Riverside County is estimated to be $3,656,000 and will be fully paid by the Developer per the Funding Agreement. The City will incur certain administrative costs associated with oversight of these contracts. These costs will be paid for as part of the City’s normal contract with its engineering firm.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: Funding Agreement between San Gorgonio LLC and the City of Calimesa for Plans, Specifications and Estimates; and Construction Oversight/Management for the Cherry Valley Boulevard I-10 Interchange (previously approved - for informational purposes only)
Attachment B: Improvement and Credit/ Reimbursement Agreement – Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program for Cherry Valley Boulevard/Interstate 10 Project – Plans, Specifications and Estimates; and Construction Oversight/Management, between San Gorgonio Land LLC and the City of Calimesa (previously approved - for informational purposes only)
Attachment C: Amendment 1 - Service Agreement by and between County of Riverside and City of Calimesa for Cherry Valley Boulevard/Interstate10 Interchange Improvements (previously approved - for informational purposes only) Attachment D: Amendment 2 - Service Agreement by and between County of Riverside and City of Calimesa for Cherry Valley Boulevard/Interstate10 Interchange Improvements,

Cherry Valley Boulevard/I-10 Service Agreement
1 1 AMENDMENT 1
2 SERVICE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND
4 CITY OF CALIMESA
5 FOR
6 CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD/INTERSTATE 10 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS 7 8 This Amendment 1 (hereinafter “Amendment”) to the Service Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into this _______ 9 day of _____________, 2018, by and between the County of Riverside, a political subdivision of the State of 10 California, (hereinafter "COUNTY") and the City of Calimesa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter “CITY”), for the 11 provision of certain activities related to construction of the Interchange overcrossing and ramp improvements 12 located at the interchange of Cherry Valley Boulevard and Interstate 10 (“I-10 Interchange” or “Interchange”), (herein 13 after “PROJECT”), currently located within the jurisdictional boundaries of CALIMESA. 14 15 RECITALS
16 A. On March 21, 2017, the COUNTY and CITY entered into an agreement entitled “Service Agreement By and 17 Between County of Riverside and City of Calimesa for Cherry Valley Boulevard/Interstate 10 Interchange ” to 18 the terms and conditions, scope of work, and budget for completing the Project Initiation Document (PID) of the 19 PROJECT.
20 B. The COUNTY and CITY now desire to amend the Agreement to designate the COUNTY as lead agency for the 21 overall development and implementation of the Environmental, Design and Right-of-Way acquisition phases as 22 well as the Bidding and Construction phases of the PROJECT. The COUNTY has extensive experience in the 23 development and implementation of interchange projects involving Federal and State agencies. Keeping the 24 COUNTY as the lead will facilitate continuity in the development and implementation of the PROJECT. The 25 COUNTY will therefore provide the administrative, technical, managerial and support services necessary to 26 complete the environmental, design, right of way and construction phases of the PROJECT. 27 C. The COUNTY and CITY desire to amend the Agreement to include and to define the terms and conditions 28 under which said PROJECT is to be administered, engineered, coordinated, managed, constructed,

Cherry Valley Boulevard/I-10 Service Agreement
2 1 maintained, and financed.
2 D. The COUNTY and CITY desire to also amend Exhibit “B” to reflect the change to PROJECT costs and funding, 3 a copy of which is amended herein and attached hereto as Exhibit “B-1”. 4 E. The COUNTY and CITY will initiate the process of entering into a Project Development Cooperative Agreement 5 with The State of California acting through the Department of Transportation (STATE) that provides the terms 6 and conditions under which the COUNTY, as implementing agency, will be allowed to environmentally clear 7 and design PROJECT improvements.
8 F. The COUNTY and CITY desire to continue developing the PROJECT in cooperation with the STATE to alleviate 9 congestion and improve traffic operations at the Cherry Valley Boulevard and I-10 Interchange. The proposed 10 project includes reconstructing the bridge over the I-10, modifying the ramps and local street alignments, 11 constructing retaining walls, and widening Cherry Valley Boulevard. 12 G. The current County Transportation Improvement Program (2017/2018 TIP, as approved by the Riverside 13 County Board of Supervisors, October 13, 2017) identifies the PROJECT funding through completion of the 14 PID phase of the project only. The CITY will be securing funds for the remaining project phases. The County 15 and City agree, as funding is secured by City, the PROJECT will move forward on phase by phase basis as 16 reflected on Exhibit B-1.
17 H. California Government Code Section 6502 provides that “[if] authorized by their legislative or governing bodies, 18 two or more public agencies by agreement may jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties”. 19 I. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.140(b) provides that “[t]wo or more public agencies may enter 20 into an agreement for the joint exercise of their respective powers of eminent domain, whether or not possessed 21 in common, for acquisition of property as a single parcel”. 22 J. The COUNTY and CITY desire to designate the COUNTY as lead agency to perform right-of-way activities 23 required and to acquire necessary right-of-way for the PROJECT, including eminent domain, on behalf of CITY. 24 25 AGREEMENT
26 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:
27 28 1. SECTION 1, the following paragraphs are added:

Cherry Valley Boulevard/I-10 Service Agreement
3 1 6. To complete, or cause to be completed, detailed Environmental and PS&E documents for the PROJECT, 2 and secure all necessary construction permits from the regulatory agencies. The COUNTY will seek PS&E 3 approval from the STATE and the Federal Highway Administration. 4 7. To perform right-of-way activities required to acquire necessary right-of-way for the PROJECT including 5 appraisals, acquisition, relocation and condemnation, if necessary. 6 8. To identify utility conflicts and design for and coordinate relocations for the PROJECT, if necessary. 7 9. To deliver legal title to the right-of-way, including access rights in compliance with the current State Right8 of-Way manuals, procedures, and guidelines, including all relevant provisions of the future Project 9 Development Cooperative Agreement between the STATE and the COUNTY. 10 10. Should it become necessary, to pass a Resolution to jointly exercise the powers of eminent domain pursuant 11 to the authority of California Government Code Section 6502 and California Code of Civil Procedure 12 1240.140, and to thereby agree and accept the authorization for the COUNTY to act as lead agency for 13 condemnation of properties within the CITY.
14 11. To prepare certain right-of-way documents in compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws and 15 regulations. Documents to be prepared by the COUNTY include, but are not limited to, Legal Descriptions, 16 Plats, Right-of-way Maps and Appraisals.
17 12. Nothing in this agreement is intended to commit the COUNTY to funding any portion of the PROJECT as 18 shown in Exhibit “B-1”, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, or shall be construed as 19 obligating the COUNTY to provide replacement funding for any anticipated funding or to continue with the 20 PROJECT, if funds are no longer available.
21 13. To furnish CITY one complete set each of approved Plans, Specifications and Estimates and all related 22 back-up documents.
23 14. To advertise, award and administer a public works contract for the construction of the PROJECT in 24 accordance with the Local Agency Public Construction Act, the California Labor Code, STATE requirements 25 and in accordance with the encroachment permits to be issued by STATE and CITY. 26 15. To cause the COUNTY's contractor to maintain in force, until completion and acceptance of the PROJECT 27 construction contract, a policy of Contractual Liability Insurance, including coverage of Bodily Injury Liability 28 and Property Damage Liability, in the amount of $2,000,000 minimum single limit coverage, and a policy of

Cherry Valley Boulevard/I-10 Service Agreement
4 1 Automobile Liability Insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 minimum. Endorsements to each policy shall 2 be required which name the CITY, their officers, agents and employees as additionally insured. The 3 COUNTY shall also require the COUNTY's contractor to maintain Worker's Compensation Insurance. 4 16. All services are dependent on continued availability of funding to complete each phase of the PROJECT. 5 COUNTY and CITY agree to work together to identify funds prior to completing each phase of PROJECT, 6 or reductions in scope (with CALTRANS acceptance), if needed. 7 8 2. SECTION 2, the following paragraphs are added:
9 10 6. To pass a Resolution, to jointly exercise the powers of eminent domain pursuant to the authority of California 11 Government Code Section 6502 and California Code of Civil Procedure 1240.140 and to thereby authorize 12 the COUNTY to act as lead agency for condemnation of properties within the CITY, should it become 13 necessary; and to cooperate as requested by COUNTY or required by law in exercising said power. 14 7. To provide at no cost to the PROJECT, oversight of the PROJECT, to provide prompt reviews and approvals, 15 as appropriate, of submittals by the COUNTY, and to cooperate in timely processing of the PROJECT. 16 8. To issue, at no cost to the COUNTY or its consultants and contractors, upon proper application by the 17 COUNTY or the COUNTY‘s consultants or contractors, an encroachment permit authorizing entry onto 18 CITY’s right-of-way to perform construction, survey and other investigative activities required for preparation 19 of the Environmental, PS&E, and Right-of-Way of the PROJECT. 20 9. To enter into an agreement, as required by STATE, for the division of maintenance responsibilities of the 21 PROJECT improvements.
22 10. The estimated costs for the project are provided in Exhibit “B-1”. CITY agrees, should unforeseen 23 circumstances arise which result in an increase of any costs over those shown in Exhibit “B-1”, CITY will in 24 good faith amend this Agreement to include any such costs under this Agreement. CITY has been an 25 active participant in the progression of the PROJECT, including reviewing PROJECT documents and 26 participating in periodic PROJECT meetings. As such, CITY will continue to review and provide input on 27 the PROJECT documents and provide consent as it relates to the different project phases, including 28 construction costs prior to COUNTY advertising the call for bids for the construction of the PROJECT and

Cherry Valley Boulevard/I-10 Service Agreement
5 1 prior to the award of the construction contract and the construction management contract (the “Contracts”). 2 Should the CITY decide to provide the required consent, such a decision shall be given within fourteen (14) 3 business days, or within a reasonable amount of time as warranted for the circumstances, of CITY’s receipt 4 of the Contracts from COUNTY proposed to be awarded by the COUNTY. Notwithstanding any of the 5 foregoing, for efficiency and managing the PROJECT (including management of the costs), CITY 6 acknowledges that COUNTY remains the single point of contact for any contractors or consultants hired to 7 design, implement and construct the PROJECT.
8 11. To provide a construction oversight representative to coordinate and assist the COUNTY's Resident 9 Engineer during the construction of the PROJECT, and to verify facilities are constructed as required by 10 this Agreement.
11 12. To deposit with County, within 30 days of receipt of invoice from County, the sum of $200,000 (two hundred 12 thousand dollars) prior to commencement of each Phase of the Project as reflected in Exhibit B-1. 13 14 3. SECTION 3, Subsections 1, 2, 3 and 9 of the Agreement are deleted in their entirety and replaced with the 15 following paragraphs:
16 1. The recitals set forth at the beginning of the Agreement and this Amendment are incorporated herein by 17 this reference.
18 2. The total cost to complete the PROJECT including project administration, management, design completion 19 and approval, right-of-way, environmental, utilities and construction is estimated to be $49,095,000. 20 3. COUNTY and CITY acknowledge and agree that any funding for the Environmental, Design and Right-of21 Way acquisition phases as well as the Bidding and Construction phases of the PROJECT will be the sole 22 responsibility of CITY. Nothing in the Amendment is intended to commit the COUNTY to fund any work or 23 shall be construed as obligating the COUNTY to provide replacement funding for any anticipated finding or 24 to continue with the PROJECT, if funds are no longer available. In the event that adequate funds are not 25 available to move forward or to complete PROJECT, COUNTY and CITY agree to meet and confer and 26 collectively work to identify adequate funding for PROJECT. 27 9. The agreement will terminate on December 31, 2028 or upon completion of the PROJECT, whichever is 28 sooner.

Cherry Valley Boulevard/I-10 Service Agreement
6 1
2 4. SECTION 3, the following paragraphs are added:
3 4 12. In light of the fact that this Agreement has been amended, any references to this Agreement found in this 5 Agreement shall be interpreted to refer to the Agreement as amended. Similarly, any reference to Exhibit 6 “B” within this Agreement shall refer to the amended Exhibit “B-1,” which is attached to this Amendment. 7 13. COUNTY has included a 10 percent contingency for any unforeseen conditions included as part of the 8 costs identified in Exhibit B-1.
9 14. COUNTY, and CITY shall retain or cause to be retained for audit for a period of three (3) years from the 10 date of final payment, all records and accounts relating to PROJECT. 11 15. The County and City mutually agree that either Party may terminate this Agreement, without cause, at the 12 completion of a Project Phase (as shown in Exhibit B-1). 13 14
15 16 Signature Provisions on the Following Page
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

1 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be duly executed this day and year first written above.

APPROVALS
COUNTY Approvals
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
______________________ Dated: ________

PATRICIA ROMO
Director of Transportation
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________ Dated: ________
Deputy County Counsel

APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
_____________________ Dated: ________

PRINTED NAME
Chairman, Riverside County Board of
Supervisors
ATTEST:
______________________ Dated: ________

KECIA HARPER-IHEM
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (SEAL)
CITY OF CALIMESA Approvals
APPROVED BY:
_____________________ Dated: _______

JEFF HEWITT
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________ Dated: _______
KEVIN G. ENNIS
City Attorney
ATTEST:
_____________________ Dated: _______

DARLENE GERDES
City Clerk

VICINITY MAP

EXHIBIT B-1

ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SUMMARY

ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
TASK Cost to Date Estimated cost to
Complete Total
Environmental $0 $1,980,000 $1,980,000
Design $0 $2,515,000 $2,515,000
Right-of-way* $0 $6,800,000 $6,800,000
Construction (includes utilities,
contingency & city oversight) $0 $37,800,000 $37,800,000 TOTAL $0 $49,095,000 $49,095,000
*A portion of this cost estimate includes legal costs and fees incurred in connection with property acquisition.

FUNDING – SUMMARY
Project Phase Source Fund Amount Total
Environmental/Design Local - CITY $4,495,000 $4,495,000 Right-of-way Local - CITY $6,800,000 $6,800,000
Construction Local - CITY $37,800,000 $37,800,000

Amendment 2 to the Cherry Valley Boulevard/I-10 Service Agreement 1 1 AMENDMENT 2
2 SERVICE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
3 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
4 AND
5 CITY OF CALIMESA
6 FOR
7 CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD AT INTERSTATE 10 INTERCHANGE
8 9 This Amendment 2 to the Service Agreement (hereinafter “Amendment”) is entered into this _______ day 10 of _____________, 2022, by and between the County of Riverside, a political subdivision of the State of California, 11 (hereinafter "COUNTY") and the City of Calimesa, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter “CITY”) for the provision of 12 certain activities related to the construction of the interchange overcrossing and ramp improvements located at the 13 interchange of Cherry Valley Boulevard and Interstate 10 (“I-10 Interchange” or “Interchange”), (hereinafter 14 “PROJECT”), currently located within the jurisdictional boundaries of CITY. The COUNTY and CITY are sometimes 15 hereinafter referred to individually as the “PARTY” and collectively as the “PARTIES.” 16 17 RECITALS
18 A. On March 21, 2017, the COUNTY and CITY entered into an agreement entitled “Service Agreement By and 19 Between County of Riverside and City of Calimesa for Cherry Valley Boulevard at Interstate 10 Interchange” to 20 define the terms and conditions, scope of work, and budget for completing the Project Initiation Document (PID) 21 of the PROJECT (hereinafter “Agreement”).
22 B. On December 11, 2018, the COUNTY and CITY entered into Amendment 1 to the Agreement to designate the 23 COUNTY as lead agency for the development of the Environmental Phase of the PROJECT, and to include 24 and define the terms and conditions under which said Environmental Phase of the PROJECT is to be 25 administered, engineered, coordinated, managed, and financed. 26 C. The COUNTY and CITY have concluded the process of entering into a Project Development Cooperative 27 Agreement (Cooperative Agreement No. 08-1631) with The State of California acting through the Department

Amendment 2 to the Cherry Valley Boulevard/I-10 Service Agreement 2 1 of Transportation (STATE) that provides the terms and conditions under which the COUNTY, as implementing 2 agency, will be allowed to environmentally clear and design the PROJECT. 3 D. The COUNTY and CITY desire to continue developing the PROJECT in cooperation with the STATE to alleviate 4 congestion and improve traffic operations at the Cherry Valley Boulevard and I-10 Interchange. The proposed 5 PROJECT includes reconstructing the bridge over the I-10, modifying the ramps and local street alignments, 6 constructing retaining walls, and widening Cherry Valley Boulevard. 7 E. The current County Transportation Improvement Program (2021/2022 TIP, as approved by the Riverside 8 County Board of Supervisors, October 26, 2021) identifies the PROJECT funding through completion of the 9 PID and Environmental Phases of the PROJECT only.
10 F. The CITY has now secured funds for the Design Phase of the PROJECT. 11 G. After holding a public information workshop June 22, 2020 to gather input and answer questions from the public, 12 the CITY selected the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) at the September 8, 2020 council meeting. The 13 selected LPA is referred to as Alternative 3 in the PID, a Diverging Diamond Interchange. 14 H. The COUNTY and CITY now desire to amend the Agreement, to have the COUNTY provide the administrative, 15 technical, managerial, and support services necessary to complete the Design Phase (Plans, Specifications, 16 and Cost Estimate, also known as “PS&E”) of the PROJECT. The COUNTY has extensive experience in the 17 development and implementation of interchange projects involving Federal and State agencies. Keeping the 18 COUNTY as the lead will facilitate continuity in the development and implementation of the PROJECT. 19 I. The COUNTY and CITY desire to amend the Agreement to include and to define the terms and conditions 20 under which said Design Phase of the PROJECT are to be administered, engineered, coordinated, managed, 21 and financed.
22 J. The COUNTY and CITY desire to also amend Exhibit “B-1” to reflect the change to PROJECT costs and 23 funding, a copy of the revised exhibit is attached hereto as Exhibit “B-2.” 24 K. The COUNTY and CITY agree, as funding is secured by CITY, the Agreement will be further amended and the 25 PROJECT will move forward on a phase by phase basis as reflected on Exhibit B-2. 26 27 AGREEMENT

Amendment 2 to the Cherry Valley Boulevard/I-10 Service Agreement 3 1 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the PARTIES hereto agree as 2 follows:
3 1. SECTION 1. The following paragraphs are added to Section 1 of the Agreement:
4 7. To complete, or cause to be completed, the plans, specifications, and cost estimate for the PROJECT as 5 well as providing utility relocation coordination. The Right-of-Way Phase will be authorized by a future 6 amendment to the Agreement.
7 8. To identify, locate and denote all utility facilities and utility conflicts within the PROJECT area on the plans. 8 COUNTY shall make all necessary arrangements with the owners of utility facilities conflicting with 9 construction for their protection, relocation, or removal. COUNTY shall require the utility owners and/or its 10 contractors performing the relocation work within the CITY to obtain a CITY Encroachment Permit prior to 11 the performance of said relocation work. CITY and COUNTY shall coordinate and cooperate in the effort to 12 establish prior rights related to utility encroachments into each jurisdiction’s right-of-way. 13 14 2. SECTION 2. The following paragraphs are added to Section 2 of the Agreement:
15 9. To issue, at no cost to the COUNTY or its consultants and contractors, upon proper application by the 16 COUNTY or the COUNTY’S consultants or contractors, an encroachment permit authorizing entry onto 17 CITY’S right-of-way to perform survey, geotechnical, and other investigative activities required for 18 preparation of the Design Phase of the PROJECT.
19 10. To deposit with COUNTY, within 30 days of receipt of invoice from COUNTY, the sum of $200,000 (two 20 hundred thousand dollars) prior to commencement of the Design Phase of the PROJECT. 21 3. SECTION 3. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 9 of Section 3 of the Agreement are deleted in their entirety and 22 replaced with the following paragraphs:
23 1. The recitals set forth at the beginning of the Agreement, Amendment 1 and this Amendment are 24 incorporated herein by this reference.
25 2. The total cost for the preparation of the PID, Environmental, and Design Phases is estimated to be 26 $6,086,000 as detailed in Exhibit B-2.
27 3. COUNTY and CITY acknowledge and agree that any funding for the PID, Environmental, and Design

Amendment 2 to the Cherry Valley Boulevard/I-10 Service Agreement 4 1 Phases of the PROJECT will be the sole responsibility of CITY. Nothing in this Agreement, as amended, is 2 intended to commit the COUNTY to fund any work or shall be construed as obligating the COUNTY to 3 provide replacement funding for any anticipated funding or to continue with the PROJECT, if funds are no 4 longer available. In the event that adequate funds are not available to move forward with the PROJECT 5 phases, the COUNTY shall not be obligated to commence any future phases of the PROJECT unless 6 addressed by future agreement(s) between COUNTY and CITY. 7 9. This Agreement will terminate on December 31, 2025 or upon completion of the Design Phase for the 8 PROJECT, whichever is sooner.
9 4. EXHIBIT B-1. Exhibit B-1 is deleted and replaced with Exhibit B-2 attached hereto and incorporated herein to 10 increase the estimated cost to complete Phase 3: Design, Phase 4: Right of Way, and Phase 5: Construction. 11 Any reference to Exhibit B or Exhibit B-1 in the Agreement shall also refer to Exhibit B-2. 12 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Amendment shall be effective December 31, 2021. 13 6. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES AND COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed in any number of 14 counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which together will constitute one instrument. Each 15 PARTY to this Amendment agrees to the use of electronic signatures, such as digital signatures that meet the 16 requirements of the California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act ((“CUETA”) Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1633.1 to 17 1633.17), for executing this Amendment. The PARTIES further agree that the electronic signatures of the 18 PARTIES included in this Amendment are intended to authenticate this writing and to have the same force and 19 effect as manual signatures. Electronic signature means an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to 20 or logically associated with an electronic record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the 21 electronic record pursuant to the CUETA as amended from time to time. The CUETA authorizes use of an 22 electronic signature for transactions and contracts among parties in California, including a government agency. 23 Digital signature means an electronic identifier, created by computer, intended by the PARTY using it to have 24 the same force and effect as the use of a manual signature, and shall be reasonably relied upon by the 25 PARTIES. For purposes of this section, a digital signature is a type of "electronic signature" as defined in 26 subdivision (i) of Section 1633.2 of the Civil Code. 27

Amendment 2 to the Cherry Valley Boulevard/I-10 Service Agreement 5 1
2 [Signature Pages Follow]

Amendment 2 to the Cherry Valley Boulevard/I-10 Service Agreement 6 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the PARTIES hereto have caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be duly executed this day and year first written above.

APPROVALS
COUNTY Approvals
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
__________________________ Dated: _____

MARK LANCASTER
Director of Transportation
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ Dated: _____
Deputy County Counsel

APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS:
___________________________ Dated: _____

KAREN SPIEGEL
Chair, Riverside County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
___________________________ Dated: _____
KECIA R. HARPER
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (SEAL)
CITY OF CALIMESA Approvals
APPROVED BY:
________________________ Dated: _______
William Davis, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________ Dated: _______
QUINN M. BARROW
City Attorney
ATTEST:
________________________ Dated: _______

DARLENE GERDES
City Clerk

Amendment 2 to the Cherry Valley Boulevard/I-10 Service Agreement 7 EXHIBIT B-2

ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SUMMARY

ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Project Phase Cost to Date
Estimated Cost to
Complete
Total
Phase 1: Preparation of PID and
Caltrans Review
$450,000 $0.00 $450,000
Phase 2: Environmental $1,680,000** $300,000 $1,980,000 Phase 3: Design $0 $3,656,000 $3,656,000
Phase 4: Right-of-way* $0 $8,410,000 $8,410,000
Phase 5: Construction
(includes construction management,
utilities, contingency & CITY
oversight)
$0 $42,421,000 $42,421,000
TOTAL $2,130,000 $54,787,000 $56,917,000
*A portion of this cost estimate includes legal costs and fees incurred in connection with property acquisition.
**Through March 1, 2022.

Amendment 2 to the Cherry Valley Boulevard/I-10 Service Agreement 8 FUNDING – SUMMARY
Project Phase Source Fund Amount Total
Phase 2: Environmental
Local – CITY
(Funded)
$1,980,000 $1,980,000
Phase 3: Design
Local – CITY
(Funded)
$3,656,000 $3,656,000
Phase 4: Right-of-Way
Local – CITY
(Unfunded)
$8,410,000
$8,410,000
Phase 5: Construction
Local – CITY
(Unfunded)
$42,421,000 $42,421,000
A subsequent amendment to this Agreement, or a separate agreement is required for Phases 4 and 5 if funding is secured by the CITY.

City Council Meeting
Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 9
SUBJECT: COUNTY LINE ROAD AND CALIMESA BOULEVARD ROAD

IMPROVEMENTS - PROJECT UPDATE AND INITIAL STUDY
(IS)/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) AND MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022
PREPARED BY: Michael Thornton, City Engineer
Kelly Lucia, Planning Manager
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution 2022-19 Approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Road Improvements.

2. Authorize staff to begin the right-of-way acquisition process.

BACKGROUND: Improvements to the intersection of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard have been a Calimesa City Council priority for many years. Because this intersection is located on the border of Calimesa and Yucaipa, the Cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa plan to partner to complete the improvements.

The County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Project (Project) entails widening portions of the road for the intersection, removing existing traffic light signals and replacing them with a roundabout, and completing minor sidewalk and drainage improvements as required. The proposed improvements for this intersection will align with the improvements being constructed for the County Line Road Transportation Corridor Project (LPP) to the east (currently under construction).

The City was awarded a Federal grant for the Project. The grant scope of work includes preliminary engineering, environmental compliance processing, right-of-way acquisition for construction of the proposed roadway, drainage, and related improvements. The City has completed the preliminary engineering components of the project together with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) compliance processing.

Pursuant to Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Cities prepared an Initial Study (IS) to determine if the Project creates significant impacts to the environment. The Initial Study is intended to be an informational document providing the City Council, other public agencies, affected property

owners, and the general public with an objective assessment of the potential environmental impacts.

The IS found that there is no evidence that the Project would create significant impacts to the environment with implementation mitigation measures that are contained within the IS (Attachment A).

Based on this finding, a MND is being recommended for adoption by the City Council along with the establishment and approval of a MMRP (Attachment A).

In accordance with Section 15072 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Cities published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MMD for the Project, sent the NOI to affected property owners within 300’ a radius of the project, agencies affected, and to other interested parties, and made available the IS/MND during the public review period from February 23, 2022 through March 24, 2022.

Twenty-Four (24) comment letters were received regarding the Project during the public review period and responses to these comments were assembled, all are enclosed in Attachment B.

Staff cannot pursue public right-of-way until Council adopts the MND. Two full property acquisitions are proposed, both are in Calimesa. Staff will work with all property owners to acquire public right-ofway for the Project. All property acquisitions (both full and partial) will be appraised by an appraiser certified by the State of California as a General Real Estate Appraiser. Additional compensation for moving expenses, displacement costs, etc. will be part of the negotiating process with the affected property owners.

It is recommended that City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-19, which sets forth findings to adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project (Attachment D).

FISCAL IMPACT: None for this action. As the Cities move into right-of-way acquisition and construction, there will be fiscal impacts that will be agendized for consideration prior to the Project moving forward. The City of Calimesa is actively pursuing additional grant funds for construction as this stage of the project is not yet fully funded.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS/MND/MMRP)
Attachment B: Response to Comments
Attachment C: Right-of-Way Acquisition Map
Attachment D: City Council Resolution 2022- 19

Final
Initial Study Checklist/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa:

County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Road Improvements (SCH NO. 2022020531)
City of Calimesa
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
Contact: Kelly Lucia, Planning Manager
(909) 795-9801 ext. 229
[email protected]
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa CA 92399
Contact: Fermin Preciado, Development
Services Director/City Engineer
(909) 797-2489 ext. 240
[email protected]
Applicants:

City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa
Public Works Department
May 2022
Attachment 9A

i

INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code Sections 21000–21189.3 and the State CEQA Guidelines Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000–15387 (CEQA Guidelines), this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to determine potentially significant impacts upon the environment resulting from the construction and operation of the County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Road Improvements project (proposed Project).

In accordance with Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this IS/MND is an analysis by the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa as Lead Agencies, to inform the Lead Agency decision makers, other affected agencies, and the public of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed Project.

Organization of Final IS/MND
The final CEQA documents for the Project include:
• Introduction to the Final IS/MND, which provides the context for the Final IS/MND, with applicable citation pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. • Introduction /Environmental Checklist Form, which provides the Project Description, a brief discussion of the existing environmental setting, and environmental impact assessment. • References, which includes a list of reference sources and bibliography, acronyms and abbreviations, and list of preparers.
• Responses to Comments, which includes a copy of each comment letter received regarding the IS/MND during public review. Although CEQA does not require the Lead Agency to provide a formal response to each of the comments received on an IS/MND, responses have nonetheless been prepared in order to provide the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa with additional information upon which to base their decision. Responses to comments can be found under a separate cover.
• Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 to provide a mechanism for Calimesa and Yucaipa to verify implementation of the mitigation measures adopted for the proposed Project. The MMRP can be found under a separate cover.

Where comments received or editorial clarifications on the IS/MND and the City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa responses resulted in changes to the text of the Draft IS/MND, such changes are shown in the Final IS/MND text using the following conventions:
• Text added to the Final IS/MND is shown as underline
• Text deleted from the Final IS/MND is shown as strikethrough

ii
The textual changes to the Final IS/MND do not constitute “substantial revision” as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(b); therefore, recirculation of the Draft IS/MND is not required.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of an Initial Study Checklist........................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Purpose of a Mitigated Negative Declaration........................................................................................ 1

1.3 Initial Study Checklist/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Document............................................ 1

1.4 Public Review and Processing of the Initial Study Checklist/ Mitigated Negative Declaration........................................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.5 Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration Findings and Conclusions.............. 2

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Project Tile........................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Lead Agencies’ Names and Addresses...................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Contact Person Address, Phone Number, and Email ......................................................................... 4

2.4 Project Location................................................................................................................................................. 4

2.5 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address....................................................................................................... 5

2.6 General Plan and Zoning Designation ...................................................................................................... 5

2.7 Project Description........................................................................................................................................... 6

2.8 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting.......................................................................................................10

2.9 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required......................................................................11

2.10 California Native American Tribes Affiliated with the Project Area.........................................12

3.0 INITIAL STUDY/DETERMINATION......................................................................................................................20

3.1 AESTHETICS.....................................................................................................................................................24

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES....................................................................................27

3.3 AIR QUALITY....................................................................................................................................................31

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES...........................................................................................................................39

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES..............................................................................................................................48

3.6 ENERGY..............................................................................................................................................................54

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...................................................................................................................................56

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS................................................................................................................63

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..........................................................................................67

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.....................................................................................................75

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING........................................................................................................................83

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES................................................................................................................................. 85

3.13 NOISE..................................................................................................................................................................87

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING....................................................................................................................91

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES..........................................................................................................................................93

3.16 RECREATION...................................................................................................................................................97

3.17 TRANSPORTATION.......................................................................................................................................99

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES..........................................................................................................105

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.....................................................................................................108

3.20 WILDFIRE.......................................................................................................................................................112

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.................................................................................... 115

4.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................119

5.0 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL .............................................................................................................122

iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................................................13 Figure 2 – Aerial Map ....................................................................................................................................................14 Figure 3 – USGS Topographical Map....................................................................................................................................15 Figure 4a – City of Calimesa General Plan Land Use.....................................................................................................16 Figure 4b – Yucaipa General Plan Land Use and Zoning .............................................................................................17 Figure 5 – City of Calimesa Zoning .......................................................................................................................................18 Figure 6 – Proposed Project Exhibit....................................................................................................................................19

LIST OF TABLES
Table A–Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations .............................................................................................. 6 Table B – Existing Land Uses ..................................................................................................................................................11 Table C – Maximum Daily Construction Emissions.......................................................................................................34 Table D – Unmitigated LST Results for Daily Construction Emissions..................................................................36 Table E – Mitigated LST Results for Daily Construction Emissions........................................................................37 Table F – Project Construction Equipment GHG Emissions.......................................................................................64

iv

APPENDICES
Appendix A – Air Quality Impact Analysis
Appendix B – Biological Resources Compliance Analysis
Appendix C – Historical Resources Evaluation
Appendix D – Archeological Survey Report
Appendix E – Initial Site Assessment
Appendix F – Soil Vapor Report
Appendix G – Annual CalEEMod Outputs

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of an Initial Study Checklist
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that before a public agency makes a decision to approve a project that could have one or more adverse effects on the physical environment, the agency must inform City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa decision makers, representatives of other affected/responsible agencies, and other interested parties of the potential environmental effects that may be associated with implementation of the proposed Project.

The purpose of an Initial Study Checklist is to provide a preliminary analysis of a proposed action to determine whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared for a project. An Initial Study Checklist also enables an applicant or the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa (Co-Lead Agencies for the Project) to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts in lieu of preparing an Environmental Impact Report, thereby potentially enabling the project to qualify for a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

The Initial Study Checklist provides a factual basis for a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or serves to focus an Environmental Impact Report on the significant effects of a project.

1.2 Purpose of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
A Mitigated Negative Declaration is a written statement by the City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa (the Co-Lead Agencies) that the Initial Study Checklist identified potentially significant environmental effects of the project but with mitigation and adherence to stated regulations and policies, impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels.

1.3 Initial Study Checklist/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Document This document in its entirety is an Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including all criteria, standards, and procedures of CEQA (California Public Resource Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.).

1.4 Public Review and Processing of the Initial Study Checklist/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
In the case of the proposed Project, the Initial Study Checklist determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate form of CEQA compliance document, which does not require a Notice of Preparation. The Initial Study Checklist will circulate for a thirty (30) day period that will begin on March 23, 2022.

This Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Notice of Intent to adopt the Negative Declaration is being distributed to the following entities for a 30‐day public review period:
1) Organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing to the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa;
2) Responsible and trustee agencies (public agencies that have a level of discretionary approval over some component of the proposed Project);

2 3) The Riverside County Clerk; and
4) The San Bernardino County Clerk.

The Notice of Intent also will be noticed to the general public in the Yucaipa-Calimesa News Mirror which is a primary newspaper of circulation in the areas affected by the Project.

The Notice of Intent identifies the location(s) where the Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration and its associated supporting documents are available for public review. During the 30- day public review period, comments on the adequacy of the Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration document may be submitted to the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa Planning Departments.

Following the 30‐day public review period, the City of Calimesa and Yucaipa Planning Departments will review any comment letters received during the review period to determine whether any substantive comments are provided that may warrant revisions or recirculation of the Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration document. If recirculation is not required (as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15073.5(b)), written and/or oral responses will be provided to the Cities’ City Councils for review as part of their deliberations concerning the Project.

For this Project, the Cities’ City Council’s roles will be to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the Project. Accordingly, a public hearing will be held before each City Council to consider the proposed Project, any comments received, and to make a determination on the adequacy of this Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

At the conclusion of the public hearing process, the City Council will take action to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposed Project. If approved, the City Council will adopt findings relative to the Project’s environmental effects as disclosed in the Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Notice of Determination will be filed with the Riverside and San Bernardino County Clerks.

1.5 Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration Findings and Conclusions Section 3.0 of this document contains the Environmental Checklist/Initial Study that was prepared for the proposed Project pursuant to CEQA and both the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa requirements.

The Initial Study Checklist determined that implementation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant, less than significant with mitigation or no impacts to the environment under the following issue areas:
• Aesthetics • Mineral Resources
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Noise
• Air Quality • Population/Housing
• Biological Resources • Public Services
• Cultural Resources • Recreation
• Energy • Transportation
• Geology and Soils • Tribal Cultural Resources
• Greenhouse Gas Emission • Utilities and Service Systems, • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Wildfire and,

3 • Hydrology and Water Quality • Mandatory Findings of Significance • Land Use/Planning
The Initial Study Checklist determined that the proposed Project will not create significant environmental effects. The Project incorporates Project Design Features, and adheres to Plans, Policies, and Programs, such that the Project will either avoid or mitigate effects to a point where no significant environmental impacts on the environment would occur.

The Initial Study Checklist determined that, with the incorporation of the Project Design Features and mitigation cited in the Initial Study, and compliance with Plans, Policies, and Programs, there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the Lead Agencies (City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa), that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, based on the findings of the Initial Study Checklist, the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa have determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA determination for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15070(b).

4 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

2.1 Project Tile
County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Road Improvements

2.2 Lead Agencies’ Names and Addresses
City of Calimesa
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa, CA 92399

2.3 Contact Person Address, Phone Number, and Email
Kelly Lucia, Planning Manager
City of Calimesa
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
(909) 795-9801 ext. 235 email: [email protected] Fermin Preciado, Public Works Director/Engineer
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa, CA 92399
(909) 797-2489 ext. 240 email: [email protected]

2.4 Project Location
The County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Road Improvements Project (Project), is located along the Riverside and San Bernardino County line in the Cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa (Cities) within the southerly border of the City of Yucaipa and the northerly border of the City of Calimesa. The City of Calimesa covers approximately 23.2 square miles and is bordered by unincorporated portions of Riverside County to the east and west, the City of Beaumont to the south, and the Cities of Yucaipa and Redlands to the north.

The City of Yucaipa covers approximately 27.8 square miles within the County of San Bernardino. The City of Yucaipa is bordered by the City of Redlands to the west, the unincorporated community of Oak Glen to the east, County of San Bernardino to the north, and the City of Calimesa to the south. Specifically, the proposed Project is located on the intersection of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Yucaipa quadrangle (USGS 1996) and the USGS 7.5-minute El Casco

5 quadrangle, between Sections 11 and 14 of Township 2 South, Range 2 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian (SBBM).Refer to Figure 1 – Vicinity Map, Figure 2 – Aerial Map, and Figure 3 – USGS Topographical Map.

2.5 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
City of Calimesa
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa, CA 92399

2.6 General Plan and Zoning Designation
Development activities that occur in the City of Calimesa are regulated by the City of Calimesa General Plan, adopted August 4, 2014, and the Zoning Code, referenced as Title 18 of the City of Calimesa Municipal Code. The General Plan is divided into a number of districts that provide additional guidance for development and more specific land use designations under each category. Each property has a land use designation. For the City of Yucaipa, development is regulated by the City’s General Plan, adopted in April 2016, and the Development Code of the City’s Municipal Code. Both the Cities of Yucaipa and Calimesa utilize a “one map system” in which the General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Categories are the same and combined onto one map.

Within the Project site, portions of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard are designated as a Secondary Arterial and Major Arterial in the City of Calimesa’s GP General Circulation Element and Secondary Highway (Arterial) and Truck Route in the City of Yucaipa’s GP General Circulation Element (Calimesa GP, p. 3-10; Yucaipa GP, p. 6-5.).

A summary of the existing City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa’s General Plan land uses and zoning designations for the Project site and surrounding properties is provided in Table A – Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations below and in Figure 4a – City of Calimesa General Plan Land Use, Figure 4b – City of Yucaipa General Plan Land Use and Zoning, and Figure 5a – City of Calimesa Zoning.

6 Table A–Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations Location General Plan Designation Zoning Designation
Site
City of Calimesa:

Right-of-way
Secondary Arterial
Major Arterial
DVC - Downtown Village Commercial
City of Calimesa:

DVC - Downtown Village Commercial
Calimesa Creek Overlay
City of Yucaipa:

Right-of-way
Secondary Highway (Arterial)
Truck Route
CS – Service Commercial
City of Yucaipa:

Right-of-way
Secondary Highway (Arterial)
Truck Route
CS – Service Commercial
North City of Yucaipa:

CS - Service Commercial
City of Yucaipa:

CS - Service Commercial
South
City of Calimesa:

BP – Business Park
DVC – Downtown Village Commercial
City of Calimesa:

DVC – Downtown Village Commercial
Calimesa Creek Overlay
L-1 Light Industrial
East
City of Calimesa:

DVC – Downtown Village Commercial
City of Calimesa:

DVC – Downtown Village Commercial
City of Yucaipa:

CS – Service Commercial
City of Yucaipa:

CS – Service Commercial
West
City of Calimesa:

BP – Business Park
DVC – Downtown Village Commercial
City of Calimesa:

DVC – Downtown Village Commercial
Calimesa Creek Overlay
L-1 Light Industrial
City of Yucaipa:

CS – Service Commercial
City of Yucaipa:

CS – Service Commercial
Source: City of Calimesa General Plan Land Use Map, City of Calimesa-Existing Zoning Map; City of Yucaipa General Plan and Land Use Map, City of Yucaipa Existing Zoning Map

2.7 Project Description
The City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa (Project Applicants) are proposing road improvements on the intersection of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Road (Project). The Project entails widening portions of the roads at the intersection of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard, removing the existing traffic light signals and replacing them with a roundabout, and completing minor sidewalk and drainage improvements as required.

7 The Project ’s preliminary engineering and right of way acquisition is expected to be funded partially through the Federal Highway Administration through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Act Equity – A legacy for Users and requires coordination with Caltrans. The proposed improvements will dovetail with the improvements further east along County Line Road that are part of the County Line Road Transportation Corridor project, funded through the Local Partnership Program, a State-level funding plan. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and documentation for this Project has been conducted and resulted in a Categorical Exclusion. The Project, which addresses traffic congestion and safety, is within the Counties of Riverside (to the south of County Line Road) and San Bernardino (to the north of County Line Road). The Project’s proposed improvements will disturb approximately four (4) acres.

County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard improvements would include pavement widening, curbs, gutters and sidewalks adjacent to the properties at the southwest corner of the County Line Road/Calimesa Boulevard intersection as necessary to close gaps in the existing curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Specifically, improvements to County Line Road include pavement widening between the I-10 freeway and 600- feet (FT) east of Calimesa Boulevard, as necessary, to provide for two eastbound through lanes and continuous center two-way leftturn lane. Improvements to Calimesa Boulevard include pavement widening from 150-FT south of County Line Road to County Line Road, as necessary, to provide for two southbound through lanes and a continuous center two­ way left-turn lane. The proposed roundabout would be approximately 82-FT in diameter with an inscribed circle diameter of 184-FT and would replace the existing traffic light signals at the County Line Road/Calimesa Boulevard intersection. The Project would also include widening at all adjacent corners of the intersection required for transitioning to curbs, gutters and sidewalks. New pavement stripes and markings would be proposed to achieve four lanes of traffic including the center two-way left-turn lane within Project site. Figure 6 – Proposed Project Exhibit shows the project improvements.

The Project requires roadway easement acquisitions from three parcels and full or partial takes from three parcels within the Project site. The roadway easement acquisitions include: 2,289 SF of the northwestern corner of the Inland Smog Shop property at 905 Calimesa Boulevard in the City of Calimesa (APN 411-100-040); 1,337 SF of the southern portion of the Fast Strip gas service/restaurant station located at 13710 Calimesa Boulevard in the City of Yucaipa (APN 0318-212-15) and 174 SF of the southeasterly corner of the Del Taco property located at 33940 County Line Road in the City of Yucaipa (APN 0318-212-17). The full and partial takes include:
the partial take of the California Famous Tire (formerly the Dinosaur Tire shop) located at 13715 Calimesa Boulevard in the City of Yucaipa (part of APN 0318-235-15), a full take of the former automotive machine shop located at 625 County Line Road in the City of Calimesa (APN 411- 080-015); and the full take of the South Mesa Water Company Well No. 11, a water well site along County Line Road in the City of Calimesa (APN 411-080-005). The water well will be relocated from its existing location to a nearby location. The acquisitions proposed would be used for public right-of-way improvements such as roadways, drainage, gutter, and/or sidewalk

8 features. Easement and property takes will be acquired by each City, respectively. The following is the list of APNs proposed for roadway easement acquisitions and full/partial takes:

City of Yucaipa City of Calimesa
0318-212-151 411-080-0053
0318-212-171 411-080-0153
0318-235-152 411-100-0401
1 Roadway easement acquisition
2 Partial Take
3 Full Take
The Project will be constructed in one phase and is expected to take approximately five months, starting no sooner than Spring 2022. Earth work will be limited to roadway cut and fill and minor drainage improvements (curb inlet and connection to existing lateral) within public rights-of-way. It is anticipated that roadway excavation will not exceed two feet in depth and minor drainage improvements will not exceed four feet in depth. It is anticipated that roadway and drainage cut and fill excavation will produce a balance on-site and there will not be any need for exporting materials off-site for disposal. Existing pavements removed during construction will be either recycled for use as pavement base material on-site or will be disposed of at a licensed recycling facility in the County of Riverside.

It is anticipated that several ornamental trees at multitude locations within the Project site will be removed as a result of this Project. These trees include, but are not limited to, Peruvian pepper, tree of heaven, oleander, avocado, and Freemont cottonwood. No utilities are anticipated to be relocated. During construction, detours will be provided for pedestrians and vehicular traffic to travel to and from their destination around the construction area(s).

Project Design and Construction Features
The Project will include design and construction features, identified below, that will avoid significant impacts to the environment. Because these design features have been or will be incorporated into the design of the Project, or are required by law, they are not considered to be mitigation measures.

General Measures
• The Project will be designed and implemented in accordance with the provisions of the latest edition of the “GREENBOOK” Standard Specifications for Public Works Projects Construction, written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc. • The Project will comply with applicable federal, state, City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa ordinances, standards (except where modifications are approved), and procedures for public facility design, construction, maintenance, and operation. • The Project will comply with all requirements to notify utility companies of impending construction, obtain relevant information regarding existing subsurface

9 utilities, and consult with the affected utility companies regarding the preservation or relocation of such utilities, if necessary.

Air Quality
• The Project will comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 for Fugitive Dust.
• Construction equipment will be maintained and operated so as to minimize exhaust emissions. For example, during construction, trucks and vehicles on site will be parked with their engines off to reduce vehicle emissions.

Hazards
• Hazardous materials will be handled in accordance with federal, state, county, and local requirements.
• The Construction Contractor will have Construction Safety Orders and General Industry Safety Orders, which are issued by the State Division of Industrial Safety, along with other required forms and plans at the work site. The Construction Contractor(s) will comply with provisions of these and all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations.
• A Material Safety Data Sheet, as described in Section 5194 of the California Code of Regulations, will be retained by the Construction Contractor from the manufacturer of any hazardous products that may be used at the Project Site during construction activities.

Hydrology and Water Quality
• A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and implemented during the construction phase of the Project in compliance with the requirements of the General Construction Permit. The SWPPP will identify the following types of BMPs to reduce or eliminate pollutants in storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges from the Project during construction:
 Erosion Control: Scheduling (EC-1), Soil Binders (EC-5)  Sediment Control: Silt Fence (SE-1), Fiber Rolls (SE-5), Gravel Bag Berm (SE-6), Curb Opening Sediment Barrier (SE-10), Street Sweeping and Vacuuming (SE-7)  Tracking Control: Stabilized Construction Entrance/Exit (TC-1), Entrance Outlet Tire Wash (TC-3)
 Wind Erosion Control: Wind Erosion Control (WE-1)
 Non-Storm Water Control: Water Conservation Practices (NS-1), Paving and Grinding Operations (NS-3), Illicit Connection/Illegal Discharge Detection and Reporting (NS-6), Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning (NS-8), Vehicle and Equipment Fueling (NS-9), Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance (NS-10), Concrete Curing (NS12), Concrete Finishing (NS-13)

10  Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control: Material Delivery and Storage (WM-1), Material Use (WM-2), Stockpile Management (WM-3), Spill Prevention and Control (WM-4), Solid Waste Management (WM-5), Concrete Waste Management (WM-8), Sanitary/Septic Waste Management (WM-9) A copy of the SWPPP will be held by the Construction Contractor on the job site throughout the construction phase of the Project and will be available upon request by a state or county inspector.

Noise
• Project construction activities will adhere to the most restrictive hours set forth in Section 8.15.080 of the Calimesa Municipal Code and Section 87.0905(e)(1)(C) of the Yucaipa Municipal Code, which will restrict construction between the hours of:
(1) Calimesa Municipal Code
(a) Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m.
(b) Saturday and Sunday, 10:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m.
(c) Holiday schedule set forth in 8.15.080(A)
(2) Yucaipa Municipal Code- Temporary construction is exempted between 7:00 am through 7:00 pm, except on
(a) Sunday
(c) Federal Holidays
Project construction outside of these hours shall be limited to emergencies and activities determined by the respective City to be in the interest of the general public. Should the Project construction be otherwise conducted outside of these hours, it will be subject to associated code enforcement actions.

Transportation/Circulation
• Construction plans for the Project will include safety and circulation design requirements.
• Access to affected properties along the Project boundary will be maintained throughout the construction process.

2.8 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
CEQA Guidelines §15125 establishes requirements for defining the environmental setting to which the environmental effects of a proposed project must be compared. The environmental setting is defined as “the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the Notice of Intent/Notice of Availability is published, or at the time the environmental analysis is commenced…” (CEQA Guidelines §15125[a]).

The Project site encompasses the County Line Road/Calimesa Boulevard intersection, portions of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard, and the surrounding properties near

11 the intersection, as depicted in Figure 2. The Project site is mostly rural paved one or twolane street, partially improved with curbs, gutter, or sidewalks. The Project site is characterized as generally flat. The Project site elevation is approximately 2,400 feet above mean sea level. A mix of developed and undeveloped lands (i.e., vacant lots) to the north, south, east, and west surrounds the Project Site.

Portions of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard within the Project site are designated Secondary Arterial and Major Arterial in the City of Calimesa and Secondary Highway (Arterial) and Truck Route in the City of Yucaipa. Within the Project site, County Line Road varies in width from approximately 53 FT to 64 FT, is striped with a continuous center twoway left-turn lane, two westbound lanes, and one eastbound lane. Calimesa Boulevard, within the Project site, varies in width from approximately 55 FT to 72 FT, is striped with a continuous center two-way left-turn lane, two northbound lanes, and one southbound lane.

County Line Road provides access to the nearby I-10 freeway. Calimesa Boulevard runs adjacent to the I-10 freeway and provides freeway access further south.

The Project site that is within the City of Calimesa is within the western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), of which the City of Calimesa is a permittee. The City of Yucaipa is not part of any habitat conservation plan or natural community plan in the County of San Bernardino. The proposed Project site is not within a MSHCP Criteria Cell or Conservation Area.

Existing surrounding land uses along the Project site consist of commercial buildings, single family residential units, restaurants, tire/smog shops, service stations, South Mesa Water Company Well, and vacant lots as listed in Table B – Existing Land Uses. Additionally, the Calimesa Creek, which traverses Calimesa Boulevard, is adjacent to the southern portion of the Project site.

Table B – Existing Land Uses
Location Existing Use
Site
Right-of-way, Unimproved Sidewalks, Vacant Commercial Buildings, South Mesa Water Company Well, Vacant Land, Commercial Shops, Tire/Smog Shop, Service Station, Restaurant
North Church and Commercial
South Residential and Commercial, Calimesa Creek
East Commercial
West Service Station, Restaurant, I-10

2.9 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required
(e.g., potential permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

None

12 Federal Agencies
If the City pursues it, Federal Highways Administration may provide funding sources for the project.

State Agencies
None
City/Counties Agencies
None

2.10 California Native American Tribes Affiliated with the Project Area Have California Native American Tribes traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so has consultation begun?
Yes. Compliance with Assembly Bill (AB 52) is discussed in Threshold 18a(ii), below.

County Line Rd. and Calimesa Blvd. Road Improvements
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map Sources: Riverside County GIS, 2020; San Bernardino Co. GIS, 2020.

H:\2020\20-0132\GIS\Vicinity.mxd; Map created 29 Dec 2020 San Bernardino Co.

Riverside Co.

Lake
Perris

RIVERSIDE

PROJECT
SITE
^
Lake
Arrowhead
MORENO
VALLEY
SAN

BERNARDINO
COLTON

REDLANDS
PERRIS

HIGHLAND
LOMA
LINDA

YUCAIPA
SAN

JACINTO

CALIMESA

BEAUMONT BANNING
·|}þ79
·|}þ74
·|}þ243
§¨¦215
·|}þ38
·|}þ210
·|}þ18
·|}þ330
·|}þ173
·|}þ138
·|}þ189
·|}þ60
§¨¦10
§¨¦215
£¤66
Map
Area
0 2 4 6
Miles
I

Figure 2 - Aerial Map
I 10 Offramp

COUNTY LINE RD

AVENUE K

CALIMESA BLVD
LEGEND
Project Site
H:\2020\20-0132\GIS\Aerial.mxd; Map created 31 Dec 2020 County Line Rd. and Calimesa Blvd. Road Improvements
0 100
I
200 300 400
Feet
Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020; San Bernardino
Co. GIS, 2020 (streets and imagery).

Figure 3 - USGS Topographic Map
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
LEGEND
Project Site
H:\2020\20-0132\GIS\usgs.mxd; Map created 29 Dec 2020; nanette County Line Rd. and Calimesa Blvd. Road Improvements
0 1,000
I
2,000 3,000
Feet
Sources: ESRI / USGS 7.5min Quad
DRGs: YUCAIPA / EL CASCO

PROJECT
SITE

Figure 4a – City of Calimesa
General Plan Land Use
AVE K

COUNTY LINE RD

AVENUE K

CALIMESA BLVD
LI LI
DVC
DVC
CC
DVC
DVC
DVC
LEGEND
Project Site
City Boundary
Calimesa GP Land Use Designations
Light Industrial
Downtown Village Commercial
Community Commercial
H:\2020\20-0132\GIS\GPLU.mxd; Map created 31 Dec 2020
I County Line Rd. and Calimesa Blvd. Road Improvements
0 100 200 300 400
Feet
Sources: City of Calimesa, 2014;
Riverside Co. GIS, 2020

Figure 4b – City of Yucaip a General Plan
Land Use and Zoning
CS

CALIMESA BLVD
RM-10M
CS
IC RS-10M
J AVE

COUNTY LINE RD
LEGEND
Project Site
City Boundary
Yucaipa Land Use Districts
RS-10M Single Residential
RM-10M Multiple Residential
CS Service Commercial
IC Community Industrial
H:\2020\20-0132\GIS\Yucaipa_GPLU_Zoning.mxd; Map created 31 Dec 2020 I County Line Rd. and Calimesa Blvd. Road Improvements
0 100 200 300 400
Feet
Sources: City of Yucaipa, 2014;
San Bernardino Co. GIS, 2020

Figure 5 – City of Calimesa Zoning
AVE K

COUNTY LINE RD

AVENUE K

CALIMESA BLVD
LI
DVC
DVC
CC
DVC
DVC
LEGEND
Project Site
City Boundary
Calimesa Zoning Districts
LI - Light Industrial
DVC - Downtown Village Commercial
CC - Community Commercial
H:\2020\20-0132\GIS\Calimesa_Zoning.mxd; Map created 31 Dec 2020 County Line Rd. and Calimesa Blvd. Road Improvements
0 100
I
200 300 400
Feet
Sources: City of Calimesa, 2014;
Riverside Co. GIS, 2020

Figure 6 – Proposed Project
H:\2020\20-0132\GIS\Proposed_Project.mxd; Map created 31 Dec 2020 County Line Rd. and Calimesa Blvd. Road Improvements
I
Source: TKE Engineering, Oct. 2020.

Not to Scale

20 3.0 INITIAL STUDY/DETERMINATION
Evaluation Format
This Initial Study Checklist has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The Project is evaluated based on its potential effect on twenty (20) environmental factors categorized as follows, as well as Mandatory Findings of Significance:

1. Aesthetics 11. Land Use & Planning

2. Agriculture & Forestry Resources 12. Mineral Resources

3. Air Quality 13. Noise

4. Biological Resources 14. Population & Housing

5. Cultural Resources 15. Public Services

6. Energy 16. Recreation

7. Geology & Soils 17. Transportation

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 18. Tribal Cultural Resources

9. Hazards & Hazardous Materials 19. Utilities & Service Systems

10. Hydrology & Water Quality 20. Wildfire

21. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Each factor is analyzed by responding to a series of questions pertaining to the impact of the Project on the particular factor in the form of a checklist. This Initial Study Checklist provides a manner to analyze the impacts of the Project on each factor in order to determine the severity of the impact and determine if mitigation measures can be implemented to reduce the impact to less than significant without having to prepare an Environmental Impact Report.

CEQA also requires Lead Agencies to evaluate potential environmental effects based to the fullest extent possible on scientific and factual data (CEQA Guidelines §15064[b]). A determination of whether or not a particular environmental impact will be significant must be based on substantial evidence, which includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts (CEQA Guidelines §15064f[5]).

The effects of the Project are then placed in the following four categories, which are each followed by a summary to substantiate why the Project does not impact the particular factor with or without mitigation. If “Potentially Significant Impacts” that cannot be mitigated are determined, then the Project does not qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared:

21 Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
Potentially significant
impact(s) have been
identified or anticipated
that cannot be mitigated
to a level of
insignificance. An
Environmental Impact
Report must therefore be
prepared.

Potentially significant impact(s)
have been identified or
anticipated, but mitigation is
possible to reduce impact(s) to a
less than significant category.

Mitigation measures must then
be identified.

No “significant”
impact(s) identified
or anticipated.

Therefore, no
mitigation is
necessary.

No impact(s)
identified or
anticipated.

Therefore, no
mitigation is
necessary.

Throughout the impact analysis in this Initial Study Checklist, reference is made to the following:
• Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) − These include existing regulatory requirements such as plans, policies, or programs applied to the Project based on the basis of federal, state, or local law currently in place which effectively reduce environmental impacts. • Project Design Features (PDF) − These measures include features proposed by the Project that are already incorporated into the Project’s design and are specifically intended to reduce or avoid impacts (e.g., water quality treatment basins). • Mitigation Measures (MM) − These measures include requirements that are imposed where the impact analysis determines that implementation of the proposed Project would result in significant impacts. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP) and the Project Design Features (PDF) were assumed and accounted for in the assessment of impacts for each issue area.

Mitigation Measures (MM) were formulated only for those issue areas where the results of the impact analysis identified significant impacts that could be reduced to less than significant levels.

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving “Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated”, “Less Than Significant Impact” or “No Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

22 Aesthetics Land Use and Planning
Agriculture and Forest Resources Mineral Resources
Air Quality Noise
Biological Resources Population and Housing
Cultural Resources Public Services
Energy Recreation
Geology and Soils Transportation
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Tribal Cultural Resources
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems Hydrology and Water Quality Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Because none of the environmental factors above are “checked”, the Project does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.

23 Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposal could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposal MAY have a “potential significant impact” or “potential significant unless mitigated” 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.

I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significnat effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, pursuant to all applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures are are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.

City of Calimesa
Signature Agency
Kelly Lucia, Planning Manager
Printed Name/Title Date
City of Yucaipa
Signature Agency
Fermin Preciado, Development Services
Director/City Engineer
Printed Name/Title Date
X

24 3.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project would the
Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? █
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
█
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point) If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
█
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
█

3.1 (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Determination: No Impact.

Sources: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP), Project Description Plans, Policies or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
Architecturally, there are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The proposed Project would not affect a scenic vista, as this Project entails roadway improvements to widen County Line Road, construct one roundabout at the intersection of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard, and complete the associated sidewalk and drainage improvements as required.

As such the Project would not obstruct any hillsides, canyons, ridgelines, and peaks defined as a scenic views by the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa (CGP, p. 6-9; YGP, p. 4-21). Construction activities for the proposed Project could have visual impacts towards a scenic vista from construction equipment; however, this impact would be temporary and would cease upon construction completion. Therefore, potential impacts associated with scenic views would not occur and no mitigation would be required.

25 3.1 (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Determination: No Impact.

Sources: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Impact Analysis
As referenced in Threshold 3.1 (a) above, the Project site will not impact a scenic vista. Moreover, there are no state scenic highways located near the Project site and no rock outcroppings or historic buildings are within the Project site. There are no state scenic highways in the Cities of Calimesa or Yucaipa. It is anticipated that several ornamental trees at multitude locations within the Project site will be removed as a result of this Project. These trees include, but are not limited to, Peruvian pepper, tree of heaven, oleander, avocado, and Freemont cottonwood. No oak trees will be removed since no oak trees are present onsite. Therefore, potential impacts associated with scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

3.1 (c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Determination: Less than Significant.

Sources: US Census
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue.

26 Impact Analysis
Per the CEQA Guidelines Section 21071, the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa meet the definition of an urbanized area. The Cities, or any two neighboring cities to the south of City of Calimesa or the north of the City of Yucaipa, have a combined population that adds up to more than 100,000 residents. As of 2010, the City of Calimesa, the City of Yucaipa, the City of Redlands, and the City of Beaumont have a population of 7,879, 51,376, 68,747, and 36,877, respectively (US Census).

As an urbanized area, as defined in the CEQA Guidelines Section 21071, the proposed Project does not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, potential impacts associated with zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

3.1 (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Determination: Less than significant.

Sources: City of Calimesa Municipal Code (CMC), City of Yucaipa Municipal Code (YMC) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
PPP 3.1-1 The Project is required to comply with the City of Calimesa’s Municipal Code 18.120 Outdoor Lighting. A Lighting Plan, as part of a development application, shall be certified to its compliance with the requirements of this Section 18.120 by a qualified lighting engineer prior to submitting lighting plans to the City.

There are no applicable lighting standards for this threshold for the City of Yucaipa Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project site is located in an area with existing outdoor lighting sources. Currently, sources of nighttime light originate from commercial and residential uses, parking lot lights, headlights from vehicles, and streetlights. No sources of light and glare are anticipated during Project construction since night time construction is not proposed. In addition, Project construction equipment staging will be within City of Calimesa-owned lots; the equipment will not remain lit beyond the Cities’ allowable construction hours. Therefore, potential impacts associated with new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

27 3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,
including the Forest and Range Assessment Project
and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and
forest carbon measurement methodology provided
in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural 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?
█

28 3.2 (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Determination: No Impact
Sources: California Department of Conservation (DOC-A and DOC-B) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The site does not contain any lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as mapped by the State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (DOC-A; DOC-B). As such, the Project has no potential to convert such lands to a non‐agricultural use and no impact would occur. No mitigation measures are required. Therefore, potential impacts associated with conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use would not occur and no mitigation would be required.

3.2 (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Determination: No Impact.

Sources: California Department of Conservation (DOC-C and DOC-D) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The proposed Project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract (DOC-C, DOC-D). As such, there is no impact. No mitigation measures are required.

29 3.2 (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)?
Determination: No Impact.

Sources: City of Calimesa General Plan and Zoning Map, City of Yucaipa, General Plan and Zoning Map Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project site is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production areas. Therefore, no potential impacts associated with a conflict with existing zoning or causing rezoning of forest land would occur and no mitigation would be required.

3.2 (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Determination: No Impact.

Source: City of Calimesa General Plan and Zoning Map, City of Yucaipa, General Plan and Zoning Map.

Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Impact Analysis
There is no forest land in proximity to the Project site. The proposed improvements are within street right-of-way, vacant lots, or part of existing developed parcels. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use would not occur and no mitigation would be required.

30 3.2 (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? Determination: No Impact.

Sources: City of Calimesa General Plan and Zoning Map, City of Yucaipa, General Plan and Zoning Map, California Department of Conservation (DOC-A and DOC-B)
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project site is designated “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the Department of Conservation, which is not a Farmland designation. The proposed Project does not include any component that would result in the conversion of Farmland or forest land to other uses. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use would not occur and no mitigation would be required.

31 3.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
█

3.3 (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan Determination: No Impact.

Sources: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP), South Coast Air Quality Management District, (SCAQMD-A), Project Description; Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to air quality violations:

PPP 3.3-1 City of Calimesa Policy AQ-2: Promote pedestrian and bicycle circulation in both existing and planned commercial and residential areas.

PPP 3.3-2 City of Calimesa Policy AQ-16: Reduce fugitive dust emissions from construction activities.

PPP 3.3-3 City of Calimesa Policy SUS-3: Promote increased physical activity, reduced driving, and increased walking, cycling, and public transit by encouraging the development of compact development patterns that are pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, and increasing opportunities for active transportation (walking and biking) and transit use.

PPP 3.3-4 City of Calimesa Policy SUS-18: Encourage convenient bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access to new commercial and industrial development.

PPP 3.3-5 City of Calimesa Policy AQ-8: Require use of energy and fuel-efficient equipment and low emission material in City of Calimesa facilities and infrastructure.

PPP 3.3-6 City of Yucaipa Policy S-7.1 – Integrated Planning: Integrate air quality planning with land use, economic development, and transportation-related planning to allow for the control and management of air quality.

32 PPP 3.3-7 City of Yucaipa Policy S-7.2 – Transportation Sources: Encourage the expansion of transit, buildout of the pedestrian and bicycle route network, support of regional rideshare programs, and other efforts to reduce vehicle miles travelled from Yucaipa and associated vehicle emissions.

PPP 3.3-8 City of Yucaipa Policy S-7.6 – Greenhouse Gas Reductions: Reduce communitywide greenhouse gas emissions locally through the implementation of Yucaipa’s Climate Action Plan; actively support regional efforts to reduce greenhouse gases throughout the county.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) sets forth a comprehensive program that will lead the SCAB into compliance with all federal and state air quality standards. The AQMP control measures and related emission reduction estimates are based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. Accordingly, conformance with the AQMP for development projects is determined by demonstrating compliance with local land use plans and/or population projections (SCAQMD-A). Since the proposed Project consists of widening a road segment and implementation of a roundabout to reduce congestion that, in and of itself, will not result in any changes to the existing land use patterns in the Project area, the Project does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. (AQIA, p. 29.) Moreover, an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) prepared for the Project determined that the Project would not exceed federal ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) state ambient air quality standards (CAAQS). (AQIA, p. 29.) Violations of CAAQS and NAAQS would occur when localized significance thresholds (LSTs) or regional thresholds are exceeded. The Project’s regional and localized construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable LSTs as discussed in detail in Threshold

3.1 (c) below.

Therefore, no potential impacts associated with implementation of the applicable air quality plan would occur and no mitigation would be required.

3.3(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?
Determination: Less than Significant Impact.

Sources: City of Calimesa General Plan, City of Yucaipa General Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMDB), Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA), California Air Resources Board (CARB-A) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following Plans, Policies, or Programs apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant:

33 PPP 3.3-2 City of Calimesa Policy AQ-16: Reduce fugitive dust emissions from construction activities.

PPP 3.3-7 South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 (Nuisance): This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

PPP 3.3-8 South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust): This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available dust control measures during construction activities that generate fugitive dust, such as earth moving and stockpiling activities, grading, and equipment travel on unpaved roads.

Project Design Features (PDF)
The following are Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue:

PDF 3.3-1 The Project will comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 for Fugitive Dust.

PDF3.3-2 Construction equipment will be maintained and operated so as to minimize exhaust emissions. For example, during construction, trucks and vehicles on site will be parked with their engines off to reduce vehicle emissions.

PDF3.3-3 Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 100 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications consistent with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113 shall be used.

Impact Analysis
The portion of the Basin within which the proposed Project site is located is designated as a nonattainment area for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM-10) under state standards, and for ozone and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM-2.5) under both state and federal standards (CARB-A). The SCAQMD considers the thresholds for projectspecific impacts and cumulative impacts to be the same (SCAQMD-B). Therefore, projects that exceed project-specific significance thresholds are considered by SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable.

Based on SCAQMD’s regulatory jurisdiction over regional air quality, it is reasonable to rely on its thresholds to determine whether there is a cumulative air quality impact.

Air quality impacts can be described in short-term and long-term perspectives. Short-term impacts relate to site grading/preparation and paving during Project construction. Long-term air quality impacts occur once the Project is in operation. Because the Project does not generate any mobile trips and is intended to improve conditions of the Project road segment, no operational-source emissions were modeled and no long-term impacts would occur. (AQIA, p. 20.)

34 The Project will be required to comply with existing SCAQMD rules for the reduction of fugitive dust emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 establishes these procedures. (AQIA, p. 22.) Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard best management practices in construction and operation activities, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, managing haul road dust by application of water, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph and establishing a permanent, stabilizing ground cover on finished sites. In addition, projects that disturb 50 or more acres or more of soil or move 5,000 cubic yards of materials per day are required to submit a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or a Large Operation Notification Form to SCAQMD. Based on the size of this Project’s disturbance area (approximately 4 acres total), a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or a Large Operation Notification Form would not be required.

The short-term construction emissions of criteria pollutants from this Project were modeled using the CalEEMod version 2016.3.2 program. (AQIA, p. 20.) The estimated construction period used in the CalEEMod analysis for the proposed Project is 100 days, beginning no sooner than Spring 2021, even though realistic construction start would not be until Spring 2022 given the timing of funding.

Nevertheless, the use of a construction start of 2021 is a conservative estimate and is used in this analysis.

The off-road equipment to be used for each activity is shown in Appendix A. The default parameters within CalEEMod were used and these default values reflect a worst-case scenario, which means that Project emissions are expected to be equal to or less than the estimated emissions. To evaluate Project compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, the Project utilized the mitigation option of watering the Project site three times daily which achieves a control efficiency of 61 percent for PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions. (AQIA, p. 3.) The Project will be balanced (will not require import/export of soil). The Project will require demolition of existing roadways and some existing structures. Based on CalEEMod model defaults, demolition activity was estimated assuming that a conservative square footage of 120,000 square feet would be demolished. Construction emissions for construction worker vehicles traveling to and from the Project site, as well as vendor trips (construction materials delivered to the Project site) were estimated based on information CalEEMod model defaults. (AQIA, p. 21.) The results of this analysis are summarized in Table C – Maximum Daily Construction Emissions and compared to the SCAQMD mass daily thresholds. 1
Table C – Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Daily Emissions (lb/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
SCAQMD Daily Construction
Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Maximum Daily Emissions 4.17 42.47 22.65 0.05 20.46 12.01 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source; Appendix A, AQIA Table 3-4: Construction Emissions Summary Notes: lb/day – pound per day; VOC – volatile organic compound; NOX – oxides of nitrogen; CO – carbon monoxide; SOx – sulfur oxides; PM10 – particulate matter less than 10 microns in size; PM-2.5 – particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size 1 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2

35 As shown in the table above, the emissions from construction of the Project are below the SCAQMD Daily Construction Thresholds for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, the potential impacts to air quality from construction of this Project will be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Since the Project’s short-term and long-term emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD established thresholds of significance, the Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutant emissions for which the Project region is non-attainment and thus impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

3.3(c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

Sources: Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD-A and SCAQMD-D) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to substantial pollutant concentrations to sensitive receptors:

PPP 3.3-2 City of Calimesa Policy AQ-16: Reduce fugitive dust emissions from construction activities.

PPP 3.3-7 South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 (Nuisance): This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

PPP 3.3-8 South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust): This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available dust control measures during construction activities that generate fugitive dust, such as earth moving and stockpiling activities, grading, and equipment travel on unpaved roads.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The SCAQMD has developed localized significance threshold (LST) methodology (SCAQMD-C) that can be used by public agencies to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts (both short- and long-term). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS) and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area (SRA). For this Project, the appropriate Source Receptor Area (SRA) for the LST is the San Gorgonio Pass monitoring station (SRA 29). (AQIA, p. 24.)

36 The LST thresholds are estimated using the maximum daily disturbed area (in acres) and the distance of the Project to the nearest sensitive receptors (in meters). Sensitive receptors include residential uses, school playgrounds, childcare facilities, athletic facilities, hospitals, retirement homes, and convalescent homes. (SCAQMD-A.)
According to the LST methodology, only on-site emissions need to be analyzed. Emissions associated with vendor and worker trips are mobile source emissions that occur off site. The emissions analyzed under the LST methodology are NO2, CO, PM-10, and PM-2.5. SCAQMD has provided LST lookup tables to allow users to readily determine if the daily emissions for proposed construction or operational activities could result in significant localized air quality impacts for projects five acres or smaller. Although the Project disturbs approximately 4 acres, the Project site would be closed off in small segments to allow a continuous flow of traffic and would disturb a much smaller area per day.

Use of a maximum 1 acre daily disturbed acreage is appropriate. (AQIA, p. 25.) The closest potential sensitive receptors are the residential units located adjacent to the proposed Project site. The closest receptor on the LST look-up tables is 25 meters. (AQIA, p. 25.) According to LST methodology, projects with boundaries closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters. Therefore, a receptor distance of 25 meters (85 feet) was used.

Table D – Unmitigated LST Results for Daily Construction Emissions identifies the unmitigated localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. Emissions during the grading/excavation phase of construction activity would exceed the applicable thresholds for emissions of PM-10 and PM-2.5.

Table D – Unmitigated LST Results for Daily Construction Emissions Pollutant Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
NOX CO PM-10 PM-2.5
LST for 1-ac at 25 meters 103 1,000 6 4
Onsite Grading / Excavation 26.38 16.05 7.86 4.54
Exceeds Threshold? No No Yes Yes
Source: Appendix A, AQIA Table 3-6: Localized Significance Summary Construction (Without Mitigation) With the implementation of mitigation measure MM AQ 1 during construction activities, which requires all rubber-tired dozers and graders to be CARB certified tier 3 or better, impacts at the nearest receptors are reduced. (Tier 3 or higher rated engines generate fewer exhaust emissions than lower tiered engines). Table E – Mitigated LST Results for Daily Construction Emissions shows that after implementation of MM AQ 1, the emissions during the grading/excavation phase of construction activity would not exceed the applicable thresholds for emissions of PM-10 and PM-2.5.

37 Table E – Mitigated LST Results for Daily Construction Emissions Pollutant Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
NOX CO PM-10 PM-2.5
LST for 1-ac at 25 meters 103 1,000 6 4
Onsite Grading / Excavation 15.91 16.05 3.34 2.06
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Source: Appendix A, AQIA Table 3-7: Localized Significance Summary Construction (With Mitigation) Additionally, the Project would not result in a carbon monoxide (CO) “hotspot” as a result of Project related traffic during ongoing construction. (AQIA, p. 29.) Therefore, potential impacts associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant with mitigation.

MM AQ 1 The Project proponent and/or Contractor shall require, by contract specifications, that during construction, all rubber-tired dozers and graders shall be CARB certified Tier 3 or better.

3.3(d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Sources; California Air Resources Board (CARB-B), Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to other emissions, such as those leading to odors, adversely affecting substantial number of people:

PPP 3.3-2 City of Calimesa Policy AQ-16: Reduce fugitive dust emissions from construction activities.

PPP 3.3-7 South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 (Nuisance): This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

PPP 3.3-8 South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 (Nuisance): This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available dust control measures during construction activities that generate fugitive dust, such as earth moving and stockpiling activities, grading, and equipment travel on unpaved roads.

38 Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The California Air Resources Board has developed an Air Quality and Land Use Handbook to outline common sources of odor complaints, including: sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, and petroleum refineries. (CARB-B.) The Project does not propose any such uses or activities that would result in potentially significant operational-source odor impacts. Potential sources of operational odors generated by the Project would include disposal of miscellaneous commercial refuse. Consistent with City requirements, all Project generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with solid waste regulations, thereby precluding substantial generation of odors due to temporary holding of refuse on-site. Moreover, construction-source odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would not result in persistent impacts that would affect substantial numbers of people. (AQIA, pp. 30, 33.) Therefore, potential impacts associated with other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

39 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
█
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US 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?
█

3.4(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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Determination: Less Than Significant
Source: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP), Regional Conservation Authority Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (RCA); Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Biological Resources Compliance Analysis for the 9.45-Acre County Line/Calimesa Road Roadway Improvement Project (Cadre)(Appendix B)
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to biological resources:

40 PPP 3.4-1 City of Calimesa Policy RM-10: Local drainage courses should be retained in their natural condition to the extent feasible.

PPP 3.4-2 City of Calimesa Policy OSPR-2.1: Implement the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.

PPP 3.4-3 City of Yucaipa Policy PR-5.1 – Resource Protection: Protect and conserve Yucaipa’s biological resources, with a special focus on sensitive, rare, or endangered plant and wildlife species in accordance with state and federal resource agency requirements.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Impact Analysis
To determine whether the Project will exceed this threshold, the following factors are considered:
whether listed species have been identified on or adjacent to the Project site, whether the Project site contains habitat suitable for listed species, and whether the Project site is located within a mapped area designated for focused surveys or other special conditions. A Biological Resources Compliance Analysis for the 9.11-Acre County Line Road/Calimesa Boulevard Roadway Improvement Project, Cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa, dated November 19, 2020 (included as Appendix B), was prepared by Cadre Environmental to document the existing biological resources at the Project site. Prior to the field reconnaissance on August 14, 2020, Cadre Environmental conducted a literature review to determine the locations and types of biological resources having the potential to exist within the region.

Relevant literatures reviewed included the MSHCP list of covered species potentially occurring onsite (MSHCP Table 2-2 Species Considered for Conservation Under the MSHCP Since 1999, 2004). Federal register listings, protocols, and species data provided by United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were reviewed in conjunction with anticipated federally listed species potentially occurring at the Study Area. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), a review of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) sixth inventory (Tibor 2001), and Roberts et al. (2004) were also reviewed for pertinent information regarding the location of known occurrences of sensitive species in the vicinity of the property. In addition, numerous regional floral and faunal field guides were utilized in the identification of species and suitable habitats. (Cadre, p. 5.) Existing Conditions
The southern region of the Project site within the City of Calimesa is located within the Pass Plan Area Plan of the MSHCP. The Project site is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Area Cell, Group, or Linkage Area (RCA; Cadre, p. 4). The northern region of the Project site, within the City of Yucaipa, is not located within the MSHCP boundary. However, existing conditions and impacts have been assessed to ensure compliance with the MSHCP and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (Cadre, p. 4). The biological study area (BSA) is approximately 9.11 acres, which includes the Project site. Most of the BSA, approximately 8.43 acres, is identified as developed by existing roadways, parking lots, industrial commercial and multi-use land uses. A small patch of heavily disturbed land is located in the southwest region of the BSA. This region is dominated by approximately 0.68 acres of disturbed/ruderal vegetation with signs of annual clearing activities (weed abatement). Several ornamental trees and shrubs are located within the BSA. This ornamental vegetation is mostly located adjacent to the Calimesa Creek on the southern portion of the Project

41 site. No Native vegetation is located within or adjacent to the Project site. (Cadre, pp. 7-8.) An existing earthen bottom drainage (Calimesa Creek) is located adjacent to the southern BSA. This drainage feature will be improved as part of a separate project being processed by the City: the Calimesa Creek Storm Drain Project. (Cadre, p. 17.)
The BSA does not represent a wildlife movement corridor since it is primarily developed. The Calimesa Creek, adjacent to the BSA, terminates near the western boundary where it is primarily directed through subsurface culvert west of Interstate 10. (Cadre, p.10.) Biological Resources
Determinations of MSHCP sensitive species that could potentially occur on the Project site are based on one or both of the following: (1) a record reported in the CNDDB or CNPS inventory and; (2) the Project site is within the known distribution of a species and contains suitable habitat or species documented onsite.

Sensitive or native plant communities
Sensitive or native plant communities were not documented within or adjacent to the BSA. A total of

3.20 acres of developed (3.07), disturbed (0.08) and ornamental vegetation (0.05) will be permanently impacted by the Project. (Cadre, pp. 14-15.) All sensitive plant species that potentially would occur onsite within the City of Calimesa are adequately covered under MSHCP. The northern region of the Project Site, in the City of Yucaipa, is not located within the western Riverside County MSHCP, is characterized completely as multi-use commercial development and does not possess any native or suitable habitat for state and/or federally sensitive plant species. (Cadre, p. 14-15.) No oak trees will be directly or indirectly impacted as a result of the Project. Impacts to sensitive or native plant communities would be less than significant.

Sensitive wildlife species
The southern portion of the BSA, in the City of Calimesa, does not occur within a predetermined MSHCP Survey Area for amphibians, mammals, or burrowing owls. (Cadre, p. 15.) The northern portion of the BSA, in the City of Yucaipa, is not located within the western Riverside MSHCP and is characterized as multi-use commercial development and does not possess any native or suitable habitat for state and/or federally sensitive wildlife species. (Cadre, p. 15.) The trees documented within and adjacent to the Project site may represent potential nesting habitat for bird and raptors.

However, impacts would be mitigated through compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and relevant section of California Fish and Game Code (CDFG), Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. (Cadre, p. 16.) Impacts to sensitive wildlife species would be less than significant.

Therefore, potential impacts associated with 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 would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

3.4(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Determination: Less than Significant.

Source: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP), Biological Resources Compliance Analysis for the 9.45-Acre County Line/Calimesa Road Roadway Improvement Project (Cadre) (Appendix B)

42 Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to biological resources:

PPP 3.4-1 City of Calimesa Policy RM-10: Local drainage courses should be retained in their natural condition to the extent feasible.

PPP 3.4-2 City of Calimesa Policy OSPR-2.1: Implement the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.

PPP 3.4-3 City of Yucaipa Policy PR-5.1 – Resource Protection: Protect and conserve Yucaipa’s biological resources, with a special focus on sensitive, rare, or endangered plant and wildlife species in accordance with state and federal resource agency requirements.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Impact Analysis
According to the Biological Resources Compliance Analysis, no vernal pool resources, hydric soils, road ruts or seasonal depressions were documented onsite following a review of soils, historic aerial maps and initiation of a site assessment. Additionally, no MSHCP Section 6.1.2 native riparian scrub, forest or woodland resources representing suitable habitat for the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) or western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) were documented within or adjacent to the Study Area. (Cadre, p. 17).

The Biological Resources Compliance Analysis indicates that the Calimesa Creek (an earthen bottom drainage) represents a MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riverine resource. This creek is located adjacent at the southern portion of the Project site and is dominated by ornamental trees, primarily tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima). As part of a separate City-initiated project (the proposed Calimesa Creek Storm Drainage Project), which will be constructed before this Project, the existing riverine resources will be eliminated. As such, this MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riverine resource (Calimesa Creek) will not be directly or indirectly impacted as a result of this Project. Impacts to the Section 6.1.2 feature will be analyzed and addressed prior to Project construction as part of a proposed Calimesa Creek Storm Drain Project, a separate project being processed by the City. No jurisdictional delineation (JD), permits or certifications will be required for the proposed Project (Cadre, p. 16). Therefore, potential impacts associated with riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

3.4(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?
Determination: Less than Significant.

43 Source: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP), Biological Resources Compliance Analysis for the 9.45-Acre County Line/Calimesa Road Roadway Improvement Project (Cadre) (Appendix B) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to biological resources:

PPP 3.4-1 City of Calimesa Policy RM-10: Local drainage courses should be retained in their natural condition to the extent feasible.

PPP 3.4-3 City of Yucaipa Policy PR-5.1 – Resource Protection: Protect and conserve Yucaipa’s biological resources, with a special focus on sensitive, rare, or endangered plant and wildlife species in accordance with state and federal resource agency requirements.

PPP 3.4-4 City of Calimesa Policy RM-11: The City will require the use of buffers, creative site planning, revegetation, and open space easements/dedications to conserve and protect important plant communities, including: Wildlife habitats; Riparian areas; Wetlands; Oak woodlands; Other significant tree stands; Rare or endangered plant/animal habitats.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Impact Analysis
As noted in Threshold 3.4 (b) above, the Project will not impact the Calimesa Creek and there is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural wetland habitat within the Project site. As such, the Project is not anticipated to have any impacts upon these environments or other federally protected wetland sensitive habitat. Therefore, potential impacts associated with state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

3.4(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?
Determination: Less Than Significant.

Source: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (CYP), Regional Conservation Authority Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (RCA,) Biological Resources Compliance Analysis for the 9.45-Acre County Line/Calimesa Road Roadway Improvement Project (Cadre) (Appendix B)
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to biological resources:

PPP 3.4-1 City of Calimesa Policy RM-10: Local drainage courses should be retained in their natural condition to the extent feasible.

44 PPP 3.4-2 City of Calimesa Policy OSPR-2.1: Implement the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.

PPP 3.4-3 City of Yucaipa Policy PR-5.1 – Resource Protection: Protect and conserve Yucaipa’s biological resources, with a special focus on sensitive, rare, or endangered plant and wildlife species in accordance with state and federal resource agency requirements.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to this issue.

Impact Analysis
As noted in Threshold 3.4 (a) above, The Project site is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Area Cell, Group, or Linkage Area; therefore, conservation of the Project site is not required pursuant to the MSHCP. Additionally, the Project site does not represent a wildlife movement corridor since the Project site is primarily developed. The Calimesa Creek, adjacent to the Project site, terminates near the western boundary where it is primarily directed through subsurface culvert west of Interstate

10. (Cadre, p.10.) As such, the proposed Project will not interfere with the movement of wildlife.

Therefore, potential impacts associated with the interference of movement of any native resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species or native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

3.4(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Determination: No Impact
Source: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (CYP), Biological Resources Compliance Analysis for the 9.45-Acre County Line/Calimesa Road Roadway Improvement Project (Cadre) (Appendix B) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to biological resources:

PPP 3.4-1 City of Calimesa Policy RM-10: Local drainage courses should be retained in their natural condition to the extent feasible.

PPP 3.4-2 City of Calimesa Policy OSPR-2.1: Implement the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.

PPP 3.4-4 City of Calimesa Policy RM-11: The City will require the use of buffers, creative site planning, revegetation, and open space easements/dedications to conserve and protect important plant communities, including: Wildlife habitats; Riparian areas; Wetlands; Oak woodlands; Other significant tree stands; Rare or endangered plant/animal habitats.

45 PPP 3.4-5 City of Calimesa Policy RM-13: Native oak trees should be preserved whenever feasible. If preservation is not possible, trees should be replaced with oak trees of the same species at a ratio of 1:1.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
Construction of the proposed Project will include potential removal of trees at multiple locations within the Project site. Several ornamental trees and shrubs are located within the Project site including but not limited to Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), oleander (Nerium oleander) and avocado (Persea americana). The drainage located adjacent to the southern Project site boundary is dominated by tree of heaven with a few isolated Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) trees and small patches of giant reed (Arundo donax). (Cadre, p. 8.) However, these trees are not candidates for the City of Calimesa’s tree preservation ordinance per Chapter 18.80 of the Municipal Code, which details requirements for removal and replacement of oak trees, or the City of Yucaipa’s oak tree conservation policy contained in Chapter 5, Oak Tree Conservation, in the Municipal Code. There are no oak trees that meet the either City’s oak tree preservation ordinances within the Project site.

The Calimesa Municipal Code 18.70.120 Tree preservation guidelines (separate from the oak tree guidelines) indicates that the removal of healthy, shade-providing, aesthetically valuable trees shall be discouraged. In the event that more than five trees are to be cut down, uprooted, destroyed or removed within a 36-month period, a permit issued by the community development department will be required. However, CMC 18.70.120.A.2 exempts “city government projects.” Therefore, no impacts will occur relevant to conflicting with a local ordinance or policy for tree preservation. No mitigation measures are required.

3.4(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?
Determination: Less Than Significant
City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (CYP), RCA MSHCP Information Map (RCA), Biological Resources Compliance Analysis for the 9.45-Acre County Line/Calimesa Road Roadway Improvement Project (Cadre) (Appendix B)
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to biological resources:

PPP 3.4-1 City of Calimesa Policy RM-10: Local drainage courses should be retained in their natural condition to the extent feasible.

46 PPP 3.4-2 City of Calimesa Policy OSPR-2.1: Implement the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.

PPP 3.4-7 City of Yucaipa Policy PR-5.6 – Interagency Coordination: Coordinate with the CDFW and USFWS in the review of biological resource assessments and surveys for land development applications in accordance with state and federal resource agency requirements.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
Portions of the Project site are located within the western Riverside MSHCP of which the City of Calimesa is a permittee. The City of Yucaipa is not part of any habitat conservation plan or natural community plan in the County of San Bernardino and, as such, the Project site within the City of Yucaipa would not conflict an adopted conservation plan.

The City of Calimesa, as a permittee, is required to comply with the MSHCP. The MSHCP consists of a Criteria Area that assists in facilitating the process by which individual properties are evaluated for inclusion and subsequent conservation. In addition to Criteria Area requirements, the MSHCP requires consistency with Sections 6.1.2 (Protection of Species within Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), 6.1.4 (Urban Wildlands Interface),

6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures), Appendix C (Standard Best Management Practices), and 7.5.3 (Construction Guidelines). The MSHCP serves as a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), pursuant to Section (a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as well as the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) under the State NCCP Act of 2001.

The portion of the Project site within the MSHCP, in the City of Calimesa, is not within a MSHCP Criteria Cell or Conservation Area.

Consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.1 (Property Owner Initiated Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS)
The HANS Process applies to property which may be needed for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area or subject to other MSHCP Criteria and shall be implemented by the County and those Cities that have agreed to implement the HANS process. The southern region of the study area located within the City of Calimesa is located within the MSHCP Pass Area Plan. The study area is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Area, Cell Group, or linkage area. Therefore, no Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) or Joint Project Review (JPR) are required.(Cadre, p. 17.) Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP.

Consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.2 (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools)
Volume I, Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP requires that projects develop avoidance alternatives, if feasible, that would allow for full or partial avoidance of riparian/riverine areas. Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP defines Riparian/Riverine areas as “lands which contain Habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year.” No MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riparian scrub, forest or woodland resources representing

47 suitable habitat for the least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher or western yellow billed cuckoo were documented within or adjacent to the Study Area. No additional surveys are required. (Cadre, p. 18.) The existing earthen bottom drainage (Calimesa Creek) located adjacent to the southern Project boundary is a Section 6.1.2 riverine resource. This feature would not be directly/indirectly impacted by the proposed Project. Impacts to the Section 6.1.2 feature will be addressed prior to Project construction as a result of the proposed Calimesa Creek Storm Drain Project, a separate project being processed by the City. An MSHCP Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation is not required. (Cadre, p. 18.) Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.

Consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species) Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP requires that within identified Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA), site-specific focused surveys for Narrow Endemic Plants Species will be required for all public and private projects where appropriate soils and habitat are present. The Project site does not occur within a predetermined survey area for MSHCP narrow endemic plant species and no surveys are required. (Cadre, p. 17.) Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.

Consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.4 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlife Interface) Section 6.1.4 outlines the minimization of indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to a MSHCP Conservation Area. The Project site is not located adjacent to an existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Area. (Cadre, p. 18.) Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.

Consistency with MSHCP Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures) The MSHCP requires additional surveys for certain species if a project or its off-site impact area are located within criteria areas shown on Figure 6-2 (Criteria Area Species Survey Area), Figure 6-3 (Amphibian Species Survey Areas with Critical Area), Figure 6-4 (Burrowing Owl Survey Areas with Criteria Area) and Figure 6-5 (Mammal Species Survey Areas with Criteria Area) of the MSHCP. The Project site does not occur within any Amphibian Species Survey Area, Mammal Species Survey Area, or Burrowing Owl Survey Area as identified by the MSHCP. (Cadre, p. 17.) As such, no further surveys related to amphibians, mammals, or burrowing owls are required. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.

Consistency with MSHCP Section 6.4 (Fuels Management)
The fuels management guidelines presented in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP are intended to address brush management activities around new development within or adjacent to MSHCP Conservation Areas. The Project Site is not located adjacent to an existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Area. (Cadre, p. 19.) Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with Section 6.4 of the MSHCP.

Therefore, potential impacts associated with the provisions of an adopted conservation plan would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

48 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. 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 CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
█
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? █

3.5(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

Source: Historical Resources Evaluation (ECORP-A)
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to cultural resources:

PPP 3.5-1 City of Calimesa Policy RM-16: Identify, protect, and preserve the historical and cultural resources of the city.

PPP 3.5-2 City of Calimesa Policy RM-17: Seek to protect significant historical sites or structures by offering programs and/or incentives to preserve, restore, or reuse the structures while maintaining their historical significance and integrity.

PPP 3.5-3 City of Yucaipa Policy HN-1.9 – Historic Preservation: Promote the preservation of historically and architecturally significant buildings and neighborhoods through land use, design, and housing policies; as needed, inventory and record historic structures as part of the development review process.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The State CEQA Guidelines state that the term “historical resources” applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historical Places (NHRP), included in a local register of historical resources or determined to be historically significant by the Lead Agency. A Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER), included as Appendix C, was prepared by ECORP Consulting to document historical resources at the Project site. As part of the

49 HRER, a cultural resources records search was performed for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties at the Eastern information Center (EIC), located at the University of California, Riverside, and the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historical Resources System, located at California State University, Fullerton, since both the EIC and SCCIC are the State of California’s official repositories of cultural resources records for the two Counties. These records searches were conducted on June 22, 2017 at the IEC and June 21, 2017 at the SCCIC to identify previously recorded cultural resources within the Project site and within a one-mile radius around the Project site. (ECORP-A, p. 2.)
In addition to the records search at EIC and SCCIC, the California Historic Property (HPDF) Data File for San Bernardino and Riverside Counties was consulted. The HPDF provides information about resources determined eligible for, or listed on, the NRHP and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). It also provides information on resources that are California Historical Landmarks and California Points of Historical Interest. Historic period maps of the Project area were also reviewed in order to identify buildings and features that may be historical in age. Additional archival research was conducted at A.K. Smiley Library Heritage Room and letters were sent to the San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society (SGPHS) and the Yucaipa Valley Historical Society (YVHS) to assist in the evaluation of historical resources. (ECORP-A, p. 2.) An intensive survey of the Project site and a one-mile radius was conducted by ECORP archaeologists on July 3, 2017 utilizing the Office of Historic Preservation’s guidelines for recording historical resources. According to the research and additional information gathered from historical resource files, eight cultural resources (six historic-period buildings and two historic-period road segments) within the Project site were documented. (ECORP-A, p. 2.) As a result of the records search, one previously recorded built-environment resource was identified within the Project site and one-mile radius. It consists of a historic-period poured concrete culvert that is located directly underneath Calimesa Boulevard (P33-23900). It was built in 1930 directly under Calimesa Boulevard (the Ocean-to-Ocean Highway) to facilitate the flow of Calimesa Creek under the road. This resource was previously recorded and evaluated as not eligible for the NRHP under any criteria. During the course of the investigation, it was found that the culvert was built as a part of Ocean-to-Ocean Highway (Calimesa Boulevard). Therefore, the culvert is considered part of the newly recorded Calimesa Boulevard. As a result of the records search and current study, no previously recorded built environment cultural resources were found eligible within the Project site. (ECORP-A, p. 8.)
As a result of the field survey and archival research, eight cultural resources were recorded within the Project site. Six single-story commercial buildings related to the later commercial development of the area were recorded and evaluated. These buildings include three automotive-related structures, one large shopping plaza, one combined liquor store and barber shop, and one former residential building that was converted into a pet grooming business. Three of the buildings (625 W.

County Line Road, 613 W. County Line Road, and 13715 Calimesa Boulevard) were constructed between 1938 and 1959, and the remaining three (905 Calimesa Boulevard, 13711 Calimesa Boulevard and 13721 Calimesa Boulevard) were constructed between 1959 and 1963. In addition to the six buildings, two historic-period road segments were recorded and evaluated. Calimesa Boulevard is a northwest-southeast trending road that was formerly a part of the Ocean-to-Ocean Highway alignment before being bypassed by Interstate 10 freeway. County Line Road is an eastwest trending road that generally marks the boundary between San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. As a result of the field survey, no newly recorded built-environment cultural resources were found eligible within the Project site. (ECORP-A, p. 8.)

50 Through the research and inventory methodologies described in the historical resources report, no historical resources, as defined by CEQA, or any historic properties, as defined by NHPA, were encountered within the Project site. Therefore, impacts to historical resources will be less than significant. However, in the event of an accidental discovery of a cultural and/or historical resource; implementation of mitigation measure MM CR 1, which requires the construction in the vicinity of the find be halted until a qualified archaeologist makes a determination as to the significance of the find is made and any find be recorded and curated. With implementation of mitigation measure MM CR 1, potential impacts to historical resources will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure:

MM CR 1 In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed within MM TCR 1, regarding any pre-contact and/or post-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

If significant pre-contact and/or post-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered, and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI for review and comment, as detailed within MM TCR 1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the plan accordingly.

3.5(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Source: Archaeological Survey Report (ECORP-B)
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to cultural resources:

PPP 3.5-1 City of Calimesa Policy RM-16: Identify, protect, and preserve the historical and cultural resources of the city.

PPP 3.5-2 City of Calimesa Policy RM-17: Seek to protect significant historical sites or structures by offering programs and/or incentives to preserve, restore, or reuse the structures while maintaining their historical significance and integrity.

PPP 3.5-3 City of Yucaipa Policy HN-1.9 – Historic Preservation.: Promote the preservation of historically and architecturally significant buildings and neighborhoods through land

51 use, design, and housing policies; as needed, inventory and record historic structures as part of the development review process.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
An Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), included as Appendix D, was prepared by ECORP Consulting to document archaeological resources at the Project site. As part of the ASR, a cultural resources records search was performed for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties at the EIC, located at the University of California, Riverside, and the SCCIC of the California Historical Resources System, located at California State University, Fullerton, since both the EIC and SCCIC are the State of California’s official repositories of cultural resources records for the two Counties. These records searches were conducted on June 22, 2017 at the IEC and June 21, 2017 at the SCCIC to identify previously recorded cultural resources within the Project site and within a one-mile radius around the Project site. (ECORP-B, p. 3.)
In addition to the records search at EIC and SCCIC, the California HPDF for San Bernardino and Riverside Counties was consulted. The HPDF provides information about resources determined eligible for, or listed on, the NRHP and the CRHR. It also provides information on resources that are California Historical Landmarks and California Points of Historical Interest. Historic period maps of the Project area were also reviewed in order to identify buildings and features that may be historical in age. (ECORP-B, p. 3.) Additional archival research was conducted at A.K. Smiley Library Heritage Room and letters were sent to the San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society (SGPHS) and the Yucaipa Valley Historical Society (YVHS) to assist in the evaluation of historical resources. (ECORP-B, p. 8.) An intensive systematic pedestrian survey of the Project site and a one-mile radius was conducted using a single transect along each side of Calimesa Boulevard and County Line Road. Each transect covered approximately 15 meters of the right-of-way along the north and south sides of County Line Road, and the east and west sides of Calimesa Boulevard. In addition, all unpaved portions of the property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard were surveyed using parallel transects spaced 15-meters apart. Unpaved portions of the Project site include portions of parcel 411-080-015 and all of parcel 411-008-0005. All unpaved and undeveloped portions of the Project site were intensively inspected for archaeological material.

Previously recorded resources were field checked and updated. (ECORP-B, p. 16.) A letter was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requesting a search of the Sacred Lands File. In a letter dated June 22, 2017, the NAHC reported that a search of the Sacred Lands File failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources. However, the NAHC noted that the area is sensitive for cultural resources and provided a list of Native American contacts for the Project area. Letters were sent to those Native American contacts. (ECORP-B, p. 9.) A total of 22 cultural resources investigations were conducted within the one-mile records search radius between 1977 and 2016. Of these studies, one (RI-9242) overlapped a portion of the Project site. RI-9242 was a small area survey conducted in 2014 by Don Perez for the installation of a cellular phone tower. As a result of this study, approximately 20 percent of the Project site has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. (ECORP-B, p. 3.)

52 No prehistoric/archaeological sites have been recorded within the Project site. As a result of the records search, 18 cultural resources have been previously recorded within the one-mile records search radius. Only five of these cultural resources are prehistoric resources; three prehistoric occupation sites (one of which contained at least one human burial) and two prehistoric lithic deposits. (ECORP-B, pp. 5-6.)
All five previously recorded prehistoric resources identified during the records searches are located in a cluster within and around Yucaipa Creek, approximately 0.5 to 0.75 mile northwest of the Project site. (ECORP-B, p. 7.)
The Project will be developed almost entirely within a previously disturbed area and any manifestation of prehistoric archaeological material that may have existed in the Project site has been removed by previous grading or development. However, there is the potential that unknown resources on the Project site may have been obscured by pavement or other materials over the years.

As such, the potential exists for unknown cultural resources to be present and Project construction activities may impact unknown cultural resources within the Project area. In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are unearthed during Project construction, implementation of mitigation measure MM CR 1 will reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure:

For MM CR 1, see Threshold 3.5(a), above.

3.5(c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

Sources: California Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097 et. seq. (CALaw) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to disturbing human remains and cultural resources:

PPP 3.5-1 City of Calimesa Policy RM-16: Identify, protect, and preserve the historical and cultural resources of the city.

PPP 3.5-2 City of Calimesa Policy RM-17: Seek to protect significant historical sites or structures by offering programs and/or incentives to preserve, restore, or reuse the structures while maintaining their historical significance and integrity.

PPP 3.5-3 City of Yucaipa Policy HN-1.9 – Historic Preservation.: Promote the preservation of historically and architecturally significant buildings and neighborhoods through land use, design, and housing policies; as needed, inventory and record historic structures as part of the development review process.

PPP 3.5-4 The project is required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097 et. seq., and provisions of AB 52 concerning consideration of Tribal Cultural Values in determination of project impacts and mitigation.

53 Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project is not located near any known formal cemeteries. The Project is within right of way, vacant land, and portions of existing developed parcels previously disturbed, and so the potential for uncovering human remains at the Project site is low. Nevertheless, in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during Project construction, implementation of mitigation measure MM CR 2, which outlines standard procedure to follow in the event of discovery of human remains, will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure:

MM CR 2 Per State Health and Safety Code 7050.5, if human remains are encountered during construction, no further disturbance shall occur in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer) until the San Bernardino County Coroner or Riverside County Coroner, depending on where remains were encountered, has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The San Bernardino County Coroner or Riverside County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are not historic, but prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted to determine the most likely descendent (MLD) for this area. Once the most likely descendent is determined, treatment of the Native American human remains will proceed pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. This measure will be added to the construction specifications.

54 3.6 ENERGY
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
█
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? █

3.6(a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

Determination: Less than Significant Impact.

Source: Project Description; Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA), CCR 2449 Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to energy use:

PPP 3.6-1 City of Calimesa Policy AQ-8: Require use of energy and fuel-efficient equipment and low emission material in City of Calimesa facilities and infrastructure.

PPP 3.6-2 CalGreen Standards: AB32 establishes a comprehensive program of cost-effective reduction of greenhouse to 1990 levels by 2020.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
As an infrastructure project, the majority of impacts will be short-term with only infrequent, routine maintenance occurring post-construction. As described in the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix A), the Project’s short-term construction would last approximately 5 months. Project construction would require the use of construction equipment for grading, paving, as well as construction workers and vendors traveling to and from the Project site. Construction equipment requires diesel as the fuel source and construction worker and vendor trips use both gasoline and diesel fuel.

Fuel consumption from on-site heavy-duty construction equipment and construction would be temporary in nature and uses a limited number of pieces of equipment, which would represent a negligible demand on energy resources. Construction equipment is also required to comply with

55 regulations limiting idling to five minutes or less (CCR Title 13 § 2449(d)(3)). Additionally, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency because the Project consists of roadway and drainage improvements.

Furthermore, there are no unusual Project site characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the State. Therefore, potential impacts associated with wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

3.6(b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
Determination: No Impact.

Source: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The proposed Project would be required to comply with City, state and federal energy conservation measures related to construction, as noted above. The Project consists of widening a road segment and implementation of a roundabout to reduce congestion, which improves energy efficiency.

Further, the Project will comply with all applicable regulations and policies as it pertains to roadway improvement construction. Therefore, no potential impacts associated with conflicts or obstruction of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would occur, and no mitigation would be required.
.

56 3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
█
2) Strong seismic ground shaking? █
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? █
4) 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 onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
█
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
█
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
█
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
█

3.7 (a) (1) 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Determination: Less Than Significant Impact
Source: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP), Department of Conservation, EQ Zapp (DOC-E); Initial Site Assessment (ISA)
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)

57 The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to geology and soil resources:

PPP 3.7-1 City of Calimesa Policy SAF-: Discourage development near areas susceptible to potential seismic or geological hazards
PPP 3.7-2 City of Yucaipa Policy S-1.8 – Natural Topography.: Limit grading for future developments to the minimum amount needed to preserve Yucaipa’s natural topography, preserve vegetation, and maintain soil and slope stability.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
Seismic activity is expected in Southern California; however, the Project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo zone. The Initial Site Assessment report prepared by LOR Geotechnical Group Inc., included as Appendix E, for the Project site does not identify any earthquake fault lines within one mile from the Project site (ISA; Appendix E, Physical Setting Source Map). The Project site does not contain any known faults; therefore, the potential for on-site fault rupture is very low. The closest fault is El Casco Fault, located approximately 1.70 miles southeast from the Project site. As previously discussed, the proposed Project includes only roadway and drainage improvements to the existing paved road that is currently in use. The Project does not propose any structures, habitable or otherwise, that could pose a substantial risk to people or other structures in the event of strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

3.7 (a) (2) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking? Determination: Less than Significant Impact.

Source: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP), Department of Conservation, EQ Zapp (DOC-E)
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

58 Impact Analysis
As discussed above, the Project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone boundary and the Project includes only roadway and drainage improvements to an existing paved road that is currently in use. The Project does not propose any structures, habitable or otherwise, that could pose a substantial risk to people or other structures in the event of strong seismic ground shaking.

Therefore, potential impacts associated with strong seismic ground would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

3.7 (a) (3) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Source: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP), Department of Conservation, EQ Zapp (DOC-E) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesion-less soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. The factors controlling liquefaction are:
• Seismic ground shaking of relatively loose, granular soils that are saturated or submerged can cause soils to liquefy and temporarily behave as a dense fluid. For liquefaction to occur, the following conditions have to occur: Intense seismic shaking; • Presence of loose granular soils prone to liquefaction; and • Saturation of soils due to shallow groundwater.

Liquefaction, most often caused by earthquakes, describes a phenomenon where a soil’s strength and stiffness is substantially reduced. Liquefaction causes the soil’s composition to liquefy, which destabilizes buildings that are supported by the ground. According to the Department of Conservation, the City of Calimesa General Plan, and the City of Yucaipa General Plan, the Project site is not identified as having high liquefaction susceptibility (CGP, p.8-4; YGP, p. 7-7). Therefore, potential impacts associated with seismic related ground failure including liquefaction would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

3.7 (a) (4) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

59 Source: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP), Department of Conservation, EQ Zapp (DOC-E) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
Generally, a landslide is defined as the downward and outward movement of loosened rock or earth down a hillside or slope. Landslides can occur either very suddenly or slowly, and frequently accompany other natural hazards such as earthquakes, floods, or wildfires. Landslides can also be induced by the undercutting of slopes during construction, improper artificial compaction, or saturation from sprinkler systems or broken water pipes.

The Project site has been previously excavated, filled, graded, and leveled and due to its flat gradient and the absence of known landslides within or immediately adjacent to the site, the potential for land-sliding at the site is low. Therefore, potential impacts associated with landslides would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

3.7(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Sources: Project City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following applies to the Project and would reduce impacts related to soil erosion:

PPP 3.7-3 Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project’s Applicant(s) shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Calimesa staff and the state water resources control board staff.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project would include road and sidewalk improvements and associated drainage improvements, and will be constructed on existing roadway and along small portions of parcels that are proposed to be acquired, which are either previously disturbed portions of vacant lots or portions of developed parcels. The Project roads are currently being used and are presently travelled upon; therefore, its

60 remaining dirt-surfaced portions are heavily compacted. The Project will not involve extensive excavation, grading, and or fill. Ultimately, Project implementation will cause a reduction in the potential for soil erosion as a result of the proposed on-site drainage improvements. Additionally, for compliance with the California General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities, Project construction will be mandated to incorporate a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to manage soil disturbance, non-storm water discharges, construction materials, and construction waste during its construction phase. Project–related construction could involve cut and fill during the grading phase; however, a substantial loss of topsoil is not anticipated given the short duration of construction time. Thus, the construction phase of the Project would not be exposed to extensive rain during the rainy season. Therefore, potential impacts associated with substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

3.7(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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Source: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to an unstable geologic unit:

PPP 3.7-4 The project is required to comply with the California Building Standards Code and City of Calimesa and Yucaipa Building Codes to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
As noted in Threshold 3.7 (a)(4) above, the Project site has been previously excavated, filled, graded, and leveled and due to its flat gradient and the absence of known landslides within or immediately adjacent to the Project site, the potential for land-sliding at the Project site is low. Liquefaction causes three types of ground failure, including, but not limited to lateral spreading. (CGP, p. 3.6-12.) However, as indicated in Threshold 3.7 (a)(3) above, the Project site is not identified as having high liquefaction susceptibility.

Land subsidence results in a slow-to-rapid downward movement of the ground surface as a result of the vertical displacement of the ground surface, usually resulting from groundwater withdrawal. (CGP, p .3.6-12.) Ground subsidence as a result of groundwater extraction has been documented at several locations in California, including the Bunker Hill-Yucaipa, Chino-Riverside, and Temecula areas. Subsidence in these areas has typically occurred over broad areas, in valleys filled with thick alluvium, where groundwater levels have declined as much as 150 feet over a period of several decades. However, ground subsidence has not been documented in the Calimesa area, partly because most valleys contain unconsolidated, subsidence-prone sediments only at shallow depths. (CGP, p.

61 3.6-12.) Therefore, potential impacts associated with on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

3.7(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Determination: Less than Significant Impact.

Source: City of Calimesa General Plan EIR (CGP EIR), City of Yucaipa General Plan EIR (YGP EIR) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to expansive soils:

PPP 3.7-4 The project is required to comply with the California Building Standards Code and City of Calimesa and Yucaipa Building Codes to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
Expansive soils expand when wet and shrink when dry. The amount or type of clay present in soil determines its shrink-potential. The proposed Project involves improvements to an existing roadway. The soils that occur within the Project that contain clay may be expansive, however compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) and review of grading plans by the Cities’ engineers would ensure no significant impacts would occur (CGP EIR, p. 3.6-8, YGP EIR, p. 5.6-18).

Therefore, potential impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

3.7(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?
Determination: No Impact.

Source: Project Description
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

62 Impact Analysis
The proposed Project involves the construction of roadway and drainage improvements to existing paved road that is currently in use. The Project would not require septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Therefore, potential impacts associated with septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not occur and no mitigation would be required.

3.7(f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Determination: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

Source: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The proposed Project involves the construction of roadway and drainage improvements to an existing paved road that is currently in use. Only the western part of the City of Calimesa has a high potential to produce significant paleontological resources (CGP, p 6-7), which is outside of the Project site. However, the City of Yucaipa identifies the southern area of Yucaipa as a moderate paleontological resources sensitive area (YGP-EIR, Figure 5.5-1). Therefore, potential impacts associated with a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measure MM GEO-1.

Mitigation Measure:

MM GEO 1 If any paleontological resources are exposed during ground excavation disturbance, ground disturbance activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and a qualified paleontological resources specialist will be retained to evaluate the resources. If the find is determined to be significant, avoidance or other appropriate measures as identified by the paleontologist shall be implemented.

Appropriate measures would include that a qualified paleontologist be permitted to recover, evaluate and curate the find(s) in accordance with current standards and guidelines from the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. If specimens are found, the qualified paleontologist shall prepare a report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens and discussion of significance, upon completion of all Project fieldwork. This measure will be added to the project’s construction specifications.

63 3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
∎

3.8(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Source: Annual CalEEMod Output Files, (WEBB-A), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD-B and SCAQMDD) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to greenhouse gas:

PPP 3.3-1 City of Calimesa Policy AQ-2: Promote pedestrian and bicycle circulation in both existing and planned commercial and residential areas.

PPP 3.3-3 City of Calimesa Policy SUS-3: Promote increased physical activity, reduced driving, and increased walking, cycling, and public transit by; encouraging the development of compact development patterns that are pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, and increasing opportunities for active transportation (walking and biking) and transit use.

PPP 3.3-4 City of Calimesa Policy SUS-18: Encourage convenient bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access to new commercial and industrial development.

PPP 3.3-5 City of Calimesa Policy AQ-8: Require use of energy and fuel-efficient equipment and low emission material in City of Calimesa facilities and infrastructure.

PPP 3.3-6 City of Yucaipa Policy S-7.1 – Integrated Planning: Integrate air quality planning with land use, economic development, and transportation-related planning to allow for the control and management of air quality.

PPP 3.3-7 City of Yucaipa Policy S-7.2 – Transportation Sources: Encourage the expansion of transit, buildout of the pedestrian and bicycle route network, support of regional rideshare programs, and other efforts to reduce vehicle miles travelled from Yucaipa and associated vehicle emissions.

64 PPP 3.3-8 City of Yucaipa Policy S-7.6 – Greenhouse Gas Reductions: Reduce communitywide greenhouse gas emissions locally through the implementation of Yucaipa’s Climate Action Plan; actively support regional efforts to reduce greenhouse gases throughout the county.

PPP 3.8-1 City of Calimesa Policy AQ-8: Require use of energy and fuel-efficient equipment and low emission material in City of Calimesa facilities and infrastructure.

PPP 3.8-2 City of Calimesa Policy AQ-18: Support local, regional, and statewide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

PPP 3.8-3 City of Yucaipa Policy T-2.5 – Environmental Concerns: Minimize environmental impacts from the construction, use, and improvement of roadways on air and water quality, heat island effects, noise levels, view sheds, street-level aesthetics, drainage, and stormwater runoff whenever feasible.

PPP 3.8-4 City of Yucaipa Policy T-3.1 – Bicycle Network.: Complete bicycle infrastructure improvement projects that close gaps in the City’s bicycle plan illustrated in Figure T3 and those providing connections to adjacent communities and counties to enhance regional connectivity.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The City of Calimesa adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) on September 2014 to reduce communitywide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2020 and 2035. Through adoption of the City of Calimesa’s CAP they set a community-wide 2020 GHG emissions reduction target of 15 percent below 2010 baseline emission. The City of Yucaipa adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) on September 14, 2015.

The CAPs include a number of measures to be implemented by each City to meet its reduction requirements, which include performance standards for new development. However, the proposed Project is limited to roadway-related improvements at the intersection of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard, which would improve the efficiency of the roadway and would therefore not be in conflict with the City’s CAP.

For CEQA purposes, the City has discretion to select an appropriate significance criterion, based on substantial evidence. The SCAQMD’s recommended draft numerical threshold of 3,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E) per year for non-industrial projects is selected as the significance criterion (SCAQMD-B). Table F – Project Construction Equipment GHG Emissions shows the Project’s estimated construction emissions of 150.12 MTCO2E as well as the annualized construction emissions of 5.00 MTCO2E/year over the course of a 30-year project life period.

Table F – Project Construction Equipment GHG Emissions
Year Metric Tons per year (MT/yr)
Total CO2 Total CH4 Total N2O Total CO2E
2020 149.15 0.04 0.00 150.12
Total 150.12
Annualized emissions over 30 years 5.00
See Appendix G CalEEMod Annual Outputs recreated by WEBB (WEBB-A)

65 Operational emissions would be negligible and result from infrequent operational emissions from maintenance vehicles. Therefore, potential impacts associated with generation of greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

3.8(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Source: Annual CalEEMod Output Files, (WEBB-A)
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to greenhouse gas:

PPP 3.3-1 City of Calimesa Policy AQ-2: Promote pedestrian and bicycle circulation in both existing and planned commercial and residential areas.

PPP 3.3-3 City of Calimesa Policy SUS-3: Promote increased physical activity, reduced driving, and increased walking, cycling, and public transit by; encouraging the development of compact development patterns that are pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, and increasing opportunities for active transportation (walking and biking) and transit use.

PPP 3.3-4 City of Calimesa Policy SUS-18: Encourage convenient bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access to new commercial and industrial development.

PPP 3.3-5 City of Calimesa Policy AQ-8: Require use of energy and fuel-efficient equipment and low emission material in City of Calimesa facilities and infrastructure.

PPP 3.3-6 City of Yucaipa Policy S-7.1 – Integrated Planning: Integrate air quality planning with land use, economic development, and transportation-related planning to allow for the control and management of air quality.

PPP 3.3-7 City of Yucaipa Policy S-7.2 – Transportation Sources: Encourage the expansion of transit, buildout of the pedestrian and bicycle route network, support of regional rideshare programs, and other efforts to reduce vehicle miles travelled from Yucaipa and associated vehicle emissions.

PPP 3.3-8 City of Yucaipa Policy S-7.6 – Greenhouse Gas Reductions: Reduce communitywide greenhouse gas emissions locally through the implementation of Yucaipa’s Climate Action Plan; actively support regional efforts to reduce greenhouse gases throughout the county.

PPP 3.8-1 City of Calimesa Policy AQ-8: Require use of energy and fuel-efficient equipment and low emission material in City of Calimesa facilities and infrastructure.

66 PPP 3.8-2 City of Calimesa Policy AQ-18: Support local, regional, and statewide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

PPP 3.8-3 City of Yucaipa Policy T-2.5 – Environmental Concerns: Minimize environmental impacts from the construction, use, and improvement of roadways on air and water quality, heat island effects, noise levels, view sheds, street-level aesthetics, drainage, and stormwater runoff whenever feasible.

PPP 3.8-4 City of Yucaipa Policy T-3.1 – Bicycle Network: Complete bicycle infrastructure improvement projects that close gaps in the City’s bicycle plan illustrated in Figure T3 and those providing connections to adjacent communities and counties to enhance regional connectivity.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
As discussed in Threshold 3.8 (a) above, the Project’s GHG emissions are below the selected thresholds, and are consistent with the City of Calimesa’s CAP and with the City of Yucaipa CAP.

Therefore, potential impacts associated with conflicting any plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

67 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
█
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
█
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
█
d. Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5, and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
█
e. For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the Project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or
working in the Project area?
█
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
█
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
█

3.9(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Determination: Less than Significant Impact.

Source: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP), CCR 8, CCR 13, CCR 22, CCR 26, CFR, CHSC 6.95 Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in the unlikely event these materials are uncovered shall adhere to the regulations pertaining regulating the handling and transport of these items. The following PPP applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to this issue:

PPP 3.9-1 The Project is subject all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Toxic Substances Control,

68 South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project involves improvements to an existing right of way, vacant land, and portions of existing developed parcels. Construction of the Project will involve the transport of fuels, lubricants, and various other liquids for operation of construction equipment. These materials will be transported to the Project site by equipment service trucks. In addition, workers will commute to the Project site via private and company owned vehicles and will operate construction vehicles and equipment on the Project site. The United States Department of Transportation Office of Hazardous Materials Safety prescribes strict regulations for the safe transport of hazardous materials, as described in Code of Federal Regulations Title 49 (CFR) and implemented by California Code of Regulations Title 13 (CCR 13).

Materials that are hazardous to humans and animals will be present during Project construction including diesel fuel, gasoline, equipment fuels, concrete, lubricant oils, adhesives, human waste, and chemical toilets. The potential exists for direct impacts to human health and the environment from accidental spills of small amounts of hazardous materials during Project construction. However, a variety of federal, state, and local laws govern the transport, generation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes; for instance, appropriate documentation for all hazardous waste that is transported in connection with this Project’s activities will be provided as required for compliance with existing hazardous materials regulations codified in California Code of Regulations Titles 8 (CCR 8), 22 (CCR 22), and 26 (CCR 26), and their enabling legislation set forth in California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 (CHSC 6.95).

Further, hazardous materials are required to be stored in designated areas designed to prevent accidental release to the environment and disposed of according to the rules and regulations of federal and state agencies. In addition, the presence of such hazardous materials will cease upon construction completion and will not be necessary during operation except in the infrequent maintenance or emergency repair-related activities. The Project is required to comply with all applicable laws, and regulations regarding hazardous materials. Therefore, potential impacts associated with routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

3.9(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?
Determination: Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

Sources: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP). ISA (Appendix E), SVSR (Appendix F) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are numerous regulations pertaining to the accidental release of hazardous materials. The following PPP applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to this issue:

69 PPP 3.9-1 The Project is subject all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The following discussion is based on the Initial Site Assessment (ISA), dated April 12, 2016, prepared by LOR Geotechnical Group and the Soil Vapor Survey Report (SVSR), dated November 30, 2020, prepared by Geocon West which are included as Appendix E and F of this Initial Study, respectively.

The ISA was prepared in general accordance with Caltrans ISA guidelines. The ISA generally conforms with the United States Environmental Protection Agency's "Standards and Practice for All Appropriate Inquires (AAI)" set forth in 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 312, and with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 1527-13 "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process". Certain exceptions in this ISA to the AAI standard included: 1) no property appraisals were conducted for the properties to be acquired in conjunction with this project, and 2) no direct interviews of the owners of these properties were conducted.

The purpose of the ISA is to evaluate and identify historical recognized environmental conditions (HREC), recognized environmental conditions (REC), and/or controlled recognized environmental conditions (CREC) that may be associated with the proposed Project site. The ISA included a review of records, historical aerial photographs, city directory information, and a topographic maps search.

Regulatory agency records and environmental database reviews were conducted in connection with the Project site. As part of the ISA, a reconnaissance of the Project site was conducted March 17, 2016.

Additionally, a Tier 1 Vapor Intrusion Study (VIS) was conducted to determine if a vapor intrusion or encroachment condition exists at concentration unacceptable to risk to human health.

The ISA concluded that there was evidence of HRECs within the Project site. The Calimesa Smog and Tires (former Calimesa Sunshine gasoline station) at 905 Calimesa Boulevard; Fastrip gasoline station at 13710 Calimesa Boulevard; Shell gasoline station (former SOCO gasoline station) at 33928 County Line Road; and the Baker's fast food restaurant (former Unocal gasoline station) at 665 West County Line Road. All identified HREC sites have closed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cases and are not anticipated to have significant impact to the Project since the work will involve shallow excavation at or near the periphery of those sites. (ISA, pp. 14, 29-30.) Two sites within the Project site, the Dinosaur Tire and Service (former gasoline station) at 13715 Calimesa Boulevard, and the former Troyce's Automotive Machine Shop at 625 West County Line Road showed evidence of REC.

The Dinosaur Tire and Service site was a former gasoline station, and had USTs, piping, dispensers, hydraulic hoist(s), and/or clarifier(s) present at the property. The USTs were removed under County

70 oversight, but no soil samples were taken. It is unknown whether the USTs, piping, dispensers, hydraulic hoist(s), and/or clarifier(s) may have significantly leaked or otherwise impacted the property. As Such, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is required to geophysically survey the Dinosaur Tire and Service site to identify the location of the former USTs and associated piping and dispensers (see MM HAZ 1). The Phase II ESA shall include a soil and soil vapor survey to ascertain potential sources of contamination in the vicinity of the former USTs, dispensers, piping, in ground hoist(s), and clarifiers that may be currently in use on Dinosaur Tire Service site (13715 Calimesa Boulevard).

The former Troyce's Automotive Machine Shop show former machine shop activities from at least the early 1990s until at least 2013, with prior uses unknown, dating back to the construction of the shop building in the 1950s. A Tier 1 Vapor Intrusion Study (VIS) was conducted as part of ISA and based on those results, and the history of the Project area, Troyce's Automotive Machine Shop would provide a source (fuel-contaminated soil) of vapor for intrusion under or into the Project. (ISA, p 28) Therefore, a soil vapor survey was conducted at Troyce’s Automotive Machine shop site.

An SVSR was prepared in October 2020 for the former Troyce's Automotive Machine Shop site located at 625 West County Line Road to evaluate the potential presence of volatile organic compound (VOC) resulting from the sites’ historic use. Six (6) representative soil vapor samples were collected from within the eastern, northern, and western footprint of the former Troyce's Automotive Machine Shop and were analyzed for VOCs. The analytical results were compared with regulatory screening levels for soil vapor in both residential and commercial/industrial land use scenarios.

Sampling was performed in accordance with California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) protocol. (SVSR, pp.1-2, 6.) Various VOC’s were detected in each of the soil vapor samples analyzed at the former Troyce Automotive Machine shop. Based on the analytical results, benzene and tetrachloroethene (PCE) concentrations in soil vapor beneath the former Troyce's Automotive Machine Shop site have the potential to pose an unacceptable risk to people since the vapor may migrate to indoor air. However, considering that benzene was detected at a concentration greater than the calculated commercial/industrial use DTSC-SL in only one of the six locations tested, and that the planned improvements include developing the Project site as a roadway and open space (not where people will inhabit indoor air that could be contaminated), the soil vapor concentrations present at the Project site are unlikely to present a significant risk for the proposed future use. (SVSR, pp. 4, 6) The last potentially hazardous material issue for the Project is related to aerially deposited lead.

Aerially deposited lead (ADL) is regularly detected in soils adjacent to roadways throughout California. The ADL is associated with the past combustion of leaded fuel and tends to decrease with distance from the roadway and with depth in the soil profile. ADL is considered to be a concern within the Project area at the on- and off-ramps for the 1-10 Freeway. However, ADL along County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard is not considered to be significant due to the development of the properties adjacent to the roadways east of 1-10 and the limited use of the roadway (County Line Road) west of 1-10. However, some soil sampling should be conducted at vacant parcels to verify this assumption. (ISA, pp. 13-14)
Impacts related hazards to people or the environment from the former Troyce site as well as from ADL are considered less than significant and no mitigation is necessary. With the implementation of MM HAZ-1, which requires the City of Calimesa to conduct Phase II ESA for the Dinosaur Tire and Service (former gasoline station) at 13715 Calimesa Boulevard and to remediate as necessary,

71 potential impacts related to the 13715 Calimesa Boulevard affecting the Project would be less than significant.

MM HAZ-1: Prior to ground disturbance, the Project proponent shall have a Phase II ESA prepared for the Dinosaur Tire and Service (former gasoline station) at 13715 Calimesa Boulevard to geophysical survey the site to identify the location of the former USTs and associated piping and dispensers and to conduct an assessment of soil and soil vapor in the vicinity of the former USTs, dispensers, piping, in ground hoist(s), and clarifiers that may be currently in use on the property. Remediation recommended by the Phase II ESA analysis shall be performed to areas impacted by the Project.

Evidence of completion of the remediation recommended in the Phase II ESA and the completed Phase II ESA report shall be submitted to the Cities for review. The completion and remediation for this site shall be reflected in the Project’s construction specifications.

3.9(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Determination: No Impact.

Sources: Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The closest school to the Project site is Mesa View Middle School located at 800 Mustang Way in the City of Calimesa, approximately 0.40 miles from the Project site. Therefore, no potential impacts associated with hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would occur.

3.9(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Determination: Less than Significant Impact.

Sources: Cortese; ISA (appendix E)
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

72 Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project site is not listed on the Hazardous Waste and Substances sites list from the Department of Toxic Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database. Two sites within the Project site are in the list of leaking underground storage tank sites from the State Water Board GeoTracker database. These sites were previously identified as leaking underground storage tank (LUST): the Inland Smog Shop (T0606500379 and T0606500389) located at 905 Calimesa Boulevard Calimesa, and the FastStrip gasoline/fast-food service station (T0607100440) located at 13710 Calimesa Boulevard in Yucaipa.

An investigation for the Inland Smog Shop began in December 1993 (T0606500379) and after remediation, closed in November 2004; the second investigation began in June 1994 (T0606500389) and after remediation, closed in January 1995. An investigation for the FastStrip gasoline/fast-food service station began in March 1997 and after remediation, closed in August 1998. In addition to the two sites, the ISA identified two potential HRECs: the Shell gasoline station (former SOCO gasoline station) at 33928 County Line Road; and the Baker's fast food restaurant (former Unocal gasoline station) at 665 West County Line Road. These sites have also closed LUST cases. (ISA, pp. 14, 29-30.) None of the identified previous LUSTs are anticipated to have significant impact to the Project since the work will involve shallow excavation at or near the periphery of those sites. Therefore, potential impacts associated with hazardous materials sites creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

3.9(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?
Determination: No Impact.

Source: Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Redlands Municipal Airport, City of Calimesa General Plan EIR (CGP EIR), City of Yucaipa, General Plan EIR (YGP EIR)
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
There are no public airports, public use airports, or private airstrips in the City of Calimesa or the City of Yucaipa. The closest airport is the Redlands Municipal Airport, located approximately 7 miles north of the Project Site. Therefore, potential impacts associated with safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project located within an airport land use plan or within

73 two miles of a public airport or public use airport would not occur and no mitigation would be required.

3.9(f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Sources: Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
PPP 3.9-2 The City of Calimesa identified the following evacuation routes: Interstate 10 and California Street for north-south movement of traffic; County Line Road for east-west movement of traffic. Additional streets that can augment the routes include Calimesa Boulevard, 3rd Street and 5th Street for north-south traffic flow, as well as Avenue L and Singleton Road for east-west traffic movement.

PPP 3.9-3 The City of Yucaipa identified the following evacuation routes: Bryant Street, Oak Glen Road, Yucaipa Boulevard, 14th Street, Wildwood Canyon Road, County Line Road, Calimesa Boulevard, and Mesa Grande Drive, all of which are arterials streets.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project would not interfere with the City of Calimesa or the City of Yucaipa’s emergency response or evacuation plans since the Project involves roadway improvements to the County Line/Calimesa Boulevard intersection. Implementation of the Project would ultimately better facilitate the transportation network in the event of an emergency response or evacuation. Temporary construction activities and staging areas will generally be confined to the Project site away from nearby pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Access to local nearby business will be maintained at all times. The traffic control plan that will be submitted with the Project’s design drawings will include an emergency access plan. The roundabout design for the Project also provides adequate access for emergency vehicles. Therefore, potential impacts associated with impairment or interference of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

3.9 (g) Expose people or structures either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Determination: Less than Significant.

Source: Calimesa General Plan, City of Yucaipa General Plan, California Department of Forest and Fire Protection (CAL)

74 Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies or Programs applicable to the project relating to this issue Project Design Features (PDF)
PPP 3.9-2 The City of Calimesa identified the following evacuation routes: Interstate 10 and California Street for north-south movement of traffic; County Line Road for east-west movement of traffic. Additional streets that can augment the routes include Calimesa Boulevard, 3rd Street and 5th Street for north-south traffic flow, as well as Avenue L and Singleton Road for east-west traffic movement.

Impact Analysis
In November 2007, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) adopted Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps for State Responsibility Areas. The currently adopted map identifies the Project site as non-very high fire hazard severity (Non-VHFHS) zone (CAL). Further, as noted in the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa General Plans, the Project is not adjacent to any wildlands or undeveloped hillsides where wildland fires might be expected. The Cities’ General Plans do not designate the Project site to be a risk from wildland fires. As noted in the Project description, the Project involves roadway and drainage improvements. Temporary construction activities will require workers to be present along the Project; however, these workers will not be at significant risk to wildland fires since they will not be confined within structures, as the construction will be conducted outside and mostly in the right of way. Therefore, potential impacts associated with exposing people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

75 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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:
█
1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; █
2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
█
3) 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
█
4) 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?
█

3.10(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Source: Calimesa Municipal Code, Yucaipa Municipal Code, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans in County of San Bernardino Areawide Stormwater Program (SB WQMP), Water Quality Management Plan A Guidance Document for the Santa Ana Region of Riverside County (RIV WQMP), Project description.

Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating water quality and waste discharge requirements.

76 PPP 3.10-1 Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project proponent shall have a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared pursuant to the statewide Construction General Permit by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). Also, a receipt of fees paid with the SWPPP Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) shall be provided to the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa. The SWPPP shall be implemented onsite by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP). Project contractors shall comply with the SWPPP and allow inspection of the construction site by staff from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Cities of Calimesa and/or Yucaipa or their designee(s) to confirm compliance.

PPP 3.10-2 The Project shall comply with Chapter 16.10 of the Calimesa Municipal Code – Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls.

PPP 3.10-3 The Project shall comply with Chapter 13.04 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code – Storm Drain Systems.

Project Design Features (PDF)
The following is incorporated into the Project by the applicant, and would reduce impacts related to water quality and discharge requirements.

PDF 3.10-1 Catch basins will be constructed and tied into the existing drainage system.

Impact Analysis
Construction of the proposed Project may result in the discharge of sediment and other constructionrelated pollutants to surface waters and groundwater. The proposed Project will disturb more than one acre of land, therefore, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required to comply with the statewide Construction General Permit (CGP), Order 2009-0009-DWQ (SWRCB). The SWPPP must be developed by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) and implemented onsite for the duration of the Project by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP). The focus of a construction SWPPP is to minimize soil disturbance, non-stormwater discharges, construction materials, and construction wastes during the construction phase of the Project to prevent discharge of polluted runoff from the construction site. Coverage under the CGP requires submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) and payment of fees and annual reporting to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Staff from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) may inspect the construction site periodically to ensure compliance with the SWPPP.

The proposed Project lies partly within the City of Calimesa and partly within the City of Yucaipa, split between the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, respectively. The City of Calimesa is a co-permittee of the Riverside County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the RWQCB and is bound to comply with all aspects of the permit requirements (RIV WQMP). Likewise, the City of Yucaipa is a co-permittee of the San Bernardino County NPDES (SB WQMP). Both MS4 permits provide “Transportation Project Guidance” (TPG) documents to ensure an analysis is conducted for transportation projects that is functionally equivalent to a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).

Certain transportation projects are required to prepare a TPG to guide the application of Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) to

77 reduce the discharge of pollutants to receiving waters. The Project is subject to these requirements and will prepare a Transportation Project BMP Template.

An existing surface drainage feature, Calimesa Creek, is located close to the Project footprint.

However, as noted in Threshold 3.4 (b) above, this feature will be analyzed and addressed prior to Project construction as part of the Calimesa Creek Storm Drain Project, a separate project being processed by the City. Additionally, the proposed Project will comply with PPP 3.10-1 through PPP

3.10-3, PDF 3.10-1. Therefore, potential impacts associated with water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or surface or ground water quality would be less than significant through compliance with regulatory requirements, and no mitigation would be required.

3.10(b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Source: Project description.

Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The proposed Project consists of roadway improvements to an existing roadway and will not cause in and of itself an increase in the production of groundwater, or cause a significant change to the groundwater recharge potential of the pervious portions of the Project site. Therefore, potential impacts associated with groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge that would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

3.10(c) (1) 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?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Source: Project description.

Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to soil erosion.

78 PPP 3.10-1 Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project proponent shall have a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared pursuant to the statewide Construction General Permit by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). Also, a receipt of fees paid with the SWPPP Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) shall be provided to the City of Calimesa. The SWPPP shall be implemented onsite by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP). Project contractors shall comply with the SWPPP and allow inspection of the construction site by staff from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Cities of Calimesa and/or Yucaipa or their designee(s) to confirm compliance.

PPP 3.10-2 The Project shall comply with Chapter 16.10 of the Calimesa Municipal Code – Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls.

PPP 3.10-3 The Project shall comply with Chapter 13.04 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code – Storm Drain Systems.

Project Design Features (PDF)
The following is incorporated into the Project by the applicant, and would reduce impacts related to soil erosion.

PDF 3.10-1 Catch basins will be constructed and tied into the existing drainage system.

Impact Analysis
The proposed Project consists of one roundabout, pavement widening, curbs, gutters and sidewalks.

The Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern, nor directly impact any existing surface drainage features. The Project will construct curb and gutter that will reduce the amount of sediment coming off adjoining properties and entering the Project site including portions of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard. With implementation of PPP 3.10-2 through PPP 3.10-3 and PDF

3.10-1, potential impacts associated with substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

3.10(c) (2) 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 offsite? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Source: Project description.

Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to flooding.

PPP 3.10-1 Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project proponent shall have a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared pursuant to the statewide Construction General Permit by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). Also, a receipt of fees paid with the SWPPP Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board

79 (SWRCB) shall be provided to the City of Calimesa. The SWPPP shall be implemented onsite by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP). Project contractors shall comply with the SWPPP and allow inspection of the construction site by staff from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Cities of Calimesa and/or Yucaipa or their designee(s) to confirm compliance.

PPP 3.10-2 The Project shall comply with Chapter 16.10 of the Calimesa Municipal Code – Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls.

PPP 3.10-3 The Project shall comply with Chapter 13.04 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code – Storm Drain Systems.

Project Design Features (PDF)
The following is incorporated into the Project by the applicant, and would reduce impacts related to flooding.

PDF 3.10-1 Catch basins will be constructed and tied into the existing drainage system.

Impact Analysis
The proposed Project consists of one roundabout, pavement widening, curbs, gutters and sidewalks.

The additional impervious area created by the Project will be negligible and would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern. Additional, drainage improvements would be consistent with the Cities’ Master Drainage Plans (MDPs). Therefore, potential impacts associated with substantially increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.