Agenda, first session — Calimesa City Council, August 7, 2023 (part 1 of 3)

Calimesa Boulevard
Realignment Project
Addendum No. 1 to the
City of Calimesa General Plan Update 2013
Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2013021033
April 2023 | 02939.00008.001
Prepared for:

City of Calimesa
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
This page intentionally left blank
i
Table of Contents
Section Page

1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1

2.0 Background ......................................................................................................................................1

3.0 Proposed Project Modifications ......................................................................................................1

4.0 Purpose of the Addendum...............................................................................................................4

5.0 Environmental Analysis....................................................................................................................5 Aesthetics and Visual Resources......................................................................................................7 Transportation/Traffic .....................................................................................................................8 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................11 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................................15 Cultural and Paleontological Resources ........................................................................................19 Geology/Soils.................................................................................................................................22 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases........................................................................................23 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................................................25 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................26 Land Use and Agricultural Resources ............................................................................................28 Public Services and Utilities...........................................................................................................29 Noise ..............................................................................................................................................30 Population and Housing.................................................................................................................32 Growth Inducing Impacts...............................................................................................................33

6.0 Determination................................................................................................................................34

7.0 References .....................................................................................................................................35 ii
Table of Contents (continued)

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
A Vehicle Miles Traveled Memo
B Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
C Biological Resources Letter Report
D Cultural Resources Survey
E Paleontological Resource Assessment
F Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
G Noise Analysis

LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Follows Page
1 Regional Location............................................................................................................................. 2 2 USGS Topography ............................................................................................................................ 2 3 Aerial Photograph............................................................................................................................ 2 4 2014 General Plan Update Circulation Map .................................................................................... 2 5 Proposed Alignment ........................................................................................................................ 2

LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 General Plan Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions (2035 Projected Growth)..................... 11 2 General Plan Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions (Theoretical Buildout).......................... 13 3 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions........................................................................................ 14 4 Maximum Localized Daily Construction Emissions........................................................................ 14 5 General Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................... 23 6 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................................................... 24 7 Noise Level Comparison................................................................................................................. 31 iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
CAP Climate Action Plan
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFG California Fish and Game
City City of Calimesa
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRMP Cultural Resources Management Plan
dBA A-weighted decibel
EIC Eastern Information Center
EIR environmental impact report
GHG greenhouse gas
I-10 Interstate 10
LDMF Local Development Mitigation Fee
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Morongo Morongo Band of Mission Indians
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
MT metric tons
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSLU noise sensitive land use
OPR Office of Planning and Research
REC recognized environmental condition
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued)
SCH State Clearinghouse
SKR Stephens’ kangaroo rat
SLF Sacred Lands File
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments
General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is an Addendum under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to the City of Calimesa General Plan Update 2013 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2013021033). The EIR disclosed potential impacts associated with implementation of the City of Calimesa 2014 General Plan (General Plan Update) and was certified by the Calimesa City Council in 2014 (City 2014a). This Addendum (Addendum No. 1) to the certified EIR describes a proposed amendment to the General Plan Update EIR addressing an approximately 21-acre portion of the City of Calimesa (City), herein referred to as the Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project (Project) and compares the environmental impacts of the Project to the environmental impacts disclosed in the previously certified General Plan Update EIR. The Addendum ultimately supports the conclusion that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and that none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 will occur. As detailed herein, the Project will not result in new or increased significant impacts that were not already disclosed and fully analyzed in the previously certified EIR.

2.0 BACKGROUND
The City is located in the western portion of Riverside County, California, just south of the county line border with San Bernardino County, in a region of California known as the Inland Empire (Figure 1, Regional Location). The Project study area is located within Township 2 South, Range 2 West, Section 24 on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) El Casco 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Figure 2, USGS Topography). Specifically, the project site is bound by Monty's Montessori Academy and agricultural land to the east, Calimesa Boulevard to the north and south, and Interstate 10 (I-10) to the west (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph).

The General Plan Update replaced the original City General Plan, which was adopted in 1994 (City 2014b). The General Plan Update EIR addressed a planning area that included all land within the City’s incorporated boundaries. The planning area included approximately 9,533 acres and is bounded by the San Bernardino/Riverside county line and Yucaipa to the north, the San Bernardino Mountains and Crafton Hills to the west, and the San Bernardino Mountains and San Timoteo Badlands to the east and south, respectively.

The General Plan Update was built off the goals and vision developed through public outreach and the visioning process embarked upon by the City to ensure that the public and project stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide meaningful input and guidance for the General Plan Update effort.

3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
At the time the General Plan Update was prepared, the Transportation and Mobility Chapter classified Calimesa Boulevard as a 4-lane major arterial and proposed it as a 4- to 6-lane major arterial within its existing alignment. Within the Project study area, Singleton Road was classified as a 2-lane major arterial and proposed as a 4- to 6-lane major arterial within its existing alignment (General Plan Update EIR Figure 2.0-3 reproduced in the Addendum as Figure 4, 2014 General Plan Update Circulation Map). The proposed modifications included as part of the proposed Project include realigning an approximately

0.6-mile portion of Calimesa Boulevard such that the intersection of Calimesa Boulevard and Singleton General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
2 Road would be located approximately 300 feet to the east of its existing location, and approximately 400 feet from the I-10 westbound ramps (Figure 5, Proposed Alignment). Calimesa Boulevard and Singleton Road would remain classified as a 4- to 6-lane major arterials as identified in the General Plan Update, and each would be widened to approximately 75 feet. Singleton Road would remain in its current alignment and would be widened for a length of approximately 700 feet. The total graded area for the Project would be approximately 9 acres. The site would require an export of about 60,000 cubic yards; however, it is intended that the soil export from the proposed Project be used at the Oak Valley Town Center project site just across I-10 to the west.

3.1 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
The following design features are incorporated in the Project to avoid sensitive resources in the Project area:
• If construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) must occur during the general bird nesting season for migratory songbirds (March 15 through August 31) and raptors (January 15 through August 31), a qualified biologist will perform a pre-construction survey of potential nesting habitat to confirm the absence of active nests belonging to migratory birds and raptors afforded protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; Federal Register Document 05- 5127) and California Fish and Game (CFG) Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513). The preconstruction survey will be performed no more than seven days prior to the commencement of construction activities. If construction is inactive for more than seven days, an additional survey will be conducted. The qualified biologist will document the results of the pre-construction survey.

If the qualified biologist determines that no active migratory bird or raptor nests occur, the activities will be allowed to proceed without any further requirements. If the qualified biologist determines that an active migratory bird or raptor nest is present, no impacts within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the active nest will occur until the young have fledged the nest and the nest is confirmed to no longer be active, or as determined by the qualified biologist. The biological monitor may modify the buffer or propose other recommendations to minimize disturbance to nesting birds.
• Due to the presence of potentially suitable burrowing owl habitat, a 30-day pre-construction survey for burrowing owls is required prior to initial ground-disturbing activities (including vegetation clearing, clearing, and grubbing, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging, grading, etc.) to help ensure no burrowing owls have colonized the Project site in the days or weeks preceding the ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls have colonized the Project site prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the Project proponent will immediately inform the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and will need to coordinate further with CDFW, including the possibility of preparing a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. If ground-disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre-construction survey will again be necessary to help ensure burrowing owl has not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If burrowing owl is found, the same coordination described above will be necessary. ! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!!
!!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!!!
! !! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!"^$
!"`$
!"`$
!"`$
!"`$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
å?
ø?
?a
?z
?z ?¡
?¡
?¥
?± ?±
?±
?±
?±
?³
?¹
?¹
?¹
?¹
?¿
?¿
?Æ
?Æ
AÙ
AÙ
Añ
A¨
%&h(
%&h(
%&h(
AÎ
AÐ
AÔ
Añ

SAN BERNARDINO

RIVERSIDE

IMPERIAL

RIVERSIDE

SAN DIEGO

RIVERSIDE ORANGE

IMPERIAL
SAN
DIEGO

SAN DIEG
OR
O
ANGE

SAN JACINTO RIVER

WHITEWATER RIVER
Big Bear Lake
Mesquite Lake
Coyote
Lake
Perris
Reservoir Lake Mathews
Lake Elsinore
Skinner
Reservoir
Salton Sea
Clark Lake
Diamond
Valley Lake
Project
Location
Laguna Niguel
Rancho Santa
Margarita
Mission Viejo
Lake Forest
Irvine
Anaheim
Yorba Linda
Temecula
Murrieta
Coachella
Lake
Elsinore
Menifee
Hemet Palm Desert
Indio
San
Jacinto Perris
Corona
Cathedral
City
Chino
Hills
Palm Springs
Moreno Valley
Riverside
Ontario
Eastvale
Yucaipa
Colton Redlands
Upland Fontana Rialto
Chino
Rancho
Cucamonga
San
Bernardino
Highland
Jurupa Valley
San Clemente
San
Jacinto
Reservoir
Lake Gregory
Lee Lake
Poorman
Reservoir
Canyon Lake
Lake Hemet
Lake Cahuilla
Vail Lake
O'Neill Lake
Yucaipa Lake
Prado
Park
Lake
0 10 Miles
Figure 1
Regional Location
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\Addendum\Addend.aprx Fig1_Regional : 02939.8.1 : 11/30/2022 - SAB Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013)
K
Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project
Project
Location
0 2,000 Feet
K
Figure 2
USGS Topography
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\Addendum\Addend.aprx Fig2_USGS : 02939.8.1 : 11/30/2022 - SAB Source: EL CASCO 7.5' Quad (USGS)
Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project

SINGLETON RD

CALIMESA BLVD
§¨¦10
0 350 Feet K
Figure 3
Aerial Photograph
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\Addendum\Addend.aprx Fig3_AerialLtr : 02939.8.1 : 11/30/2022 - SAB Source: Aerial (Nearmap, 2022)
Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project
Project Boundary
Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\Addendum\Fig4_GPUCirc.indd 02939.8.1 4/5/2023 - SAB 2014 General Plan Update Circulation Map
Figure 4
!"`$

BECKWITH AVE

AVENUE L

CALIMESA BLVD

COUNTY LINE RD
5TH ST

SINGLETON RD
7TH ST
MYRTLEWOOD DR 2ND ST 3RD ST
4TH ST
7TH PL

CALIFORNIA ST

FREMONT ST

CHERRY VALLEY BLVD

DOUGLAS ST

SANDALWOOD DR

COUNTY LINE RD

CALIMESA
BLVD

BRYANT ST
Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, 2013; Riverside County, 2013; City of Calimesa, 2013 Legend
City Limit
General Plan Planning Area
Roadway Classification
Existing Freeway/Interstate
Major Arterial
Secondary Arterial
Collector
Residential Collector
Minor Road
1,500 0 1,500
FEET ´
San Bernardino County
Figure 2.0-3
Circulation

PROJECT

LOCATION

SINGLETON RD

CALIMESA BLVD
§¨¦10
0 350 Feet K
Figure 5
Proposed Alignment
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\Addendum\Addend.aprx Fig5_Alignment : 02939.8.1 : 11/30/2022 - SAB Source: Aerial (Nearmap, 2022)
Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project
Project Boundary
Plan Lines
General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
3 • A Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) will be developed by the archaeological consultant in consultation with the Consulting Tribes for the Oak Valley Town Center Project (the Morongo Band of Mission Indians [Morongo], the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians), City staff, and the applicant/developer. An archaeologist and Native American monitor(s) from one or more of the Consulting Tribes will attend a pre-grade meeting with the contractor to explain the cultural sensitivity of the area and the requirements of the CRMP; archaeological and Native American monitors will be present for all ground-disturbing activity within potentially cultural soils, including brushing/grubbing, grading, excavation, etc. If cultural material is encountered, both archaeological and Native American monitors will have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities while the find is assessed and appropriate avoidance, treatment, or mitigation measures are developed and implemented. • A Project Paleontologist will be hired to develop and oversee the implementation of a Paleontological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan tailored to the final Project plans (when they are available) that provides for paleontological monitoring of earthwork and ground disturbing activities into undisturbed geologic units with high paleontological potential, whether at the surface or in the subsurface, to be conducted by a paleontological monitor meeting industry standards (Survey of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010 or Murphey et al. 2019). Monitoring recommendations may include but are not limited to the following:
o Paleontological spot checks will be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor for initial ground disturbance between 3 feet and 5 feet in depth in portions of the Project area mapped as very young wash deposits (abbreviated as Qvywm and Qvyw2 by Matti et al. [2015]) and young axial valley deposits (abbreviated as Qya5 by Matti et al. [2015]).

Should sediments with high paleontological potential be identified during spot checks, full time monitoring will be implemented.
o Full time paleontological monitoring will be implemented once excavations reach 5 feet in depth in areas mapped as very young wash deposits (abbreviated as Qvywm and Qvyw2 by Matti et al. [2015]) and young axial valley deposits (abbreviated as Qya5 by Matti et al. [2015]).
o Full time paleontological monitoring will be conducted for all ground disturbance into previously undisturbed areas mapped as very old alluvial fan deposits (abbreviated as Qvof3 by Matti et al. [2015]).
o The Project Paleontologist may reduce the frequency of monitoring or spot checks should subsurface conditions indicate low paleontological potential. • The Project Paleontologist will develop a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training that communicates requirements and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources during construction, to be delivered by the paleontological monitor to the construction crew prior to the onset of ground disturbance. • In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction activities, all work must stop within 50 feet of the finds while the paleontological monitor documents the find. The Project Paleontologist would assess the find. Should the Project Paleontologist assess General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
4 the find as significant, the find would be collected and curated in an accredited repository along with all necessary associated data and curation fees. Construction would not resume within the 50-foot radius of the finds until authorized by the Project Paleontologist. • Soil sampling and analysis to address environmental concerns related to past irrigated farming use, aerially deposited lead, and a soil stockpile will occur prior to Project construction.

Treatment recommendations resulting from the soil analysis, if applicable, will be incorporated into project plans and will be implemented by the construction contractor.

4.0 PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM
As outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), an Addendum to a previously certified EIR shall be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.

A subsequent or supplemental EIR must be prepared if one of the following conditions has been met (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)):
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR; B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

If none of these circumstances are present, and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to update the previously certified EIR, an Addendum shall be prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. This Addendum has been prepared by the City because the construction and operation of the proposed Project is consistent with the overall project evaluated in the EIR and does General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
5 not require major revisions to the EIR due to new significant impacts or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. The anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed roadway modifications, as explained in detail in the following analysis, have been analyzed and mitigated accordingly in the EIR.

In the time since the General Plan Update EIR was certified in 2014, portions of the City have been developed, and development has continued in the surrounding area. Such development was, however, anticipated in the General Plan Update EIR. There have been no substantial, unanticipated changes in the surrounding area since certification of the EIR that would result in previously unanticipated significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts.

There is no new information of substantial importance indicating that new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts would occur. As evaluated in the supporting analysis of this Addendum, the mitigation measure that was previously identified in the General Plan Update EIR is not applicable to the proposed Project. No other mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce previously identified significant effects on the environment have been identified or determined to be feasible. As documented throughout this Addendum and associated technical studies, no new or increased significant impacts would result from the proposed modifications.

Specifically, incorporation of the noted project design features would ensure that new significant impacts do not result from the realignment of Calimesa Boulevard.

Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), an Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached to the EIR. Prior to its consideration of the proposed Project, the City will review and consider this Addendum together with the previously certified EIR and other relevant documents in the administrative record.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Documents containing the environmental analysis supporting the City’s action in approving the proposed Project include the 2014 EIR, associated technical studies and other documents, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), City staff reports, resolutions and ordinances, this Addendum No. 1, and additional supporting documentation for this Addendum, including a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) memo (Attachment A), Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment (Attachment B), Biological Resources Letter Report (Attachment C), Cultural Resources Survey (Attachment D), Paleontological Analysis (Attachment E), Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Attachment F), and Noise Analysis (Attachment G).

This Addendum analyzes the environmental issue areas that were addressed in detail in the General Plan Update EIR, and discusses whether the proposed minor modifications proposed by the Project described above would trigger criteria identified in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, in each of these areas:
• Aesthetics/Visual Resources
• Transportation/Traffic
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural and Paleontological Resources
General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
6 • Geology/Soils
• Climate Change/Greenhouse Gases
• Hazards/Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology/Water Quality
• Land Use and Agricultural Resources
• Public Services/Utilities
• Noise
• Population and Housing
The environmental topics of agricultural resources, mineral resources, and recreation were determined through the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation process to not have the potential to result in significant environmental impacts, and therefore no further environmental analysis was required in the EIR. The Project’s proposed modifications would not alter these conclusions, and impacts relating to all those topic areas would remain less than significant, as explained in the Effects Found Not to be Significant section below.

While at the time of EIR preparation, the explicit topics of forestry resources, energy, Tribal cultural resources, and wildfire were not separately included in the CEQA Appendix G Checklist of topics to address, all of those topics were generally known to the public, and the information necessary to analyze the General Plan Update EIR project impacts with respect to all those categories was disclosed in the EIR. Further, as demonstrated by the analysis herein, the Project’s proposed modifications would not result in new or increased significant impacts, including impacts related to the foregoing categories, when compared to the project analyzed by the General Plan Update EIR. No forestry resources are located within the Project area and no new or increased impacts related to forestry resources would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. The efficiency of construction equipment and vehicles is increased over time as regulations become more stringent and require more efficient engines.

Therefore, the Project’s energy consumption would be reduced relative to energy consumption that would have been anticipated for roadway construction and operation at the time the General Plan Update EIR was certified. Considering a similar area to the planned alignment would be graded, potential Project Tribal cultural resource impacts would be similar to the General Plan Update EIR.

Wildfire impacts would also be similar considering development would occur at a nearby location and would comply with applicable infrastructure standards. The City also continues to maintain fire protection services.

For each environmental issue area addressed, this Addendum provides a comparative analysis of the impacts identified in the General Plan Update EIR versus the potential impacts posed by the Project. The analysis includes a determination regarding the occurrence of new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts. Finally, an analysis is presented to determine whether there are changed circumstances or new information relative to the proposed modifications for the Project that would result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. For each environmental issue area, the following are provided to conduct this comparative analysis:

1. Summary of EIR Analysis

2. Analysis of the Proposed Modifications

3. Changes in Circumstances/New Information

4. Conclusion
General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
7 The following environmental analysis supports the City’s determination that approval and implementation of the Project would not result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously disclosed impacts covered under the General Plan Update EIR and related MMRP. The analysis contained in this Addendum No. 1 demonstrates that the additional modifications proposed by the Project result in environmental impacts that are similar to those analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR. This environmental analysis considered the mitigation measure outlined in the EIR and MMRP, which were found not to be applicable to the Project and will not be imposed on the Project by the City. The following presents the environmental analysis of impacts associated with the modifications to the originally approved project proposed by this Project.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Summary of EIR Analysis
Aesthetic impacts are analyzed in the EIR, Section 3.1, pages 3.1-1 through 3.1-13. The EIR concluded that the General Plan Update had the potential to result in significant visual impacts. The analysis in the EIR states that no state scenic highways would be impacted, visual character of the City would not be substantially degraded, and new sources of light and glare would not significantly impact the area.

However, the EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan could result in significant and unavoidable impacts to scenic vistas due to future development. Development in the City is subject to design standards in the Municipal Code as well as General Plan Policies in the Land Use Element and Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element that would reduce potential impacts to scenic vistas. No mitigation measures were available to further reduce impacts to scenic vistas, thereby resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Overall development within the City and surrounding areas was anticipated to result in alterations to visual character, scenic vistas, and increases to light and glare; however, given the City’s regulatory framework, cumulative impacts related to aesthetics were considered less than cumulatively considerable.

Analysis of the Project’s Proposed Modifications
The proposed modifications to the alignment of Calimesa Boulevard would result in similar aesthetic impacts as analyzed in the EIR. As was the case in the EIR, the proposed Project would not result in impacts to state scenic highways. The realignment of Calimesa Boulevard would not result in changes to the visual character of the City compared to those analyzed in the previous EIR. No new impacts related to light or glare would occur with the realignment of Calimesa Boulevard and compliance with City regulations related to lighting would ensure these impacts remain less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to scenic vistas since it only involves the realignment of an existing roadway outside of notable visual units identified in the General Plan Update. The visual character of the Project vicinity would not be substantially altered by the proposed modifications and impacts to aesthetic and visual resources would remain less than cumulatively considerable. No new significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation would be required.

Changes in Circumstances/New Information
In the time since the EIR was certified, portions of the General Plan Update planning area have been developed, and development has continued in the surrounding area. Such development was, however, anticipated in the EIR. There have been no substantial, unanticipated, changes in the visual environment since certification of the EIR. There is also no new information of substantial importance, including information regarding mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce one or more General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
8 significant effects of the Project. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to aesthetics and visual resources have been identified.

Conclusion
Based on the above, no new significant aesthetic impacts or substantial increases in previously identified aesthetic impacts analyzed and disclosed in the previously certified EIR would occur as a result of the Project’s proposed modifications. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding aesthetic and visual resources which was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was adopted has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and an Addendum is appropriate pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

Transportation/Traffic
Summary of EIR Analysis
Analysis of impacts related to transportation and traffic is contained in the EIR, Section 3.2, pages 3.2-1 through 3.2-25. Figure TM-1 of the General Plan Update Transportation and Mobility Chapter (Figure

2.0-3 of the EIR; reproduced as Figure 4 in this Addendum) identified an ultimate roadway network for the City, which would necessitate improvement to the existing roadway network. The anticipated environmental effects of these circulation improvements were programmatically considered in the General Plan Update EIR based on available environmental documentation, field review at a reconnaissance level, and review of aerial photography. The anticipated environmental effects are listed below. The General Plan Update EIR stated that subsequent site-specific environmental review of circulation improvements would be conducted once the improvements have been designed and exact alignments have been established.

For the purposes of the analysis for traffic and circulation impacts for the General Plan Update EIR, a quantitative transportation/traffic impact analysis was conducted for the “analysis scenarios,” or the growth that could occur by the year 2035. This development scenario was based on expected buildout conditions within the Planning Area, as proposed by the General Plan Update, and anticipated development conditions in Riverside County by the year 2035. This analysis incorporated the roadway system identified in the proposed General Plan (Figure 4 in this Addendum) as being implemented by the year 2035. The EIR concluded that without the improvements to the existing roadway network shown in Figure 2.0-3 (Figure 4 in this Addendum), the General Plan Update could result in significant direct and cumulative impacts. Implementation of the proposed General Plan with the roadway network improvements shown on Figure 2.0-3 would result in acceptable traffic operations on City roadway facilities. Implementation of the General Plan Update would contribute to an increase in traffic volumes on state facilities that would operate below Caltrans level of service thresholds under year 2035 conditions. This would be a significant direct and cumulative impact.

Implementation of the General Plan Update would not conflict with the Riverside County Congestion Management Plan. This is considered a less than significant impact due to policy provisions of the proposed General Plan.

General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
9 The implementation of the General Plan Update would increase the amount of vehicle traffic, which would require improvement and expansion of the City’s roadway system. However, new and upgraded roadways would be designed according to applicable federal, state, and local design-appropriate standards. The General Plan Update does not contain provisions that would exacerbate a hazardous situation associated with roadway hazards. Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in an increase in traffic volumes, which could increase the potential for safety conflicts as well as potential conflicts with emergency access. However, implementation of the General Plan Update would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in an increase in demand for public transit services in the City. However, implementation of General Plan Update policy provisions would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation or increase demand for transit facilities greater than planned capacity. This is considered a less than significant impact.

Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in an increase in the demand for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. However, implementation of General Plan Update would not result in adverse effects to existing bikeways or pedestrian facilities that would discourage their use or result in safety issues.

In summary, with implementation of the circulation improvements shown in Figure 2.0-3 in the General Plan Update EIR (Figure 4 in this Addendum) and implementation of the policies outlined in the Transportation and Mobility Chapter for the General Plan Update, the EIR determined that impacts to transportation and traffic would be less than significant.

Analysis of the Project’s Proposed Modifications
The capacity of both Calimesa Boulevard and Singleton Road would remain consistent with their General Plan designations, which were identified to accommodate planned increases in population in the City.

The anticipated increases in vehicle traffic under the General Plan would remain unchanged under the proposed alignment modification, as no population increases or new capacity increases are proposed.

Therefore, no change to the City’s cumulatively significant contribution to regional traffic volumes would result from the proposed modifications. The Project would also be constructed in accordance with City roadway standards and would not implement design features that would result in safety conflicts or impair emergency access. No changes to public transit services would occur; however, the Project would provide pedestrian elements where none currently exist along the Project roadways. Therefore, impacts related to transportation and traffic would remain less than significant and no further mitigation is required.

Changes in Circumstances/New Information
California Senate Bill (SB) 743 resulted in replacement of the level of service metric previously used for transportation impact analysis with a new metric, known as VMT, effective July 1, 2020. Reflecting this requirement, the City adopted VMT thresholds of significance on June 15, 2020 pursuant to Resolution No. 2020-22. In the SB 743 Frequently Asked Questions portion of its website, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which is responsible for drafting CEQA Guidelines states, “[i]n reviewing the applicability of these conditions, an agency may use its discretion to determine that a VMT analysis is not required for later-prepared documents. (See, e.g., CREED v. San Diego [2011] 196 Cal.App.4th 515; General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
10 Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin [2013] 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320.)” The exercise of discretion is subject to the analysis required under Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. The cases referenced by OPR in its response to comments address the addition of specific impact categories related to GHG emissions to the State CEQA Guidelines in the interim period between certification of an EIR and subsequent environmental review of a project, which is analogous to the recent change to the traffic analysis guidelines to require VMT analysis. In both cases, the courts determined that even though GHGs were not specifically analyzed in the prior environmental documentation, new information or standards regarding GHGs did not constitute “new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was adopted.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 defines VMT as “the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” This type of information was available at the time the General Plan Update EIR was certified in 2014. It is a metric that has long been the subject of research regarding transportation patterns and their associated effects. Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Proposed Updates to the CEQA Guidelines issued by OPR in 2017 stated, “Vehicle miles traveled is already used in CEQA to study other potential impacts such as greenhouse gas, air quality, and energy impacts and is used in planning for regional sustainable communities strategies. Therefore, the proposal is not adding a new CEQA requirement; instead, it suggests replacing level of service with a metric that is already widely used in CEQA.” Thus, while VMT represents an updated metric for the analysis of transportation impacts under CEQA, and the specific methods for its measurement and evaluation have been updated and become more sophisticated, it is not a new concept.

A VMT Analysis was prepared for the proposed modifications (Attachment A). OPR technical guidance indicates that the addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets, provided a project also substantially improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit, is not typically anticipated to generate a substantial increase in VMT. Therefore, projects meeting this criterion are not required by the City to perform detailed VMT analysis. The Project does not propose an increase in roadway capacity compared to the General Plan and would provide new pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure. The Project also does not propose land uses that would generate trips. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to result in significant VMT impacts.

Information regarding VMT could have been known with reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified, as air quality modeling considered the additional trips and distances that would result from planned General Plan growth. Therefore, it does not comprise “new information of substantial importance” under CEQA. Additionally, no other new information of substantial importance regarding transportation and traffic has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance that would result in increased impacts relative to transportation and traffic have been identified.

Conclusion
None of the Project’s proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts in the previously certified EIR related to transportation and traffic.

Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding transportation and traffic which was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
11 a subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and an Addendum is appropriate pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

Air Quality
Summary of EIR Analysis
Analysis of impacts related to air quality are contained in the EIR, Section 3.3, pages 3.3-1 through

3.3-26. Potential impacts were identified for subsequent land use activities relative to construction and operation, and cumulative conditions. Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of General Plan Update would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. The General Plan Update also includes several policy provisions that would further assist in air quality attainment efforts.

Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan could result in short-term construction emissions and long-term operations emissions that could violate or substantially contribute to a violation of federal and state standards for ozone and coarse and fine particulate matter. Table 1, General Plan Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions (2035 Projected Growth), provides the emissions that were anticipated to result from the General Plan Update. These impacts were considered significant and unavoidable.

Table 1
GENERAL PLAN CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND PRECURSOR EMISSIONS (2035 PROJECTED GROWTH) Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Calimesa Projected Growth Conditions (Summer) – Pounds per Day Area Sources 959 34 2,425 5 312 312
Energy Sources 7 63 33 0 5 5
Mobile Sources 715 2,329 5,391 19 1,907 107
Total 1,681 2,426 7,850 24 2,224 424
SCAQMD Potentially Significant Impact Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Calimesa Projected Growth Conditions (Winter) – Pounds per Day Area Sources 959 34 2,426 5 312 312
Energy Sources 7 63 33 0 5 5
Mobile Sources 679 2,264 5,472 17 1,908 109
Total 1,646 2,362 7,930 22 2,225 426
SCAQMD Potentially Significant Impact Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Calimesa Projected Growth Conditions (Annual) – Tons Per Year1 Area Sources 81 1.5 126 0 6 6
Energy Sources 1 11.5 6 0 1 1
Mobile Sources 91 315 765 3 252 15
Total 173 328 897 3 259 22
Source: City 2014a 1 SCAQMD does not employ annual significance thresholds. Projected annual emissions in tons per year were provided for purposes of disclosure only.

ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
12 Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in population and employment that would increase traffic volumes on area roadways. This could result in elevated carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from motor vehicle congestion that could expose sensitive receptors to elevated CO concentrations. However, traffic volumes would not be large enough to generate excessive CO emission levels and impacts were considered less than significant.

Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of the General Plan Update could result in projects that would include sources of toxic air contaminants which could affect surrounding land uses. Subsequent land use activities could also place sensitive land uses near existing sources of toxic air contaminants. These factors could result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations such as toxic air contaminants. However, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and state regulations would address exposure to toxic air contaminants. Therefore, these impacts were considered less than significant.

Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan could include sources that could create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people or expose new residents to existing sources of odor. However, continued implementation of current SCAQMD rules and regulations as well as General Plan Update provisions would address this issue and impacts were considered less than significant.

Implementation of the General Plan Update, in combination with cumulative development in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ozone and coarse and fine particulate matter. Table 2, General Plan Criteria Pollutant And Precursor Emissions (Theoretical Buildout), provides the cumulative emissions anticipated as a result of the General Plan Update and other development in the SCAB region.

General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
13 Table 2

GENERAL PLAN CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND PRECURSOR EMISSIONS (THEORETICAL BUILDOUT) Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Calimesa Theoretical Buildout Conditions (Summer) – Pounds per Day Area Sources 2,682 96 6,850 13 882 882
Energy Sources 20 176 91 1 14 14
Mobile Sources 2,230 7,100 17,453 63 6,407 357
Total 4,932 7,372 24,394 77 7,303 1,253
SCAQMD Potentially Significant Impact Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Calimesa Theoretical Buildout Conditions (Winter) – Pounds per Day Area Sources 2,682 97 6,850 13 882 882
Energy Sources 20 176 91 1 14 14
Mobile Sources 2,132 6,937 17,440 56 6,408 359
Total 4,834 7,210 24,381 70 7,304 1,255
SCAQMD Potentially Significant Impact Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Calimesa Theoretical Buildout Conditions (Annual) – Tons Per Year1 Area Sources 223 4 355 0 18 18
Energy Sources 4 32 17 0 3 3
Mobile Sources 977 939 2,380 8 815 50
Total 504 975 2,752 8 836 71
Source: City 2014a
1 SCAQMD does not employ annual significance thresholds. Projected annual emissions in tons per year were provided for purposes of disclosure only.

ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
Analysis of the Project’s Proposed Modifications
An air quality and GHG emissions letter report (Attachment B) was prepared to evaluate the proposed modifications associated with realignment of Calimesa Boulevard. Construction emissions were modeled for the Project using the Roadway Construction Emissions Model and the results are shown in Table 3, Construction Period Emissions Summary. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with the SCAQMD thresholds.

General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
14 Table 3

MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Phase ROG
(lbs/day)
NOX
(lbs/day)
CO
(lbs/day)
SO2
(lbs/day)
PM10
(lbs/day)
PM2.5
(lbs/day)
Site Preparation/Land Clearing 0.8 14.4 7.5 0.1 7.1 1.8 Grading/Excavation 4.2 49.0 39.0 0.1 8.6 3.1
Underground Drainage/Utilities 3.6 42.2 33.8 0.1 8.3 2.8 Paving 1.3 13.8 17.4 <0.1 0.7 0.6
Maximum Daily Emissions 4.2 49.0 39.0 0.1 8.6 3.1
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: Attachment B
lbs/day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of

2.5 microns or less; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District As shown in Table 3, construction of the Project would not exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, on-site emissions would be below the localized significance thresholds applicable to the Project’s location in relation to sensitive receptors, as shown in Table 4, Maximum Localized Daily Construction Emissions. Therefore, the proposed Project modifications would not result in a new or increased significant impact related to air pollutant emissions during the construction period.

Table 4

MAXIMUM LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Phase NOX
(lbs/day)
CO
(lbs/day)
PM10
(lbs/day)
PM2.5
(lbs/day)
Site Preparation/Land Clearing 8.0 6.1 6.9 1.7
Grading/Excavation 41.3 36.3 8.3 2.9
Underground Drainage/Utilities 34.6 31.4 8.0 2.7
Paving 12.5 16.1 0.6 0.6
Maximum Daily Emissions 41.3 36.3 8.3 2.9
SCAQMD LST 371 1,965 13 8
Significant Impact? No No No No
Source: Attachment B
lbs/day = pounds per day; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; LST = Localized Significance Threshold As discussed above in relation to transportation impacts, the Project is considered to have a less than significant impact related to VMT. A roadway construction project would typically result in new operational emissions if it increases VMT. As the Project would not increase roadway capacity beyond that identified in the General Plan and would not result in other alterations that would increase trip distances, the Project would not result in new operational pollutant emissions. As was the case in the EIR, traffic on the roadways constructed by the Project would not be of a large enough volume to generate excessive CO levels or hotspots and impacts would be less than significant.

General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
15 Odors related to vehicle exhaust are already prevalent in the Project area due to its proximity to I-10.

Consistent with the EIR, the Project would be subject to SCAQMD rules. The Project would not result in new significant impacts related to odors, either during construction or operation of the Project.

In summary, the pollutant emissions generated by Project construction would be below the applicable thresholds and no new operational activities are proposed. Therefore, the Project’s pollutant emissions would not be cumulatively considerable impacts. All impacts related to air quality would be consistent with or reduced from the findings of the General Plan EIR. No new significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation would be required.

Changes in Circumstances/New Information
There are no changes with respect to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available relative to air quality.

Therefore, no changes in air quality impacts have been identified.

Conclusion
Based on the above, no new significant air quality impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts disclosed and analyzed in the previously certified EIR would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. All of the Project’s impacts on air quality would be substantially similar (or reduced) when compared to those impacts disclosed and analyzed in the EIR. There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding air quality which was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was adopted has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and an Addendum is appropriate pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

Biological Resources
Summary of EIR Analysis
Analysis of biological resources impacts is contained in the EIR, Section 3.4, pages 3.4-1 through 3.4-50.

The impact assessment was based on information available at the time of preparation of the General Plan Update EIR from various existing planning documents and database searches. The assessment discussed potential impacts that could occur upon implementation of the General Plan Update. Impacts were determined by comparing existing habitat baseline data and sensitive species associations to the proposed General Plan Update Land Use Map and by determining effects that could occur through future development. Land uses and development consistent with the General Plan Update could result in adverse effects, either directly or indirectly, on special-status plant and animal species and sensitive natural communities in the Planning Area. Land uses and development consistent with the General Plan Update could interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species and use of native wildlife nursery sites. These land uses could also restrict the range of special-status species in the Planning Area. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would be subject to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The proposed General Plan, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in direct and indirect mortality and loss of habitat for special-status species and sensitive and/or critical habitat. However, the MSHCP addresses and mitigates regional biological resource impacts; therefore, impacts to biological resources General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
16 were determined to be less than cumulatively considerable. The General Plan Update EIR contained mitigation measure MM BR3.4.1 which would reduce the identified significant impacts to below a level of significance.

MM BR 3.4.1 Prior to the approval of grading plans for development associated with the General Plan Update, the project applicant(s) shall retain a qualified biologist to perform focused surveys to determine the presence/absence of non-covered special-status plant species with the potential to occur in and adjacent to (within 100 feet, where appropriate) the proposed impact area, including construction access routes. These surveys shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW guidelines for Assessing Effects of Proposed Developments on Rare Plants and Plant Communities (Nelson 1994). These guidelines require that rare plant surveys be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both evident and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known flowering periods, and/or during appropriate developmental periods that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern.

If any state- or federally listed California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1 or CNPS List 2 plant species that are not covered under the MSHCP are found in or adjacent to (within 100 feet) the proposed impact area during the surveys, these plant species shall be avoided to the extent possible and the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:

1. Before the approval of grading plans or any ground-breaking activity within the planning study area for development associated with the General Plan Update, the applicant(s) shall submit a mitigation plan concurrently to CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for review and comment. The plan shall include mitigation measures for the population(s) to be directly affected.

Possible mitigation for impacts to special- status plant species can include implementation of a program to transplant, salvage, cultivate, or re-establish the species at suitable sites (if feasible), through the purchase of credits from an approved mitigation bank, or through an in-lieu fee program, if available. The actual level of mitigation may vary depending on the sensitivity of the species, its prevalence in the area, and the current state of knowledge about overall population trends and threats to its survival. The final mitigation strategy for directly impacted plant species shall be determined by the CDFW and the USFWS through the mitigation plan approval process.

2. Any special-status plant species that are not covered under the MSHCP and are identified adjacent to the PSA, but not proposed to be disturbed by the project, shall be protected by barrier fencing to ensure that construction activities and material stockpiles do not impact any special-status plant species. These avoidance areas shall be identified on project plans.

Analysis of the Project’s Proposed Modifications
A biological letter report (Attachment C) was prepared to evaluate the biological impacts of the proposed modifications associated with realignment of Calimesa Boulevard. The attached report documents the results of a general biological survey, a jurisdictional delineation, and burrowing owl General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
17 focused surveys for the Project site. In addition, the report assesses the Project’s consistency with the MSHCP.

A total of seven vegetation communities were mapped within the Project site, none of which are sensitive vegetation communities or habitats. In addition, no rare plant species were detected or have substantial potential to occur within the Project site. Therefore, no impact related to rare plant species or sensitive vegetation would occur. As no CNPS List 1 or 2 species were identified within or adjacent to the Project impact area during surveys, mitigation measure BR 3.4.1 from the General Plan Update EIR does not apply to the Project.

The Project site does not contain USFWS designated critical habitat for federally listed plant or animal species. Ten sensitive animal species have potential to occur on the site, including burrowing owl, which is presumed absent from the site based on the completion of focused surveys. The remaining nine species have low to moderate potential to occur on the Project site.

The MSHCP fully covers golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos; foraging potential only), Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). The Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) is a conditionally covered species; however, the Project site is not within a survey area for the species. Therefore, with the payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF), no additional mitigation is required for potential impacts to these species. In addition, a project design feature including pre-construction surveys would be implemented to avoid impacts to nesting loggerhead shrike and white-tailed kite, if present at the time of construction.

Southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona) is not a covered species under the MSHCP.

Given a lack of preferred habitat within the Project site and regional population numbers for the species, unanticipated impacts to Southern grasshopper mouse would be considered less than significant.

No wildlife corridor is designated within the Project site and the Project is not anticipated to interfere with wildlife movement or nursery sites based on the proximity of existing development. The Project could disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests, including eggs and young. Disturbance to or destruction of migratory bird eggs, young, or adults is in violation of the MBTA and CFG Code. To comply with these regulatory requirements and to prevent potential Project impacts to nesting birds, a nesting bird survey would be performed prior to the commencement of Project activities, as detailed in Section 3.1.

The Project site includes a concrete‐lined trapezoidal flood control channel located northeast of the intersection of Calimesa Boulevard and Singleton Road, directly north of Singleton Road. This channel supports approximately 0.073 acre of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdictional waters and 0.27 acre of unvegetated CDFW jurisdictional streambed. The Project would result in impacts to approximately 0.047 acre of non-wetland USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and 0.172 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed. The Project would replace the existing trapezoidal channel with a vertical-walled channel, thus allowing for continued conveyance of downstream flows and associated sediment transport. Nonetheless, impacts to USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction would require a Section 404 Nationwide Permit from the USACE and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Santa Ana RWQCB. Impacts to CDFW jurisdiction would require a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Agreement from CDFW. However, compensatory mitigation General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
18 for permanent impacts to these resources is not anticipated to be required as part of subsequent permitting requirements due to the lack of biological function and value of the previously concrete-lined channel.

While scrub oak is present in the Project site, the Project is not required to comply with the City’s Oak Tree Preservation and Replacement Permit requirements as a City road improvement project.

The Project site is located within The Pass Area Plan and is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Cell, except for a very small portion of the northernmost portion of the Project site. However, the proposed modification does not propose activities within Cell 410 that would affect conservation goals for the cell; therefore, the Project site is not subject to special conservation requirements that apply to MSHCP Criteria Cells and is not required to undergo the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy process.

The concrete-lined channel described above does not meet the MSHCP definition of Riparian/Riverine Area. There are also no Vernal Pools on the Project site. Therefore, no sensitive animal species associated with these habitats would occur on site and preparation of a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation is not required.

The Project site is located within Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) 8, which requires a habitat assessment for Yucaipa onion (Allium marvinii) and many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis). The Project site does not support suitable clay soil or sandstone outcrops for these species and is located below the elevation range of Yucaipa onion. Given that the Project site does not support suitable habitat for either species, surveys for NEPSSA species were not required. In addition, the Project site is not within a Criteria Area Species Survey Area, Amphibian Species Survey Area, or Mammal Species Survey Area. Surveys for burrowing owl were completed in 2022 and a preconstruction survey in accordance with the MSHCP would occur, as detailed in Section 3.1.

The Project site does not occur directly adjacent to land targeted for conservation or existing MSHCP Conservation Areas. The Project site is located approximately one mile southeast of Proposed Constrained Linkage 23 and 1.5 miles east of Proposed Linkage 12, both of which are separated from the Project site by existing development. The Project is required to comply with the MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines related to drainage, toxics, lighting, noise, invasives, barriers, and grading/land development. Measures required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, Municipal Storm Drain Permit, and subsequent 401 Water Quality Certification would prevent adverse drainage and toxics impacts downstream. Large spotlight-type lighting is prohibited from being directed into MSHCP linkages, while temporary construction lighting and ambient lighting from the realigned roadway is required to be selectively placed, directed, and shielded away from any MSHCP linkages.

Noise-generating activities would not be audible at the proposed linkages and, if proposed, would require setbacks, berms, or walls be installed to minimize such noise impacts. The Project would not use invasive plant material. Based on its distance from proposed linkages, the Project would not require the installation of barriers and graded slopes would not extend into a Conservation Area. The Project would comply with each applicable guideline to ensure consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.4.

As described above, the Project would require payment of the MSHCP LDMF. The Project site is not located within the Stephen’s kangaroo rat (SKR) Habitat Conservation Plan and is not required to pay an SKR mitigation fee.

General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
19 With incorporation of project design features requiring surveys and payment of the applicable MSHCP LDMF, the proposed modification would result in less than significant impacts related to biological resources. As was the case in the General Plan Update EIR, compliance with the MSHCP would result in less than cumulatively considerable impacts related to the Project. No new significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation would be required.

Changes in Circumstances/New Information
In the time since the EIR was certified in 2014, portions of the General Plan Update Planning Area have been developed, and development has continued in the surrounding area. Such development was, however, anticipated in the EIR. The current condition of biological resources on the Project site is described above and there have been no substantial changes in the condition of biological resources within the area of the proposed modifications since the adoption of the EIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that indicates that the Project would result in new significant impacts to biological resources or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts.

Conclusion
The EIR concluded that significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to biological resources could occur, but would be less than significant after mitigation. Some of these impacts would occur in association with development of the Project, and as was the case for the project analyzed by the previously certified 2014 EIR, these impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance through compliance with the MSHCP and other regulation. Mitigation measure BR 3.4.1, previously identified in the EIR, does not apply to the proposed Project. No new or increased significant impacts on biological resources not already fully disclosed and analyzed in the previously certified EIR would result from the Project, and all impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant with incorporation of the identified project design features. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding biological resources which was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was adopted has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and an Addendum is appropriate pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Summary of EIR Analysis
Analysis of cultural and paleontological resources impacts is contained in the EIR, Section 3.5, pages 3.5-1 through 3.5-14. The EIR concluded that subsequent activities under the General Plan Update could potentially cause a direct substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or structure. However, policy provisions in the General Plan Update and continued implementation of the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that historic resources are not adversely impacted. Subsequent activities under the General Plan Update could result in the potential disturbance of cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric archaeological sites, historical archaeological sites, and isolated artifacts and features) and human remains. State policy in the form of CEQA would ensure that archaeological resources are not adversely impacted by future development under the proposed General Plan.

General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
20 Adoption of the proposed General Plan could result in the potential disturbance of paleontological resources (i.e., fossils and fossil formations) in the City. However, state policy in the form of CEQA would ensure that paleontological resources are not adversely impacted by future development under the General Plan Update. In addition, Action Item RM-16.3 requires development projects to be assessed for their potential to contain and disturb paleontological resources. During this process, a report identifying appropriate measures to avoid significant disturbances to paleontological resources would be filed.

Implementation of General Plan Update, in addition to existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the region, could result in cumulative impacts to cultural and paleontological resources in the region. However, proposed General Plan policy provisions and state policy in the form of CEQA would ensure that historic, prehistoric resources, and paleontological are not adversely impacted and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Analysis of the Project’s Proposed Modifications
A cultural resources survey (Attachment D) was prepared to evaluate the proposed modifications associated with realignment of Calimesa Boulevard. The survey included review of a records search from the Eastern Information Center (EIC), review of a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey conducted by HELIX archaeologist Trevor Gittelhough, M.A., RPA, and Native American monitor Lerae Nechochea of Morongo. The records search and SLF search were initially conducted for the Oak Valley Town Center project to the west but included the current Project area, and as such were used in support of the survey for the proposed Project.

The EIC records search identified 32 cultural resources in the search area, one of which is located immediately adjacent to the Project area. The historic-era site adjacent to the Project alignment was originally recorded in 2005 and described as an unoccupied property with several historic period features, including a freestanding canopy, a water tower building, remains of a garage with a service pit, concrete slabs, and the remnants of a shed. Many of the buildings associated with the resource were destroyed or moved in the early 1960s during the development of I-10. In addition, this resource was evaluated as ineligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); thus, it is not a significant historical resource. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant impacts to historic properties.

The concrete-lined drainage along the northern edge of Singleton Road has been recorded on a Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record due to its age. However, as detailed in Attachment D, this resource does not meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR or NRHP since it is not associated with significant historical events, the lives of significant persons in history, distinct construction or design features, or new information about historic events. Therefore, this is not considered a significant historic feature under CEQA and the Project would not adversely affect historic properties.

The results of the SLF search were positive and the NAHC indicated to contact Morongo for further information. As noted above, a monitor for Morongo participated in the fieldwork for the Project. No Native American cultural resources were observed during the survey or identified through tribal outreach.

Given the Project is located in an area of high cultural resource sensitivity, while much of the Project area has been previously disturbed, there remains a potential for buried cultural resources that are not apparent on the surface to occur within this area. Therefore, although significant effects to cultural resources were not identified for the Project, a design feature of the Project would require development General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
21 and implementation of an archaeological and Native American monitoring program. The monitoring included in the Project neither results from, nor would result in, new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than were disclosed in the certified EIR. No cumulatively considerable impacts to cultural resources would occur.

In accordance with General Plan Action Item RM-16.3, a paleontological study (Attachment E) was undertaken to identify appropriate measures to avoid significant paleontological resources during Project construction. Geologic units with low paleontological potential are present across the surface of the majority of the Project area; however, high paleontological potential geologic units are present at the surface in one section of the Project area and are likely to occur in the subsurface throughout the Project area. Compliance with the identified project design features for ground-disturbing activities in areas of high paleontological sensitivity would result in less than significant direct and cumulative impacts related to paleontological resources. No new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than those disclosed in the EIR related to paleontological resources would result from Project implementation.

Changes in Circumstances/New Information
On July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill (AB) 52 went into effect, requiring consultation between public agencies and tribes during the CEQA process. In accordance with PRC Section 21080.3.1(b), consultation must occur prior to release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR. As described throughout this Addendum, the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR and an Addendum to the previously certified General Plan Update EIR is appropriate documentation under CEQA. The General Plan Update EIR was certified in 2014, prior to AB 52 going into effect. Therefore, the Project is not subject to the requirements of AB 52.

In the time since the EIR was certified in 2014, development has continued throughout the City, as was anticipated in the EIR. There have been no substantial changes in cultural and paleontological resource conditions within the area of the proposed modifications since the time of certification of the EIR.

Additionally, no new information of substantial importance regarding cultural and paleontological resources has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to cultural or paleontological resources have been identified.

Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified significant impacts disclosed and analyzed in the previously certified EIR related to cultural and paleontological resources. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding cultural and paleontological resources which was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was certified has since been identified. All of the Project’s impacts relating to paleontological and cultural resources, specifically including tribal cultural resources, would be less than significant with incorporation of the identified project design features. Therefore, the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and an Addendum is appropriate pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
22 Geology/Soils
Summary of EIR Analysis
Analysis of geology/soils impacts are contained in the EIR, Section 3.6, pages 3.6-1 through 3.6-24. The EIR concluded that subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of the General Plan Update could result in the exposure of more people, structures, and infrastructure to seismic hazards.

However, implementation of the City’s Municipal Code, the California Building Code, and General Plan Policies would ensure that people, structures, and infrastructure are not adversely impacted by seismic hazards. Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in construction and grading activities that could expose topsoil to increased potential for soil erosion. However, policy provisions in the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts from erosion and loss of topsoil. Implementation of the General Plan Update EIR would not allow for development on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable and therefore would not create substantial risks to life and property.

Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of the General Plan Update, in combination with other existing, planned, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in the region, may result in cumulative geologic and soil hazards. However, policy provisions in the General Plan Update and continued implementation of the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that potential development is not adversely impacted by cumulative geologic and soil hazards and impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. In conclusion, impacts to geology/soils were considered less than significant and no mitigation measures were required.

Analysis of the Project’s Proposed Modifications
The proposed modifications would result in similar impacts to geology/soils as analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR. Similar to the previous EIR, policy provisions in the General Plan Update and continued implementation of the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that potential development associated with the realignment of Calimesa Boulevard is not adversely impacted by geologic and soil hazards.

Therefore, direct and cumulative impacts related to geology and soils from the proposed modifications would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Changes in Circumstances/New Information
In the time since the EIR was certified in 2014, portions of the General Plan Update Planning Area have been developed, and development has continued in the surrounding area. Such development was, however, anticipated in the EIR. There have been no substantial changes in geology and soil conditions within the area of the proposed modifications since the adoption of the EIR. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance regarding known geological and soil hazards, conditions, or resources has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to geology and soil resources have been identified.

Conclusion
None of the Project’s proposed modifications involves new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts disclosed and analyzed in the previously certified EIR related to geology and soils. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding geological resources which was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
23 subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and an Addendum is appropriate pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Summary of Previous Analysis
Analysis of climate change and GHG impacts are contained in EIR Section 3.7, pages 3.7-1 through

3.7-27. The EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update would result in GHG emissions that would contribute to significant impacts on the environment. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not be consistent with the goals of Assembly Bill 32 (Health and Safety Code Sections 38500, 38501, 28510, 38530, etc.), as interim SCAQMD thresholds would be surpassed.

Table 5, General Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions, provides the GHG emissions estimated to result from existing conditions and buildout of the General Plan Update. No mitigation measures were available, and impacts were considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.

Table 5

GENERAL PLAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Source CO2
(MT/year)
CH4
(MT/year)
N2O
(MT/year)
CO2e
(MT/year)
Calimesa Existing (2013) Conditions
Area 2,762 1 0.05 2,806
Energy 30,941 1 0.55 31,133
Mobile 138,427 7 0 138,569
Solid Waste 7,403 438 0 16,591
Water 12,112 90 2.42 14,747
Total 191,645 537 3.00 203,846
Calimesa Buildout (2035) Conditions
Area 12,295 6 0.24 12,491
Energy 148,766 6 3.00 149,692
Mobile 591,754 17 0 592,118
Solid Waste 18,595 1,099 0 41,673
Water 29,717 201 5.42 35,649
Total 801,127 1,329 8.66 831,623
Net Difference 609,482 792 5.66 627,777
Source: City 2014a
MT = metric tons; CO = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent Analysis of the Project’s Proposed Modifications
An air quality and GHG emissions letter report (Attachment B) was prepared to evaluate the proposed modifications associated with realignment of Calimesa Boulevard. Project GHG emissions were calculated in the Roadway Construction Emissions Model and compared with the proposed SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year.

The estimated construction GHG emissions for each phase of the Project are shown in Table 6, Construction GHG Emissions. For construction emissions, SCAQMD recommends that the emissions be amortized (i.e., averaged) over the anticipated lifespan of the Project (30 years) and added to operational emissions.

General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
24 Table 6

CONSTRUCTION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Source Emissions (MT CO2e)
Site Preparation/Land Clearing 32.8
Grading/Excavation 348.2
Underground Drainage/Utilities 205.2
Paving 31.9
Total Construction Emissions1 618.1
Amortized Construction Emissions 20.6
Source: Attachment B 1 Total may not sum due to rounding.

MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
As previously discussed, the Project would not result in increased roadway capacity or VMT relative to the improvements addressed in the EIR. Therefore, no new GHG emissions would result from Project operation. The emission of 20.6 MT CO2e per year resulting from Project construction would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year and impacts would be less than significant. GHG emissions are inherently cumulative in their effects; therefore, since the Project’s impacts would be less than significant, they would also be less than cumulatively considerable.

GHG emission reduction plans applicable to the proposed Project include the California Air Resources Board 2022 Scoping Plan and Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The majority of statewide plans and regulations, such as the 2022 Scoping Plan, related to GHG emissions are being implemented at the statewide level; as such, compliance at the project level is not addressed. The RTP/SCS is based on land use assumptions provided in local planning documents, such as the General Plan Update. Therefore, since the Project is consistent with the land use and growth projections provided in the General Plan Update, it can be assumed to be consistent with the GHG emissions projected in the RTP/SCS. The Project would not conflict with or prevent implementation of any plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. In addition, the Project’s GHG emissions would be below the SCAQMD Tier 3 threshold, which is intended to result in compliance with statewide goals. No new or increased impacts related to GHG emissions would occur.

Changes in Circumstances/New Information
The Scoping Plan and RTP/SCS discussed above have been updated in recent years; however, they existed in previous versions at the time the EIR was certified. The 12 cities of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), which includes the City of Calimesa, adopted a Subregional Climate Action Plan (CAP) in September 2014. Development of the CAP was discussed in the General Plan EIR; however, the final CAP had not yet been adopted. The CAP established a target of reducing subregional GHG emissions 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020 and 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2035 (WRCOG 2014). To achieve the 2020 reduction target, the CAP identified 14 State and regional measures, 3 local energy sector measures, 18 local transportation sector measures, and 2 solid waste sector measures. The CAP does not identify GHG reduction measures for achieving goals beyond 2020 and does not include thresholds for determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions, nor does it include a checklist or other methodology for determining consistency of a project with the goals and measures in the CAP. As none of the CAP measures are required of the Project, the Project would not conflict with the CAP. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
25 importance that would result in increased impacts relative to climate change or GHG emissions have been identified.

Conclusion
Based on the above, no new significant GHG emission impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts disclosed and analyzed in the previously certified EIR would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. All of the Project’s impacts on climate change and GHG emissions would be substantially similar (or reduced) when compared to those impacts disclosed and analyzed in the EIR, as the Project would result in individually less than significant impacts. There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding climate change or GHG emissions which was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was adopted has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and an Addendum is appropriate pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Summary of Previous Analysis
Analysis of hazards and hazardous materials impacts are contained in the EIR, Section 3.8, pages 3.8-1 through 3.8-31. The EIR concludes that implementation of the General Plan Update would allow for land uses that would involve the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; however, such activities would continue to be regulated in order to protect public health. Implementation of the General Plan Update EIR would not 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; nor would it result in the handling or an emission of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The project planning area is not located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Implementation of the General Plan Update EIR would not result in hazards to the operation of a public airport or private air strip. It would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the General Plan Update would expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. In consideration of the existing emergency plans, General Plan Policies IPS-13 and IPS-14, and the proximity of urban development to the fire station, however, the development will not result in significant exposure of individuals or structures to the threat of wildfire.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the General Plan Update—in addition to existing, approved, proposed, and other reasonably foreseeable projects—would not result in cumulative hazardous material and human health risk impacts.

In conclusion, impacts to hazards/hazardous materials were considered less than significant and no mitigation measures were required.

General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
26 Analysis of the Project’s Proposed Modifications
The proposed Project would not substantially alter impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials as the realignment of an existing roadway would not change the conclusions from the General Plan Update EIR. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Attachment F) was prepared for the Project site and did not identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) or controlled RECs within the Project site. Past irrigated farming, aerially deposited lead, and an approximately 390 cubic yard soil stockpile are environmental concerns on the site, which would be addressed by the soil sampling and analysis included as a project design feature. Based on implementation of appropriate procedures in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, direct and cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials from the proposed modifications would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Changes in Circumstances/New Information
No new cases of hazardous materials sites are located in the vicinity of the Project according to databases prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 65692.5 (Department of Toxic Substances Control 2022; State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] 2022). Hazardous materials regulations are also updated regularly and people transporting hazardous materials along Calimesa Boulevard would be required to conform to federal, state, and local regulations related to handling of hazardous materials.

Therefore, no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would change the conclusions of the EIR related to hazards and hazardous materials have been identified.

Conclusion
Based on the above, no new impacts or substantial increases in previously identified hazards or hazardous materials impacts analyzed and disclosed in the previously certified EIR would occur as a result of the Project’s proposed modifications. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding hazards or hazardous materials which was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was certified has since been identified. All of the Project’s impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant given compliance with existing regulations and implementation of identified project design features, as was the case in the previously certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and an Addendum is appropriate pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Summary of Previous Analysis
Analysis of hydrology and water quality impacts is contained in the EIR, Section 3.9, pages 3.9-1 through

3.9-26. The EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update could result in a violation of water quality standards; substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, and/or environmental harm; polluted stormwater runoff; or otherwise degrade water quality.

However, implementation of General Plan policy provisions and compliance with the requirements of the SWRCB’s Construction General Permit during construction and implementation of best management practices during operations would minimize the potential for such degradation.

General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
27 Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in the degradation of groundwater quality and may violate water quality standards and/or degrade water quality resulting from future land uses.

However, implementation of General Plan policy provisions would ensure that groundwater quality is protected.

Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in a substantial alteration of an existing drainage pattern that may substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site or could result in the creation or contribution of runoff water which would exceed the capacity of the existing or planned stormwater drainage system. However, implementation of General Plan policy provisions and continued implementation of City standards would ensure that drainage is adequately addressed.

Land uses and growth under the proposed General Plan, in combination with current land uses in the surrounding region, could introduce substantial grading, site preparation, and an increase in urbanized development. Increased development would contribute to cumulative water quality impacts that are considered less than cumulatively considerable. Implementation of the proposed General Plan could increase impervious surfaces and alter drainage conditions and rates in Calimesa, which could contribute to cumulative flood conditions downstream. Based on implementation of flood control facilities in accordance with the City’s Master Flood Control and Drainage Plan and compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 16.10, this impact was considered less than cumulatively considerable.

In conclusion, impacts to hydrology/water quality were considered less than significant and no mitigation measures were required.

Analysis of the Project’s Proposed Modifications
The proposed Project would not substantially alter impacts related to hydrology and water quality.

Construction activities would be consistent with those previously anticipated and therefore would not result in increased direct or cumulative impacts to water quality. While the Project would realign the existing Calimesa Boulevard approximately 300 feet east of its current alignment, the amount and quality of runoff from Project development would be comparable to that under the current alignment.

Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to impervious surface creation. As discussed in the General Plan Update EIR, implementation of General Plan policy provisions and continued implementation of City standards would ensure that hydrology and water quality are adequately addressed.

Changes in Circumstances/New Information
In the time since the EIR was certified in 2014, portions of the General Plan Update planning area (outside of the Project site) have been developed, and development has continued in the surrounding area. Such development was, however, anticipated in the EIR. There have been no substantial changes in hydrology or water quality conditions within the Project site since the time of the certification of the EIR. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance regarding hydrology or water quality has become available. In fact, the regulations addressing these issue areas have become more stringent, and the Project would be required to comply with the regulations in effect at the time of development.

Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance that would result in increased impacts relative to hydrology or water quality have been identified.

General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
28 Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications would involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts disclosed and analyzed in the previously certified EIR related to hydrology and water quality. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding hydrology and water quality which was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was certified has since been identified. The Project’s impacts on hydrology and water quality would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policy provisions and continued implementation of City standards, as was the case in the previously certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and an Addendum is appropriate pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

Land Use and Agricultural Resources
Summary of Previous Analysis
Analysis of impacts related to land use and agricultural resources is contained in the EIR, Section 3.10, pages 3.10-1 through 3.10-30. The analysis contained therein concluded that impacts related to land use and agriculture would be less than significant. In addition, development in the City and surrounding areas would continue but would not result in significant cumulative land use impacts associated with the division of an established community, conflicts with land use plans and regulations that provide environmental protection, or the conversion of important farmlands. Therefore, no mitigation measures were required.

Analysis of the Project’s Proposed Modifications
The proposed Project would not result in changes to the quantities and distribution of land uses in the General Plan Update; it would only result in the realignment of existing Calimesa Boulevard approximately 300 feet east of its current alignment. The realignment of the road would not divide established communities and, as detailed throughout this Addendum, would not result in new or increased significant environmental impacts not already fully disclosed and analyzed in the previously certified EIR. As was the case in the EIR, land use impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

The proposed modifications would not result in the conversion of important farmlands (Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance) as designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use. In addition, the proposed modifications would not involve land use changes for parcels currently under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to the conversion of important agricultural lands.

The modifications would not result in introducing land uses not envisioned in the General Plan Update EIR or land uses that are not compatible with the proposed surrounding land uses. No new or increased significant environmental impacts related to land use and agriculture would result from the Project that were not already fully disclosed in the previously certified EIR, and impacts would remain less than significant.

General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
29 Changes in Circumstances/New Information
In the time since the EIR was certified in 2014, portions of the General Plan Update planning area (outside of the Project site) have been developed, and development has continued in the surrounding area. Such development was, however, anticipated in the General Plan Update EIR. There have been no substantial changes in land use and planning policies or agriculture since the time of the certification of the EIR that would increase the severity of land use and agriculture impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance regarding land use and agriculture has become available.

Therefore, there have been no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to the Project’s potential impacts relating to land use and agriculture.

Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts not already disclosed and analyzed in the previously certified General Plan Update EIR related to land use and agriculture. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding land use and agriculture which was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was certified has since been identified. The Project’s impacts relating to land use and agriculture would be less than significant, as was the case with the previously certified EIR.

Therefore, the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and an Addendum is appropriate pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

Public Services and Utilities
Summary of Previous Analysis
Analysis of utilities and service systems impacts is contained in the EIR, Section 3.11, pages 3.11-1 through 3.11-48. The analysis contained therein concluded that impacts related to public services including fire and emergency services, law enforcement, public schools, water supply, parks and recreation, wastewater services, and solid waste would be less than significant. Cumulative impacts related to solid waste generation were considered less than cumulatively considerable due to future landfill capacity within the region. Therefore, no mitigation measures were required.

Analysis of the Project’s Proposed Modifications
Modifications associated with the proposed Project would not result in impacts to public services given that the modifications only include realignment of an existing roadway. No new or increased significant environmental impacts related to public services would result from the Project that were not already fully disclosed in the previously certified EIR, and impacts would remain less than significant. The Project would not result in a new or unanticipated source of solid waste and cumulative impacts related to solid waste would remain less than significant.

Changes in Circumstances/New Information
No other new information of substantial importance regarding utilities and service systems has become available since certification of the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance that would result in new significant impacts or a General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
30 substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts relative to public services and utilities have been identified.

Conclusion
The proposed modifications do not involve new or increased significant impacts related to public services and utilities that were not already fully disclosed and analyzed in the previously certified General Plan Update EIR. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding public services and utilities which was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was certified has since been identified. All of the Project’s impacts related to public services and utilities would be less than significant as was the case in the previously certified EIR.

Noise
Summary of Previous Analysis
Analysis of noise impacts is contained in the EIR, Section 3.12, pages 3.12-1 through 3.12-31. The EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update could result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of City standards as well as a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the City. However, the General Plan policy provisions would adequately address stationary noise source impacts. Traffic conditions associated with the General Plan Update could result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels that could adversely affect noise sensitive land uses (NSLUs). In addition, the implementation of the General Plan Update may expose persons to or generate minimal, short-duration groundborne vibration. Construction associated with the implementation of the General Plan Update may result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. While Municipal Code regulations would limit the hours and noise levels of construction, implementation of the General Plan Update could result in significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts.

Implementation of the General Plan Update, in combination with other development in nearby areas of Riverside County, would increase transportation noise along roadways in the City. These impacts were considered cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable with implementation of the General Plan Update. No mitigation measures related to noise were identified.

Analysis of the Project’s Proposed Modifications
A supplementary noise analysis was prepared to address the proposed modifications (Attachment G). As the noise discussion in the EIR did not include noise levels associated with existing and proposed traffic volumes, these noise levels were modeled for the Project’s noise analysis to provide a quantitative evaluation of the scenario analyzed in the previous EIR.

The proposed modifications would not result in new noise or vibration impacts during construction, as construction of the proposed modifications would involve construction activities and equipment analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR. In addition, construction activities would occur during the hours specified by the Municipal Code. Therefore, construction noise and vibration would be similar to General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
31 what was evaluated in the certified EIR. No new sources of vibration that would result in new significant impacts would be created by the Project.

The realignment of Calimesa Boulevard would result in traffic noise being located closer to existing NSLUs. No increase in vehicle traffic above the amount proposed in the General Plan EIR would result from the proposed modifications. The modeled noise levels at nearby NSLUs under the baseline General Plan condition, proposed General Plan alignment, and the proposed modifications are provided in Table 7, Noise Level Comparison, along with the increases proposed by the General Plan Update EIR and proposed modifications.

Table 7

NOISE LEVEL COMPARISON
Receiver Land Use
General
Plan
Existing
(CNEL)
General
Plan
Proposed
(CNEL)
Change
Proposed
in General
Plan
Proposed
Project
Alignment
(CNEL)
Additional
Change
with
Project
Total
Change
from
Existing
1 School 67.7 70.1 +2.4 70.3 +0.2 +2.6
2 Residential 54.4 57.2 +2.8 58.1 +0.9 +3.7
3 Residential 56.2 60.9 +4.7 61.1 +0.2 +4.9
4 Residential 67.5 69.9 +2.4 70.0 +0.1 +2.5
Source: Attachment G
dBA = A-weighted decibel; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level As shown in Table 7, implementation of the General Plan Update was estimated to increase noise levels in the Project vicinity by up to 4.7 A-weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).

These impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable in the General Plan Update EIR. The proposed modifications would not result in additional traffic capacity, but would result in additional increases to the noise level increases proposed in the General Plan Update. The maximum increase would be 0.9 dBA CNEL at a residential NSLU along Calimesa Boulevard where total noise levels would remain below 60 dBA CNEL (an exterior noise level that does not interfere with interior standards), while increases at the other NSLUs would be 0.1 to 0.2 dBA CNEL.

While the City does not specify a threshold for significant changes in traffic noise, other ordinances specify a change of 3 dBA CNEL as the significant impact threshold based on the amount of change in noise necessary for an average human ear to perceive the change. The proposed Project would not result in a perceptible increase in traffic noise above those increases in traffic noise proposed by the General Plan Update. Therefore, the increase in noise levels resulting from the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of direct or cumulative impacts relative to traffic noise identified in the General Plan Update EIR. The Project would not result in new or substantially increased impacts related to traffic noise.

Construction noise and vibration impacts would be temporary and consistent with those analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR. New traffic noise impacts would be less than significant and no new stationary noise sources would be established by the Project. No new or increased significant impacts not fully disclosed and analyzed in the previously certified EIR would occur.

General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
32 Changes in Circumstances/New Information
No other new information of substantial importance regarding noise or vibration has become available since certification of the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance that would result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts relative to noise or vibration have been identified.

Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts disclosed and analyzed in the previously certified EIR related to noise and vibration. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding noise and vibration which was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and an Addendum is appropriate pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

Population and Housing
Summary of Previous Analysis
Analysis of population and housing impacts is contained in the EIR, Section 3.13, pages 3.13-1 through

3.13-13. The analysis contained therein concluded that direct and cumulative impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures were required.

Analysis of the Project’s Proposed Modifications
Modifications associated with the proposed Project would not result in impacts to population and housing given that the modifications only include realignment of an existing roadway. No new or increased significant environmental impacts related to population and housing would result from the Project that were not already fully disclosed in the previously certified EIR, and direct and cumulative impacts would remain less than significant.

Changes in Circumstances/New Information
No other new information of substantial importance regarding population and housing has become available since certification of the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance that would result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts relative to population and housing have been identified.

Conclusion
The proposed modifications do not involve new or increased significant impacts related to population and housing that were not already fully disclosed and analyzed in the previously certified General Plan Update EIR. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
33 regarding population and housing which was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was certified has since been identified. All of the Project’s impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant as was the case in the previously certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and an Addendum is appropriate pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

Growth Inducing Impacts
Summary of Previous Analysis
Analysis of growth-inducing impacts of General Plan Update implementation is contained in the EIR, Chapter 6, page 6-1 through page 6-2. As summarized in the EIR, the General Plan Update refined existing land use designations in the City and established new policies, action items, and design guidelines to guide and manage future development and land uses in the City. It included policy direction on roadway facility improvements, public service improvements, and the extension and expansion of utilities. The individual technical sections of General Plan Update EIR (see Sections 3.1 through 3.13) discuss the specific environmental effects resulting from the proposed land use patterns and associated extension of public services, by environmental issue. If the General Plan Update were to result in full theoretical buildout of the proposed land uses, 12,823 new residential units and a total population of approximately 39,840 would result. However, this growth is not likely to occur within the proposed General Plan planning period.

As described above, implementation of the General Plan Update would induce further population and job growth in the City. The proposed General Plan Update could indirectly induce growth if it would remove an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public service. Proposed roadway improvements would support such growth within the City. For example, policies and action items (Policy IPS-6 and Action Item IPS-6.1) within the Infrastructure and Public Service Element support the extension of infrastructure to serve development resulting in growth inducement. Additionally, the Transportation and Mobility Element supports the construction of new roadways as a part of the development process. As a result, the General Plan Update was considered to be growth-inducing. Sections 3.1 through 3.13 of General Plan Update EIR addressed the environmental effects of this growth within the General Plan Update Planning Area.

Analysis of the Project’s Proposed Modifications
The proposed Project would result in the realignment of existing Calimesa Boulevard; however, the width and capacity of that roadway would remain the same as that envisioned in the General Plan Update EIR and Transportation and Mobility Chapter. The proposed Project’s modifications would not result in an unplanned expansion or extension of infrastructure that currently exists in the area.

Changes in Circumstances/New Information
The City has continued to grow, as was anticipated at the time of General Plan Update EIR certification.

There are no substantial, unanticipated changes under which the Project will be undertaken that would affect the analysis contained in the EIR. No new information of substantial importance relative to growth inducement has become available since the certification of the EIR.

General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
34 Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts disclosed and analyzed in the previously certified General Plan Update EIR related to growth inducement. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding growth inducement which was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was certified has since been identified. All of the Project’s impacts related to growth inducement would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, and an Addendum is appropriate pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

6.0 DETERMINATION
Impacts associated with the proposed Project would not result in a new significant impact not analyzed in the previously certified General Plan Update EIR. There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was adopted in 2014 has since been identified. All of the Project’s impacts would be the substantially the same for each impact category (or incrementally decreased) when compared to the impacts analyzed in the previously certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed modifications associated with the Project do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. As such, this Addendum No. 1 to the EIR satisfies CEQA requirements for the modifications resulting from the proposed Project, as described herein above, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
35 7.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2022. EnviroStor. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed October 13.

Calimesa, City of. 2014a. City of Calimesa General Plan Update 2013 Final Environmental Impact Report.

SCH No. 2013021033. January.
2014b. City of Calimesa 2014 General Plan. Adopted August 4.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2022. SB 743 Frequently Asked Questions. Available at:
https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/sb-743/faq.html. Accessed November.

Matti, J.C., Morton, D.M., and Langenheim, V.E. 2015. Geologic and geophysical maps of the El Casco

7.5′ quadrangle, Riverside County, southern California, with accompanying geologic-map database. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2010-1274. Scale 1:24,000.

Murphey, P., G. Knauss, L. Fisk, T. Demere, and R. Reynolds. 2019. Best practices in mitigation paleontology. Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History 47: 43 pp.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the assessment and Mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. Available at: https://vertpaleo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2022.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. GeoTracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed October 13.

Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). 2014. Subregional Climate Action Plan. Available at: http://www.wrcog.cog.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/188/Subregional-Climate-Action-PlanCAP-PDF.

General Plan Update EIR Addendum No. 1 | April 2023
36 This page intentionally left blank
Attachment A
Vehicle Miles Traveled Memo

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: November 8, 2022
To: Kelly Lucia, Community Development Director
City of Calimesa
From: Michael Thornton, City Engineer
Travis Bradshaw, Project Engineer
City of Calimesa
Subject: Calimesa Boulevard Realignment at Singleton Road Vehicle Miles Travel (VMT) Analysis
VMT screening criteria (OPR technical guidance) indicates that projects with additional roadway capacity on local or collector streets are not required to perform VMT analysis if the project also substantially improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit. The project is a capacity enhancing project with pedestrian and cyclist facilities that do not exist, see Attachment.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please advise.

Attachment: Preliminary Design
© 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus DS © 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus DS © 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus DS © 2021 Microsof © 2021 Microsof icrosof 2 M crosof © 202 rosof 1 Microsoft Cor aportion © t Cor orati t Corpora t Corpora n © t Corporati t Co poration 20 © Ma r a2021 M ©CN axa ©C Maxar ©C Maxar ©CN xar ©CN xar ©CN 021 Maxar ©CN 021 Maxar ©CN 1 Maxar ©CN Maxar ©C M xar ©C N 21 Maxar ©CN 21 M xar ©C 21 Maxar ©CN 2 21 Maxar ©C M xar ©CN 2021 Maxar ©CN 21 Maxar © 021 Maxar ©CN 021 Maxar ©CN 21 Maxar ©CN M xa ©C S (2021) Distr (2021) Distr (2021) Distr (2021) D S i E D (2021) D S ibution Airb n AirbusDS © 2021 Microsof 21 Micros 21 Micro t Corporation © Corporation © 2 021 Maxar ©CN 021 ES (2021) Distribution Airbustio DS © 2021 Microsof 2021 Mic oso 2021 Mic osof 021 M os © 2021 Mic osof 1 M t Corporatio t Corporat t Corporatio t Corporation © t Corporation © t Corporatio t Corporation t C © 2021 Maxar 2021 Maxar ©CN 1 Maxar ©CN 2021 Maxar © ES (2021) Distr (2021) Dist 1) Distr 2021) D ibution Airb tion Airb ion Airb ous DS 02 Airbu
n
Attachment B
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Assessment
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
619.462.1515 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
April 6, 2023 02939.00008.001
Mr. John Ohanian
Oak Valley Development Company
P.O. Box 645
Calimesa, CA 92320
Subject: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project
Dear Mr. Ohanian:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) has assessed air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts associated with the proposed Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project (Project). In addition, the analysis also addresses impacts to sensitive receptors from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs).

This letter summarizes the findings of the air quality and GHG emissions assessment.

BACKGROUND
The City of Calimesa (City) is located in the western portion of Riverside County, California, just south of the county line border with San Bernardino County, in a region of California known as the Inland Empire.

The Project site is located in the western portion of the City, east of Interstate 10 (I-10) in the immediate vicinity of the Singleton Road westbound offramp south of the Riverside-San Bernardino County line.

Specifically, the Project site is located both north and south of Singleton Road approximately 300 feet from the existing intersection of Calimesa Boulevard and Singleton Road (refer to Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Aerial Photograph).

The City of Calimesa 2014 General Plan (General Plan Update) replaced the original City General Plan which was adopted in 1994 (City 2014). The City of Calimesa General Plan Update 2013 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2013021033) disclosed potential impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan Update and was certified by the City Council in 2014. This letter describes potential air quality and GHG emission impacts associated with a proposed amendment to the General Plan Update described below and compares the environmental impacts of the Project to the environmental impacts disclosed in the previously certified General Plan Update EIR.

Letter to John Ohanian Page 2 of 19
April 6, 2023

PROPOSED PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
At the time the General Plan Update was prepared, the Transportation and Mobility Chapter classified Calimesa Boulevard as a 4-lane major arterial and proposed it as a 4- to 6-lane major arterial within its existing alignment. Within the Project study area, Singleton Road was classified as a 2-lane major arterial and proposed as a 4- to 6-lane major arterial within its existing alignment. The proposed modifications included as part of the proposed Project include realigning an approximately 0.6-mile portion of Calimesa Boulevard such that the intersection of Calimesa Boulevard and Singleton Road would be located approximately 300 feet to the east of its existing location and approximately 400 feet from the I-10 westbound ramps (Figure 3, Proposed Alignment). Calimesa Boulevard and Singleton Road would remain classified as a 4- to 6-lane major arterials as identified in the General Plan, and each would be widened to approximately 75 feet. Singleton Road would remain in its current alignment and would be widened for a length of approximately 700 feet.

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
Construction would require approximately six months to complete. Construction was modeled to commence as early as October 2023, which is considered conservative since regulations become more stringent and equipment is assumed to emit fewer pollutants over time. Construction activities would include site preparation, demolition of existing roadway, grading, installation of drainage and utilities, and paving. During construction, material such as vegetation, soil, old asphalt, and concrete may be exported from the site and material such as soil, aggregate, asphalt, and concrete may be imported to the site. It is anticipated that 71,541 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 13,923 CY of fill would be required for the Project. While some of the cut material could be used as fill, thereby decreasing the total amount of import and export required, it was conservatively assumed that all cut and fill would be exported or imported.

The Project’s construction emissions were estimated using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s (SMAQMD) Roadway Construction Emissions Model (RCEM), version 9.0.1 (SMAQMD 2022). This model utilizes the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2017 EMFAC and OFFROAD data to calculate vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust emissions. Emission estimates assume the use of water trucks, yielding a 50 percent control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures to meet the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Rule 403, Fugitive Dust (SCAQMD 2005). Project-specific input was based on general Project information, assumptions provided by the Project engineers, and default model settings to estimate reasonably conservative conditions. Fugitive dust emissions are calculated using the estimated maximum area (acres) of land disturbed daily, approximately 0.66 acre per day for the Project. Roadway widening construction would disturb a total of 8.67 acres over approximately six months (132 working days). Default lengths for each construction phase were used in modeling.

Construction would require the use of off-road equipment. Because the off-road equipment required for construction of the Project had not been determined at the time of this analysis, the RCEM default equipment for a road construction Project was used in the modeling. Table 1, Construction Equipment Assumptions, presents a summary of the assumed equipment that would be involved in each stage of construction.

Letter to John Ohanian Page 3 of 19
April 6, 2023
Table 1

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Phase Equipment Number Horsepower
Grubbing/Land Clearing Crawler Tractors 1 212
Excavators 1 158
Signal Boards 2 6
Grading/Excavation Crawler Tractors 1 212
Excavators 3 158
Graders 1 187
Rollers 2 80
Rubber Tired Loaders 1 203
Scrapers 2 367
Signal Boards 2 6
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 97
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-grade/ Air Compressors 1 78
Retaining Wall Generator Sets 1 84
Graders 1 187
Plate Compactors 1 8
Pumps 1 84
Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 100
Scrapers 2 367
Signal Boards 2 6
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 97
Paving Pavers 1 130
Paving Equipment 1 132
Rollers 3 80
Signal Boards 2 6
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 97
Source: RCEM

PROJECT OPERATION METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
Potential operational emissions resulting from a roadway project would typically result from an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to existing conditions. However, the Project would not expand the capacity of Calimesa Boulevard or Singleton Road compared to the capacity planned in the City General Plan and would not generate additional VMT. According to the Project VMT Analysis and Office of Planning and Research guidance, the Project screens out of detailed VMT analysis due to its proposed pedestrian features (City 2022). Further, the realignment of Calimesa Boulevard would not result in additional roadway capacity compared to that envisioned in the City General Plan and would not result in increased vehicle emissions. Therefore, no change in operational emissions would occur and no operation emission calculations are included in this analysis.

AIR QUALITY
Climate and Meteorology
The Project site is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which consists of all or part of four counties:

Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange. The distinctive climate of the SCAB is determined by Letter to John Ohanian Page 4 of 19
April 6, 2023
its terrain and geographic location. The SCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. It is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains around the rest of its perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light, average wind speeds.

The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. Winds in the Project area are usually driven by the dominant land/ sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime onshore sea breezes.

At night, the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling toward the sea. Local canyons can also alter wind direction, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SCAB is hampered by the presence of persistent temperature inversions. High pressure systems, such as the semi-permanent high-pressure zone in which the SCAB is located, are characterized by an upper layer of dry air that warms as it descends, restricting the mobility of cooler marineinfluenced air near the ground surface, and resulting in the formation of subsidence inversions. Such inversions restrict the vertical dispersion of air pollutants released into the marine layer and, together with strong sunlight, can produce worst-case conditions for the formation of photochemical smog. The basin-wide occurrence of inversions at 3,500 feet above mean sea level or less averages 191 days per year (SCAQMD 1993).

Regulatory Framework
Criteria Pollutants
Ambient air quality is described in terms of compliance with state and national standards, and the levels of air pollutant concentrations considered safe, to protect the public health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect people most sensitive to respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and people engaged in strenuous work or exercise. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the federal agency that administrates the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended in 1990, has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for several air pollution constituents known as criteria pollutants, including: ozone (O3); carbon monoxide (CO); coarse particulate matter (PM10; particles 10 microns or less) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5; particles 2.5 microns or less); sulfur dioxide (SO2); and lead (Pb).

As permitted by the Clean Air Act, California has adopted the more stringent California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) and expanded the number of regulated air constituents.

Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the environment but is generated from complex chemical and photochemical reactions between precursor pollutants, primarily reactive organic gases (ROGs; also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs]), 1 and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). PM10 and PM2.5 are generated from a variety of sources, including road dust, diesel exhaust, fuel combustion, tire and brake wear, construction operations, and windblown dust. In addition, PM10 and PM2.5 can also be formed through chemical and photochemical reactions of precursor pollutants in the atmosphere. 1 CARB defines and uses the term ROGs while the USEPA defines and uses the term VOCs. The compounds included in the lists of ROGs and VOCs and the methods of calculation are slightly different. However, for the purposes of estimating criteria pollutant precursor emissions, the two terms are often used interchangeably.

Letter to John Ohanian Page 5 of 19
April 6, 2023
CARB is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for the ambient air quality standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations do not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once. The air quality attainment status of the SCAB is shown in Table 2, South Coast Air Basin – Attainment Status.

Table 2
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN – ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant Federal Attainment Status State of California Attainment Status
1-hour Ozone (O3) (No federal standard) Nonattainment
8-hour Ozone (O3) Extreme Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment (Maintenance) Attainment Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Attainment (Maintenance) Nonattainment Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment (Maintenance) Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment
Lead (Pb) Attainment Attainment
Sulfates (No federal standard) Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (No federal standard) Attainment
Visibility (No federal standard) Attainment
Source: SCAQMD 2016
The SCAB is currently in nonattainment for federal and/or state ozone (O3), suspended particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards. Concentrations of all other pollutants meet state and federal standards.

The SCAQMD is responsible for implementing emissions standards and other requirements of federal and state laws in the SCAB. As a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), County transportation commissions, and local governments, and cooperates actively with all federal and state government agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary.

The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. As required by the California Clean Air Act, the SCAQMD has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs).

On March 3, 2017, the SCAQMD adopted the 2016 AQMP, which is a regional and multi-agency effort (SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG, and USEPA). The 2016 AQMP represents a comprehensive analysis of emissions, meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, regional growth projections, and the impact of existing control measures. The plan seeks to achieve multiple goals in partnership with other entities promoting reductions in criteria pollutant, GHG emissions, and toxic risk, as well as efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement (SCAQMD 2017). The AQMP is incorporated into the State Implementation Plan, which is subsequently submitted to the USEPA.

Letter to John Ohanian Page 6 of 19
April 6, 2023
The Draft Final 2022 AQMP has been released by the SCAQMD but has not yet been adopted (SCAQMD 2022). The 2022 AQMP was developed in response to the USEPA lowering the NAAQS for ozone to 70 parts per billion. Under the updated standard, the SCAB is classified as an extreme non-attainment area for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. The 2022 AQMP will address the requirements for meeting this updated standard.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

TACs can cause long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis, or genetic damage, or short-term acute effects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), runny nose, throat pain, and headaches. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure to the pollutant.

For carcinogenic TACs, there is no level of exposure that is considered safe and impacts are evaluated in terms of overall relative risk expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals.

Noncarcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant-bypollutant basis.

Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, including both gaseous and solid material. The solid material in diesel exhaust is known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). Almost all DPM is 10 microns or less in diameter, and 90 percent of DPM is less than 2.5 microns in diameter (CARB 2022a). Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. In 1998, CARB identified DPM as a TAC based on published evidence of a relationship between diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer and other adverse health effects. DPM has a significant impact on California’s population—it is estimated that about 70 percent of total known cancer risk related to air toxics in California is attributable to DPM (CARB 2022a).

Sensitive Receptors
CARB and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) have identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, infants (including in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy), and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis (CARB 2005; OEHHA 2015). Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved and are referred to as sensitive receptors.

Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers.

The Project site is a roadway with multiple adjacent sensitive land uses. The closest existing sensitive receptor to the Project site is a school located approximately 60 feet east of the proposed alignment of Calimesa Boulevard. Residential land uses are also located approximately 150 feet from the proposed alignment.

Letter to John Ohanian Page 7 of 19
April 6, 2023
Significance Criteria
The following significance thresholds are based on Appendix G of the current state CEQA Guidelines. A significant impact is identified if a project would result in any of the following:
(1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; (2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; (3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or (4) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to assess the regional and localized impacts of project-related air pollutant emissions. The significance thresholds are updated, as needed, to appropriately represent the most current technical information and attainment status in the SCAB. Table 3, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, presents the most current significance thresholds, including regional daily thresholds for short-term construction and long-term operational emissions; maximum incremental cancer risk and hazard indices for TACs; and maximum ambient concentrations for exposure of sensitive receptors to localized pollutants. A project with daily emission rates, risk values, or concentrations below these thresholds is generally considered to have a less than significant effect on air quality.

Table 3

SCAQMD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Construction Operation
Mass Daily Thresholds
(pounds per day)
VOC 75 55
NOX 100 55
CO 550 550
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOX 150 150
Lead 3 3
Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment)
Letter to John Ohanian Page 8 of 19
April 6, 2023
Ambient Air Quality for Criteria Pollutants
NO2 1-hour average ≥ 0.18 ppm
Annual average ≥ 0.03 ppm
CO 1-hour average ≥ 20.0 ppm (state)
8-hour average ≥ 9.0 ppm (state/federal)
PM10 24-hour average ≥ 10.4 µg/m3 (construction)
24-hour average ≥ 2.5 µg/m3 (operation)
Annual average ≥ 1.0 µg/m3
PM2.5 24-hour average ≥ 10.4 µg/m3 (construction)
24-hour average ≥ 2.5 µg/m3 (operation)
SO2 24-hour average ≥ 25 µg/m3
Source: SCAQMD 2019
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SOX = sulfur oxides; TACs = toxic air contaminants; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; ppm = parts per million; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Summary of EIR Impacts
The analysis in the following section determines whether potential new air quality impacts compared to what was analyzed in the EIR would occur based on the change in roadway alignment between the General Plan Update and the proposed Project. The following impacts related to air quality were identified in the General Plan Update EIR:

Impact 3.3.1 Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. The proposed General Plan also includes several policy provisions that would further assist in air quality attainment efforts. This impact is considered to be less than significant.

Impact 3.3.2 Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan could result in short-term construction emissions that could violate or substantially contribute to a violation of federal and state standards for ozone and coarse and fine particulate matter. This is considered a significant impact.

Impact 3.3.3 Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan could result in long-term operational emissions that could violate or substantially contribute to a violation of federal and state standards for ozone and coarse and fine particulate matter. This is considered a significant impact.

Impact 3.3.4 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in population and employment that would increase traffic volumes on area roadways. This could result in elevated carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from motor vehicle congestion that could expose sensitive receptors to elevated carbon monoxide concentrations.

However, traffic volumes would not be large enough to generate excessive carbon monoxide emission levels. This is considered to be a less than significant impact.

Letter to John Ohanian Page 9 of 19
April 6, 2023
Impact 3.3.5 Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan could result in projects that would include sources of toxic air contaminants which could affect surrounding land uses. Subsequent land use activities could also place sensitive land uses near existing sources of toxic air contaminants. These factors could result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations such as toxic air contaminants. However, the SCAQMD and state regulations would address exposure to toxic air contaminants.

This is considered a less than significant impact.

Impact 3.3.6 Subsequent land use activities associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan could include sources that could create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people or expose new residents to existing sources of odor.

However, continued implementation of current SCAQMD rules and regulations as well as proposed General Plan provisions would address this issue. Thus, this impact is considered to be less than significant.

Impact 3.3.7 Implementation of the proposed General Plan, in combination with cumulative development in the SCAB, would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ozone and coarse and fine particulate matter. This is considered a cumulatively considerable impact.

Project Air Quality Analysis
(1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties, and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, economy, community development, and environment. With regard to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), a long-range transportation plan that uses growth forecasts to project trends out over a 20-year period to identify regional transportation strategies to address mobility needs (SCAG 2020).

These growth forecasts form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP.

These documents are utilized in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in the AQMP. Both the RTP/SCS and AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with County and City General Plans.2
The two principal criteria for determining conformance to the AQMP are:

1. Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay timely attainment of air quality standards; and

2. Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. 2 SCAG serves as the federally designated metropolitan planning organization for the southern California region.

Letter to John Ohanian Page 10 of 19
April 6, 2023
With respect to the first criterion, the analyses presented below demonstrate that the Project would not generate short-term or long-term emissions that could potentially cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay timely attainment of air quality standards.

With respect to the second criterion, the proposed Project is realigning a previously planned roadway and would not result in population or employment increases and, therefore, would not exceed the growth projection assumptions in the AQMP. In addition, the proposed Project would be consistent with the roadway capacity envisioned in the City General Plan, which is used in preparation of the RTP/SCS and AQMP.

Because the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and the growth assumptions used in developing the AQMP, pursuant to SCAQMD guidelines, the proposed Project is considered consistent with the region’s AQMP. As such, proposed Project-related emissions are accounted for in the AQMP, which is crafted to bring the basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants. Accordingly, the proposed Project would be consistent with the emissions projections in the AQMP, thus resulting in a less than significant impact, as identified in the General Plan Update EIR. (2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Construction Emissions
Less than Significant Impact. The Project’s construction emissions were estimated using the RCEM, as described above. The emissions generated from construction activities include:
• Dust (including PM10 and PM2.5), primarily from fugitive sources such as soil disturbance and vehicle travel over unpaved surfaces; and
• Combustion emissions of air pollutants (including ROG, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and sulfur oxides [SOX]), primarily from operation of heavy off-road equipment.

The results of the calculations for Project construction are shown in Table 4, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with the SCAQMD thresholds, the model output is included as Attachment A to this letter.

As shown in Table 4, the Project’s construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The impact would be less than significant and would not exceed the impacts previously identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Letter to John Ohanian Page 11 of 19
April 6, 2023
Table 4

MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Phase Pollutant Emissions (Pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation/Land Clearing 0.8 14.4 7.5 0.1 7.1 1.8 Grading/Excavation 4.2 49.0 39.0 0.1 8.6 3.1
Underground Drainage/Utilities 3.6 42.2 33.8 0.1 8.3 2.8 Paving 1.3 13.8 17.4 <0.1 0.7 0.6
Maximum Daily Emissions 4.2 49.0 39.0 0.1 8.6 3.1
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: RCEM (Attachment A); SCAQMD 2019
ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of

2.5 microns or less; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District Operational Emissions
No Impact. The Project proposes improvements to an existing roadway planned for expansion under the City General Plan and would only generate additional emissions during construction in the near term.

VMT is not anticipated to increase under the proposed modifications, as the roadways would have the same capacity as proposed in the General Plan Update EIR. Since the Project would result in no changes to VMT, no increase in criteria pollutant emissions or ozone precursor emissions would occur as a result of Project operation. Therefore, the Project’s operational criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The proposed modifications would not result in new or increased impacts related to operational emissions.
(3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Criteria Pollutants
Less than Significant Impact. The localized effects from the on-site portion of daily construction emissions were evaluated at sensitive receptor locations potentially impacted by the Project according to the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) method (SCAQMD 2009). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; they are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area (SRA). The LST methodology is recommended to be limited to projects of five acres or less and to avoid the need for complex dispersion modeling. For projects that exceed 5 acres, such as the proposed approximately 9-acre Project, the 5-acre LST look-up values can be used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants require detailed analysis. This approach is conservative as it assumes that all on-site emissions would occur within a 5-acre area and over-predicts potential localized impacts (i.e., more pollutant emissions occurring within a smaller area and within closer proximity to potential sensitive receptors). If a project exceeds the LST look up values, then the SCAQMD recommends that project-specific localized air quality modeling be performed.

Letter to John Ohanian Page 12 of 19
April 6, 2023
The Project is in SRA 28, Hemet/San Jacinto Valley, and sensitive receptors are located within 25 meters (82 feet) of the approximately 0.7-mile long Project site. Therefore, the LSTs being applied to the Project are based on SRA 28, receptors located within 25 meters, and a disturbed area not to exceed 5 acres.

Consistent with the LST guidelines, when quantifying mass emissions for localized analysis, only emissions that occur on site are considered. Emissions related to off-site delivery/haul truck activity and construction worker trips are not considered in the evaluation of construction-related localized impacts, as these do not contribute to emissions generated on a project site. As shown in Table 5, Maximum Localized Daily Construction Emissions, localized emissions for all criteria pollutants would remain below their respective SCAQMD LSTs. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no new or increased impacts would occur compared to those identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Table 5

MAXIMUM LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Phase Pollutant Emissions (Pounds per day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation/Land Clearing 8.0 6.1 6.9 1.7
Grading/Excavation 41.3 36.3 8.3 2.9
Underground Drainage/Utilities 34.6 31.4 8.0 2.7
Paving 12.5 16.1 0.6 0.6
Maximum Daily Emissions 41.3 36.3 8.3 2.9
SCAQMD LST 371 1,965 13 8
Significant Impact? No No No No
Source: RCEM; SCAQMD 2009
NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; LST = Localized Significance Threshold Toxic Air Contaminants
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project would result in the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. These vehicles and equipment could generate DPM, which is a TAC. Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a localized area (e.g., near locations with multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment working in close proximity) for a short period of time. Because construction activities and subsequent emissions vary depending on the phase of construction, the construction-related emissions to which nearby receptors are exposed to would also vary throughout the construction period. Concentrations of DPM emissions are typically reduced by 70 percent at approximately 500 feet (CARB 2005).

The dose of TACs to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk.

Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance in the environment and the extent of exposure a person has to the substance; a longer exposure period to a fixed amount of emissions would result in higher health risks. Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents based on guidance from OEHHA) and are best suited for evaluation of long-duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations. These assessment models and methodologies do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Cancer potency factors are based on animal lifetime studies or worker studies where there is long-term exposure to the carcinogenic agent. There is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from projects Letter to John Ohanian Page 13 of 19
April 6, 2023
that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime (OEHHA 2015). Additionally, the windrose from the Redlands meteorological station, as provided in Attachment B, shows the predominant wind direction is out of the east-southeast towards the west-northwest. There are no existing or planned sensitive receptors to the west-northwest that would be downwind of the Project. Considering this information, the fact that any concentrated use of heavy construction equipment would occur at various locations throughout the Project site only for short durations, construction of the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations, and the impact would be less than significant. No new impact or increase in the severity of the impact previously identified in the EIR would occur.

CO Hotspots
Less than Significant Impact. Vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO. In an urban setting, the highest CO concentrations are generally found within proximity to congested intersections. Because CO is a byproduct of incomplete combustion, exhaust emissions are worse when fossil-fueled vehicles are operated inefficiently, such as in stop-and-go traffic or through heavily congested intersections, where the level of service (LOS) is severely degraded. The Project would not alter the number of vehicles utilizing Calimesa Boulevard, Singleton Road, or other surrounding roadways. As identified in the General Plan Update EIR, planned future population and employment increases were not anticipated to be large enough to create CO hotspots. The proposed modifications would not increase the severity of congestion and impacts would be less than significant, as identified in the General Plan Update EIR. (4) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project could produce odors during proposed construction activities resulting from heavy diesel equipment exhaust and application of asphalt; however, standard construction practices would minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. The increase of construction odors would be minimal, as vehicle exhaust is already prevalent in the area due to its proximity to I-10. Furthermore, odors emitted during construction would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the completion of the respective phase of construction.

Therefore, odor impacts from construction of the Project would be less than significant due to the duration of exposure and compliance with existing policies, as was the case in the General Plan Update EIR.

Odors generated by traffic on the realigned Calimesa Boulevard would be similar to those that currently are generated on the existing roadway and other streets and highways in the area. Therefore, long-term operation of the Project would not result in a change to existing odors in the Project vicinity, and there would be no new impact related to odors.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Setting
Greenhouse gases, as defined under California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 32, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, recognizes that California is a source of substantial amounts of GHG emissions. The statute states:

Letter to John Ohanian Page 14 of 19
April 6, 2023
Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic wellbeing, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.

In order to help avert these potential consequences, AB 32 established a State goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, which was a reduction of approximately 16 percent from forecasted emission levels, with further reductions to follow. In addition, AB 32 required CARB to develop a Scoping Plan to help the State achieve the targeted GHG emission reductions. In 2015, Executive Order (EO) B-30-15 established a California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns California’s GHG emission reduction targets with those of leading international governments, including the 28-nation European Union. California exceeded the target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in AB 32. As a follow-up to AB 32 and in response to EO-B-30-15, Senate Bill (SB) 32 was passed by the California legislature in 2016 to codify the EO’s California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Since then, AB 1279 established policy to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045 and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045.

In order to achieve these quantitative targets, CARB’s Scoping Plan (approved in 2008 and updated in 2014, 2017, and 2022) provides a statewide implementation framework including regulations, incentives, and other programs. The most recent Scoping Plan update, adopted in 2022, lays out a path to achieve the targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by AB 1279. Implementation of the 2022 Scoping Plan would achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels; further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants; support for sustainable development; increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon; and the capture and storage of carbon (CARB 2022b).

At a regional scale, the SCAG RTP/SCS outlines the region’s plan to achieve transportation GHG reductions consistent with state goals through land use, housing, and transportation strategies (SCAG 2020). SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS on September 3, 2020, and on October 30, 2020, CARB accepted SCAG’s determination that the SCS meets the 2035 state GHG emissions targets. Many of the policies included in the RTP/SCS are long-range strategies applicable to land use and transportation planning rather than individual projects. Land use assumptions included in the RTP/SCS are derived from local plans; therefore, consistency with General Plan and zoning designations typically indicate that a project’s GHG emissions were accounted for in the RTP/SCS.

The 12 cities of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), which includes the City of Calimesa, adopted a Subregional Climate Action Plan (CAP) in September 2014. The CAP provides a 2010 baseline inventory of GHG emissions for the subregion cities of 5,834,400 MT of CO2e. Approximately 57 percent of the GHG inventory was from transportation sources, 21 percent from commercial/ industrial energy use, 20 percent from residential energy use, and the remaining from wastewater and solid waste sources. The CAP established a target of reducing subregional GHG emissions 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020 and 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2035. To achieve the 2020 reduction Letter to John Ohanian Page 15 of 19
April 6, 2023
target, the CAP identified 14 State and regional measures, 3 local energy sector measures, 18 local transportation sector measures, and 2 solid waste sector measures. The CAP does not identify GHG reduction measures for achieving goals beyond 2020 and an update to the CAP identifying measures to achieve the 2035 reduction goal has not yet been adopted.

Significance Criteria
Given the relatively small levels of emissions generated by a typical development in relationship to the total amount of GHG emissions generated on a national or global basis, individual development projects are not expected to result in significant, direct impacts with respect to climate change. However, given the magnitude of the impact of GHG emissions on the global climate, GHG emissions from new development could result in significant, cumulative impacts with respect to climate change. Thus, the potential for a significant GHG emissions impact is limited to cumulative impacts.

According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
(1) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
(2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

There are no established federal, state, or local quantitative thresholds applicable to the Project to determine the quantity of GHG emissions that may have a significant effect on the environment. CARB, the SCAQMD, and various cities and agencies have proposed, or adopted on an interim basis, thresholds of significance that require the implementation of GHG emission reduction measures. The General Plan Update EIR compares anticipated GHG emissions to the proposed SCAQMD thresholds. For the proposed Project, the most appropriate screening threshold for determining GHG emissions is the SCAQMD proposed Tier 3 screening threshold (SCAQMD 2010). Therefore, a significant impact would occur if the proposed Project would exceed the SCAQMD proposed Tier 3 screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year.

Summary of EIR Impacts
The analysis in the following section determines whether potential new GHG emissions impacts compared to what was analyzed in the EIR would occur based on the change in roadway alignment between the General Plan Update and the proposed Project. The following impacts related to GHG emissions were identified in the General Plan Update EIR:

Impact 3.7.1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in greenhouse gas emissions that would contribute to significant impacts on the environment. This is considered a cumulatively considerable impact.

Impact 3.7.2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not be consistent with the goals of AB 32 (Health and Safety Code Sections 38500, 38501, 28510, 38530, etc.), as interim SCAQMD thresholds would be surpassed. This is considered a cumulatively considerable impact.

Letter to John Ohanian Page 16 of 19
April 6, 2023
Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
(1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction would result in GHG emissions generated by vehicle engine exhaust from construction equipment, on-road hauling trucks, and worker commuting trips.

Construction GHG emissions were calculated by using the RCEM, as described above. Input details and output are provided in Attachment A to this letter. The estimated construction GHG emissions for each phase of the Project are shown in Table 6, Construction GHG Emissions. For construction emissions, SCAQMD recommends that the emissions be amortized (i.e., averaged) over the anticipated lifespan of the Project (30 years) and added to operational emissions. Averaged over 30 years, the proposed construction activities would contribute approximately 20.6 MT CO2e emissions per year. As discussed above, the Project would not result in increased roadway capacity or VMT. Therefore, no new GHG emissions would result from Project operation. The emission of 20.6 MT CO2e per year resulting from Project construction would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. The impact would be less than significant and would not exceed the impacts identified in the General Plan Update EIR.

Table 6

CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Source Emissions (MT CO2e)
Site Preparation/Land Clearing 32.8
Grading/Excavation 348.2
Underground Drainage/Utilities 205.2
Paving 31.9
Total Construction Emissions1 618.1
Amortized Construction Emissions 20.6
Source: RCEM; SCAQMD 2010
1 Total may not sum due to rounding.

MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
(2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. There are numerous State plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall State plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The initial quantitative goal of AB 32 was to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. SB 32 requires further reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and AB 1279 establishes a policy to achieve carbon neutrality and reductions of anthropogenic GHG emissions 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan provides a framework of regulations and incentive strategies to reduce California’s GHG emissions in accordance with AB 1279.

The Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to specific projects, nor is it intended to be used for projectlevel evaluations. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles (AB 1493), the low carbon fuel standard, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources are being implemented at the statewide level; as such, compliance at the project level is not addressed. The 2022 Scoping Plan also encourages policy-level Letter to John Ohanian Page 17 of 19
April 6, 2023
action, including regulatory programs and CAP adoption, at the local level, which does not require project-level compliance. The Project would comply with all regulations identified in the Scoping Plan to the extent required by law and to the extent that they are applicable to the proposed Project.

Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the Scoping Plan.

The RTP/SCS identifies policies for the SCAG planning area and has been determined by CARB to be consistent with state GHG targets (SCAG 2020). The majority of policies included in the SCAG RTP/SCS apply to land use and transportation planning rather than individual projects. Land use assumptions included in the RTP/SCS are derived from local plans; therefore, project-level consistency with General Plan and zoning designations indicates that a project’s GHG emissions were accounted for in the RTP/SCS. Since the Project does not propose increased roadway capacity compared to the General Plan, it is assumed that the Project would not result in increased operational GHG emissions compared to those considered in the RTP/SCS. Thus, the Project would not conflict with the assumptions included in the RTP/SCS.

The WRCOG CAP established a local target of reducing subregional GHG emissions 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020 and 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2035 (WRCOG 2014). The WRCOG CAP does not include GHG reduction measures for goals beyond 2020 and is therefore not directly applicable to the proposed Project. The CAP does not include thresholds for determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions, nor does it include a checklist or other methodology for determining consistency of a project with the goals and measures in the CAP. The Project would involve widening and realigning existing roadways and only the transportation sector local reduction measures would be potentially applicable. The Project does not implement any of the CAP local transportation sector measures; however, it would provide pedestrian facilities where none currently exist. As none of the CAP measures are required of the Project and the CAP is no longer an applicable plan, the Project would not conflict with the CAP.

The Project would not conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. As stated above, the Project’s GHG emissions are anticipated to be below the SCAQMD Tier 3 threshold, which is intended to result in compliance with statewide goals. No new or increased impacts compared to those identified in the EIR would occur.

SUMMARY
As described above, emissions of criteria pollutants would be below SCAQMD thresholds and the Project would be consistent with the AQMP. Sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of TACs or odors. New or increased operational criteria pollutant and GHG emissions would not occur because the Project would not result in a change in VMT. Impacts to air quality would be less than significant. Construction GHG emissions would be below SCAQMD thresholds. The Project would not conflict with applicable GHG reduction plans, policies, or regulations, including the 2022 Scoping Plan, SCAG RTP/SCS, or the WRCOG CAP. Therefore, GHG impacts would be less than significant.

Letter to John Ohanian Page 18 of 19
April 6, 2023
In comparing Project impacts to the previously identified impacts in the General Plan Update EIR, no new impacts or impacts of increased severity were identified in relation to air quality or GHG emissions.

There are no other substantial, unanticipated changes in the surrounding area since certification of the EIR that would result in previously unanticipated significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts.

Sincerely,
Victor Ortiz Shelby Bocks
Senior Air Quality Specialist Air Quality Specialist
Attachments:

Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: Aerial Photograph
Figure 3: Proposed Alignment
Attachment A: SMAQMD Roadway Construction Model Output
Attachment B: Redlands Station Windrose

REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022a. Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. Accessed November 2022.
2022b. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf . 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.

Calimesa, City of (City). 2022. Calimesa Boulevard Realignment at Singleton Road Vehicle Miles Travel (VMT) Analysis. November 8.
2014. City of Calimesa, General Plan Update 2013, Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2013021033. January.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2022. Roadway Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0.1. Available at: http://www.airquality.org/businesses/ceqa-landuse-planning/ceqa-guidance-tools.

Letter to John Ohanian Page 19 of 19
April 6, 2023
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2019. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. April. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. March. Available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2016-aqmp. 2016. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-managementplans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf. February. 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15 (slide presentation). Diamond Bar, CA. SCAQMD. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/2010/sept28mtg/ghgmtg15-web.pdf.

September 28.
2009. Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds Look-up Tables. October. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 2005. Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. Amended June 3, 2005. Available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. September 3. Available at:
https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-connect-socal-2020.

Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). 2014. Subregional Climate Action Plan. Available at: http://www.wrcog.cog.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/188/Subregional-Climate-Action-PlanCAP-PDF.

Attachment A
SMAQMD Roadway Construction
Model Output
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.1
Daily Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Pounds) ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) SOx (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) CH4 (lbs/day) N2O (lbs/day) CO2e (lbs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.84 7.46 14.37 7.14 0.57 6.57 1.76 0.40 1.37 0.05 5,279.48 0.42 0.61 5,471.87 Grading/Excavation 4.15 38.98 48.97 8.60 2.03 6.57 3.06 1.70 1.37 0.13 12,626.38 2.47 0.78 12,921.50 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 3.57 33.78 42.16 8.31 1.74 6.57 2.83 1.46 1.37 0.11 11,158.69 1.57 0.77 11,426.12 Paving 1.33 17.37 13.75 0.71 0.71 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.04 3,485.35 0.74 0.16 3,551.44 Maximum (pounds/day) 4.15 38.98 48.97 8.60 2.03 6.57 3.06 1.70 1.37 0.13 12,626.38 2.47 0.78 12,921.50 Total (tons/construction project) 0.21 2.05 2.52 0.47 0.11 0.37 0.16 0.09 0.08 0.01 665.30 0.11 0.04 681.28 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2023
Project Length (months) -> 6
Total Project Area (acres) -> 9
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 1
Water Truck Used? -> Yes
Phase Soil Asphalt Soil Hauling Asphalt Hauling Worker Commute Water Truck Grubbing/Land Clearing 638 0 960 0 200 40
Grading/Excavation 755 0 1,140 0 720 40
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 755 0 1,140 0 600 40
Paving 117 0 180 0 480 40
CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

Total Emission Estimates by Phase for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases
(Tons for all except CO2e. Metric tonnes for CO2e) ROG (tons/phase) CO (tons/phase) NOx (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) SOx (tons/phase) CO2 (tons/phase) CH4 (tons/phase) N2O (tons/phase) CO2e (MT/phase) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.01 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 34.84 0.00 0.00 32.76 Grading/Excavation 0.12 1.16 1.45 0.26 0.06 0.20 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.00 375.00 0.07 0.02 348.15 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.07 0.67 0.83 0.16 0.03 0.13 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.00 220.94 0.03 0.02 205.24 Paving 0.01 0.17 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 34.51 0.01 0.00 31.90 Maximum (tons/phase) 0.12 1.16 1.45 0.26 0.06 0.20 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.00 375.00 0.07 0.02 348.15 Total (tons/construction project) 0.21 2.05 2.52 0.47 0.11 0.37 0.16 0.09 0.08 0.01 665.30 0.11 0.04 618.05 CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

The CO2e emissions are reported as metric tons per phase.

Daily VMT (miles/day)
Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.

Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.

Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.

Total Material Imported/Exported
Volume (yd3/day)
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 11/23/2022 Road Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0.1
Data Entry Worksheet
Optional data input sections have a blue background. Only areas with a yellow or blue background can be modified. Program defaults have a white background.

The user is required to enter information in cells D10 through D24, E28 through G35, and D38 through D41 for all project types.

Please use "Clear Data Input & User Overrides" button first before changing the Project Type or begin a new project.

Input Type
Project Name Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project
Construction Start Year 2023 Enter a Year between 2014 and 2040 (inclusive)
Project Type 1) New Road Construction : Project to build a roadway from bare ground, which generally requires more site preparation than widening an existing roadway 2) Road Widening : Project to add a new lane to an existing roadway 3) Bridge/Overpass Construction : Project to build an elevated roadway, which generally requires some different equipment than a new roadway, such as a crane 4) Other Linear Project Type: Non-roadway project such as a pipeline, transmission line, or levee construction Project Construction Time 6.00 months
Working Days per Month 22.00 days (assume 22 if unknown) Predominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 1) Sand Gravel : Use for quaternary deposits (Delta/West County) 2) Weathered Rock-Earth : Use for Laguna formation (Jackson Highway area) or the Ione formation (Scott Road, Rancho Murieta) 3) Blasted Rock : Use for Salt Springs Slate or Copper Hill Volcanics (Folsom South of Highway 50, Rancho Murieta) Project Length 0.70 miles
Total Project Area 8.67 acres
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day 0.66 acres
Water Trucks Used? 1 1. Yes

2. No
Material Hauling Quantity Input
Material Type Phase Haul Truck Capacity (yd3
) (assume 20 if
unknown) Import Volume (yd3
/day) Export Volume (yd3
/day)
Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 637.62
Grading/Excavation 20.00 117.20 637.62
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 117.20 637.62
Paving 20.00 117.20
Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00
Grading/Excavation 20.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00
Paving 20.00
Mitigation Options
On-road Fleet Emissions Mitigation Select "2010 and Newer On-road Vehicles Fleet" option when the on-road heavy-duty truck fleet for the project will be limited to vehicles of model year 2010 or newer Off-road Equipment Emissions Mitigation
Select "Tier 4 Equipment" option if some or all off-road equipment used for the project meets CARB Tier 4 Standard Will all off-road equipment be tier 4?
The remaining sections of this sheet contain areas that can be modified by the user, although those modifications are optional. (for project within "Sacramento County", follow soil type selection instructions in cells E18 to E20 otherwise see instructions provided in cells J18 to J22)
2 Soil
Asphalt
All Tier 4 Equipment
Please note that the soil type instructions provided in cells E18 to E20 are specific to Sacramento County. Maps available from the California Geologic Survey (see weblink below) can be used to determine soil type outside Sacramento County. NEW LINK 8-2- 2022.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/
1 Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background.

Select "20% NOx and 45% Exhaust PM reduction" option if the project will be required to use a lower emitting off-road construction fleet. The SMAQMD Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to confirm compliance with this mitigation measure (http://www.airquality.org/Businesses/CEQA-Land-Use-Planning/Mitigation).

To begin a new project, click this button to
clear data previously entered. This button
will only work if you opted not to disable
macros when loading this spreadsheet.

Data Entry Worksheet 1
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 11/23/2022 Note: The program's estimates of construction period phase length can be overridden in cells D50 through D53, and F50 through F53.

Program Program
User Override of Calculated User Override of Default
Construction Periods Construction Months Months Phase Starting Date Phase Starting Date Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.60 1/1/2023
Grading/Excavation 2.70 1/20/2023
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 1.80 4/13/2023
Paving 0.90 6/7/2023
Totals (Months)
Note: Soil Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D61 through D64, and F61 through F64.

Soil Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 30.00 32 960.00 Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 30.00 38 1140.00
Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 30.00 38 1140.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 30.00 6 180.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Paving (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.06 0.86 6.62 0.24 0.10 0.03 3,629.67 0.00 0.57 3,799.76 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.96 0.00 0.00 25.08 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.07 1.02 7.87 0.28 0.12 0.04 4,310.23 0.00 0.68 4,512.22 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.03 0.23 0.01 0.00 0.00 128.01 0.00 0.02 134.01 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.07 1.02 7.87 0.28 0.12 0.04 4,310.23 0.00 0.68 4,512.22 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 85.34 0.00 0.01 89.34 Pounds per day - Paving 0.01 0.16 1.24 0.04 0.02 0.01 680.56 0.00 0.11 712.46 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.74 0.00 0.00 7.05 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.06 0.45 0.02 0.01 0.00 244.05 0.00 0.04 255.49 Note: Asphalt Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D91 through D94, and F91 through F94.

Asphalt Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 30.00 0 0.00
Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 30.00 0 0.00
Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 30.00 0 0.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 30.00 0 0.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Paving (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Note: Worker commute default values can be overridden in cells D121 through D126.

Worker Commute Emissions User Override of Worker
User Input Commute Default Values Default Values
Miles/ one-way trip 20 Calculated Calculated
One-way trips/day 2 Daily Trips Daily VMT
No. of employees: Grubbing/Land Clearing 5 10 200.00
No. of employees: Grading/Excavation 18 36 720.00
No. of employees: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 15 30 600.00 No. of employees: Paving 12 24 480.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.02 0.91 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.00 317.66 0.00 0.01 319.68 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.02 0.91 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.00 317.66 0.00 0.01 319.68 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.02 0.91 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.00 317.66 0.00 0.01 319.68 Paving (grams/mile) 0.02 0.91 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.00 317.66 0.00 0.01 319.68 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 1.04 2.75 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.26 0.07 0.03 79.50 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 1.04 2.75 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.26 0.07 0.03 79.50 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 1.04 2.75 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.26 0.07 0.03 79.50 Paving (grams/trip) 1.04 2.75 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.26 0.07 0.03 79.50 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.03 0.46 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 141.57 0.00 0.00 142.71 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.94 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.11 1.67 0.14 0.07 0.03 0.01 509.65 0.01 0.01 513.75 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.14 0.00 0.00 15.26 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.09 1.39 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.00 424.71 0.01 0.01 428.13 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.41 0.00 0.00 8.48 Pounds per day - Paving 0.07 1.11 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.00 339.77 0.01 0.01 342.50 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.36 0.00 0.00 3.39 Total tons per construction project 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.84 0.00 0.00 28.07 Note: Water Truck default values can be overridden in cells D153 through D156, I153 through I156, and F153 through F156.

Water Truck Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Override of Default Values Calculated 6 Data Entry Worksheet 2
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 11/23/2022 User Input Default # Water Trucks Number of Water Trucks Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Trips/day Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Daily VMT Grubbing/Land Clearing - Exhaust 1 5 5 8.00 40.00
Grading/Excavation - Exhaust 1 5 5 8.00 40.00
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 1 5 5 8.00 40.00
Paving 1 5 5 8.00 40.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Paving (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.00 151.24 0.00 0.02 158.32 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.04 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.00 151.24 0.00 0.02 158.32 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.49 0.00 0.00 4.70 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.00 151.24 0.00 0.02 158.32 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.99 0.00 0.00 3.13 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.00 151.24 0.00 0.02 158.32 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 1.57 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.98 0.00 0.00 10.45 Note: Fugitive dust default values can be overridden in cells D183 through D185.

User Override of Max Default PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5
Acreage Disturbed/Day Maximum Acreage/Day pounds/day tons/per period pounds/day tons/per period Fugitive Dust - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.66 6.57 0.04 1.37 0.01 Fugitive Dust - Grading/Excavation 0.66 6.57 0.20 1.37 0.04 Fugitive Dust - Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 0.66 6.57 0.13 1.37 0.03 Fugitive Dust
Data Entry Worksheet 3
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 11/23/2022 Off-Road Equipment Emissions
Default
Grubbing/Land Clearing Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.44 2.24 5.12 0.20 0.18 0.01 758.27 0.25 0.01 766.45 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.19 3.26 1.55 0.08 0.07 0.01 500.11 0.16 0.00 505.50 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.11 0.60 0.72 0.03 0.03 0.00 98.63 0.01 0.00 99.13 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grubbing/Land Clearing pounds per day 0.75 6.10 7.39 0.30 0.28 0.01 1,357.01 0.42 0.01 1,371.08 Grubbing/Land Clearing tons per phase 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.96 0.00 0.00 9.05 Default
Grading/Excavation Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.44 2.24 5.12 0.20 0.18 0.01 758.27 0.25 0.01 766.45 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.57 9.77 4.65 0.23 0.21 0.02 1,500.32 0.49 0.01 1,516.49 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.38 1.69 4.65 0.15 0.14 0.01 640.86 0.21 0.01 647.76 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.31 3.70 3.22 0.18 0.16 0.01 508.22 0.16 0.00 513.69 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.27 1.51 2.65 0.09 0.08 0.01 605.56 0.20 0.01 612.10 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 1.57 12.27 16.57 0.65 0.60 0.03 2,940.26 0.95 0.03 2,971.94 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.11 0.60 0.72 0.03 0.03 0.00 98.63 0.01 0.00 99.13 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.30 4.46 3.07 0.15 0.14 0.01 603.15 0.20 0.01 609.64 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grading/Excavation pounds per day 3.96 36.26 40.66 1.67 1.54 0.08 7,655.26 2.45 0.07 7,737.21 Grading/Excavation tons per phase 0.12 1.08 1.21 0.05 0.05 0.00 227.36 0.07 0.00 229.80 Default
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.00 Number of Vehicles
Number of Vehicles

0.00 0.00

0.00 N/A
Mitigation Option
Mitigation Option
Mitigation Option

0.00 0.00
N/A

0.00 0.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 4
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 11/23/2022 Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.26 2.41 1.74 0.09 0.09 0.00 375.26 0.02 0.00 376.67 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.31 3.67 2.72 0.13 0.13 0.01 623.04 0.03 0.00 625.12 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.38 1.69 4.65 0.15 0.14 0.01 640.86 0.21 0.01 647.76 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.04 0.21 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 34.48 0.00 0.00 34.65 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.33 3.73 2.75 0.13 0.13 0.01 623.04 0.03 0.00 625.14 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.11 2.29 1.40 0.04 0.04 0.00 333.80 0.11 0.00 337.40 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 1.57 12.27 16.57 0.65 0.60 0.03 2,940.26 0.95 0.03 2,971.94 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.11 0.60 0.72 0.03 0.03 0.00 98.63 0.01 0.00 99.13 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.30 4.46 3.07 0.15 0.14 0.01 603.15 0.20 0.01 609.64 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade pounds per day 3.41 31.34 33.87 1.39 1.31 0.07 6,272.51 1.55 0.05 6,327.46 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade tons per phase 0.07 0.62 0.67 0.03 0.03 0.00 124.20 0.03 0.00 125.28 Default
Paving Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.19 2.88 1.88 0.09 0.08 0.00 455.22 0.15 0.00 460.13 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.17 2.56 1.60 0.08 0.07 0.00 394.47 0.13 0.00 398.72 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.46 5.56 4.83 0.27 0.24 0.01 762.32 0.25 0.01 770.54 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.11 0.60 0.72 0.03 0.03 0.00 98.63 0.01 0.00 99.13 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.30 4.46 3.07 0.15 0.14 0.01 603.15 0.20 0.01 609.64 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving pounds per day 1.24 16.06 12.11 0.61 0.57 0.02 2,313.79 0.73 0.02 2,338.16 Paving tons per phase 0.01 0.16 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.00 22.91 0.01 0.00 23.15 Total Emissions all Phases (tons per construction period) => 0.20 1.90 2.05 0.09 0.08 0.00 383.42 0.11 0.00 387.28 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.00 0.00
Number of Vehicles

0.00 0.00

0.00 Number of Vehicles
Mitigation Option

0.00 Data Entry Worksheet 5
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 11/23/2022 Equipment default values for horsepower and hours/day can be overridden in cells D403 through D436 and F403 through F436.

User Override of Default Values User Override of Default Values Equipment Horsepower Horsepower Hours/day Hours/day
Aerial Lifts 63 8
Air Compressors 78 8
Bore/Drill Rigs 221 8
Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 8
Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 8
Cranes 231 8
Crawler Tractors 212 8
Crushing/Proc. Equipment 85 8
Excavators 158 8
Forklifts 89 8
Generator Sets 84 8
Graders 187 8
Off-Highway Tractors 124 8
Off-Highway Trucks 402 8
Other Construction Equipment 172 8
Other General Industrial Equipment 88 8
Other Material Handling Equipment 168 8
Pavers 130 8
Paving Equipment 132 8
Plate Compactors 8 8
Pressure Washers 13 8
Pumps 84 8
Rollers 80 8
Rough Terrain Forklifts 100 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 247 8
Rubber Tired Loaders 203 8
Scrapers 367 8
Signal Boards 6 8
Skid Steer Loaders 65 8
Surfacing Equipment 263 8
Sweepers/Scrubbers 64 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 8
Trenchers 78 8
Welders 46 8

END OF DATA ENTRY SHEET
Data Entry Worksheet 6
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.1
Daily Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Pounds) ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) SOx (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) CH4 (lbs/day) N2O (lbs/day) CO2e (lbs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.75 6.14 8.02 6.88 0.31 6.57 1.65 0.28 1.37 0.02 1,508.24 0.42 0.04 1,529.40 Grading/Excavation 3.97 36.30 41.34 8.25 1.68 6.57 2.91 1.55 1.37 0.08 7,806.50 2.45 0.09 7,895.53 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 3.41 31.37 34.55 7.97 1.40 6.57 2.68 1.32 1.37 0.07 6,423.75 1.55 0.08 6,485.78 Paving 1.24 16.10 12.48 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.03 2,465.03 0.73 0.04 2,496.48 Maximum (pounds/day) 3.97 36.30 41.34 8.25 1.68 6.57 2.91 1.55 1.37 0.08 7,806.50 2.45 0.09 7,895.53 Total (tons/construction project) 0.20 1.90 2.09 0.45 0.09 0.37 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.00 393.40 0.11 0.00 397.72 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2023
Project Length (months) -> 6
Total Project Area (acres) -> 9
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 1
Water Truck Used? -> Yes
Phase Soil Asphalt Soil Hauling Asphalt Hauling Worker Commute Water Truck Grubbing/Land Clearing 638 0 0 0 0 40
Grading/Excavation 755 0 0 0 0 40
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 755 0 0 0 0 40
Paving 117 0 0 0 0 40
CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

Total Emission Estimates by Phase for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases
(Tons for all except CO2e. Metric tonnes for CO2e) ROG (tons/phase) CO (tons/phase) NOx (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) SOx (tons/phase) CO2 (tons/phase) CH4 (tons/phase) N2O (tons/phase) CO2e (MT/phase) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 9.95 0.00 0.00 9.16 Grading/Excavation 0.12 1.08 1.23 0.25 0.05 0.20 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.00 231.85 0.07 0.00 212.73 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.07 0.62 0.68 0.16 0.03 0.13 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.00 127.19 0.03 0.00 116.50 Paving 0.01 0.16 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 24.40 0.01 0.00 22.42 Maximum (tons/phase) 0.12 1.08 1.23 0.25 0.05 0.20 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.00 231.85 0.07 0.00 212.73 Total (tons/construction project) 0.20 1.90 2.09 0.45 0.09 0.37 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.00 393.40 0.11 0.00 360.81 CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

The CO2e emissions are reported as metric tons per phase.

Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project On-site Only
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.

The user is required to enter information in cells D10 through D24, E28 through G35, and D38 through D41 for all project types.

Please use "Clear Data Input & User Overrides" button first before changing the Project Type or begin a new project.

Input Type
Project Name Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project On-site Only Construction Start Year 2023 Enter a Year between 2014 and 2040 (inclusive)
Project Type 1) New Road Construction : Project to build a roadway from bare ground, which generally requires more site preparation than widening an existing roadway 2) Road Widening : Project to add a new lane to an existing roadway 3) Bridge/Overpass Construction : Project to build an elevated roadway, which generally requires some different equipment than a new roadway, such as a crane 4) Other Linear Project Type: Non-roadway project such as a pipeline, transmission line, or levee construction Project Construction Time 6.00 months
Working Days per Month 22.00 days (assume 22 if unknown) Predominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 1) Sand Gravel : Use for quaternary deposits (Delta/West County) 2) Weathered Rock-Earth : Use for Laguna formation (Jackson Highway area) or the Ione formation (Scott Road, Rancho Murieta) 3) Blasted Rock : Use for Salt Springs Slate or Copper Hill Volcanics (Folsom South of Highway 50, Rancho Murieta) Project Length 0.70 miles
Total Project Area 8.67 acres
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day 0.66 acres
Water Trucks Used? 1 1. Yes

Please note that the soil type instructions provided in cells E18 to E20 are specific to Sacramento County. Maps available from the California Geologic Survey (see weblink below) can be used to determine soil type outside Sacramento County. NEW LINK 8-2- 2022.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/
1 Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background.

Soil
Asphalt
All Tier 4 Equipment
(for project within "Sacramento County", follow soil type selection instructions in cells E18 to E20 otherwise see instructions provided in cells J18 to J22)
2 To begin a new project, click this button to
clear data previously entered. This button
will only work if you opted not to disable
macros when loading this spreadsheet.

Soil Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 30.00 32 0.00 Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 0.00 30.00 38 0.00 Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 30.00 38 0.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 0.00 30.00 6 0.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Paving (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Note: Asphalt Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D91 through D94, and F91 through F94.

Worker Commute Emissions User Override of Worker
User Input Commute Default Values Default Values
Miles/ one-way trip 0 20 Calculated Calculated
One-way trips/day 0 2 Daily Trips Daily VMT
No. of employees: Grubbing/Land Clearing 0 5 0 0.00
No. of employees: Grading/Excavation 0 18 0 0.00
No. of employees: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0 15 0 0.00 No. of employees: Paving 0 12 0 0.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.02 0.91 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.00 317.66 0.00 0.01 319.68 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.02 0.91 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.00 317.66 0.00 0.01 319.68 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.02 0.91 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.00 317.66 0.00 0.01 319.68 Paving (grams/mile) 0.02 0.91 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.00 317.66 0.00 0.01 319.68 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 1.04 2.75 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.26 0.07 0.03 79.50 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 1.04 2.75 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.26 0.07 0.03 79.50 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 1.04 2.75 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.26 0.07 0.03 79.50 Paving (grams/trip) 1.04 2.75 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.26 0.07 0.03 79.50 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Note: Water Truck default values can be overridden in cells D153 through D156, I153 through I156, and F153 through F156.

User Override of Max Default PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5
Acreage Disturbed/Day Maximum Acreage/Day pounds/day tons/per period pounds/day tons/per period Fugitive Dust - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.66 6.57 0.04 1.37 0.01 Fugitive Dust - Grading/Excavation 0.66 6.57 0.20 1.37 0.04 Fugitive Dust - Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 0.66 6.57 0.13 1.37 0.03 Fugitive Dust
Data Entry Worksheet 3
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 11/23/2022 Off-Road Equipment Emissions
Default
Grubbing/Land Clearing Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.44 2.24 5.12 0.20 0.18 0.01 758.27 0.25 0.01 766.45 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.19 3.26 1.55 0.08 0.07 0.01 500.11 0.16 0.00 505.50 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.11 0.60 0.72 0.03 0.03 0.00 98.63 0.01 0.00 99.13 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grubbing/Land Clearing pounds per day 0.75 6.10 7.39 0.30 0.28 0.01 1,357.01 0.42 0.01 1,371.08 Grubbing/Land Clearing tons per phase 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.96 0.00 0.00 9.05 Default
Grading/Excavation Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.44 2.24 5.12 0.20 0.18 0.01 758.27 0.25 0.01 766.45 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.57 9.77 4.65 0.23 0.21 0.02 1,500.32 0.49 0.01 1,516.49 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.38 1.69 4.65 0.15 0.14 0.01 640.86 0.21 0.01 647.76 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.31 3.70 3.22 0.18 0.16 0.01 508.22 0.16 0.00 513.69 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.27 1.51 2.65 0.09 0.08 0.01 605.56 0.20 0.01 612.10 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 1.57 12.27 16.57 0.65 0.60 0.03 2,940.26 0.95 0.03 2,971.94 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.11 0.60 0.72 0.03 0.03 0.00 98.63 0.01 0.00 99.13 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.30 4.46 3.07 0.15 0.14 0.01 603.15 0.20 0.01 609.64 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grading/Excavation pounds per day 3.96 36.26 40.66 1.67 1.54 0.08 7,655.26 2.45 0.07 7,737.21 Grading/Excavation tons per phase 0.12 1.08 1.21 0.05 0.05 0.00 227.36 0.07 0.00 229.80 Default
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Mitigation Option
Mitigation Option
Mitigation Option

0.00 0.00
N/A

0.00 0.00
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.00 N/A

0.00 Number of Vehicles
Number of Vehicles

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
Equipment Tier
Data Entry Worksheet 4
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 11/23/2022 Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.26 2.41 1.74 0.09 0.09 0.00 375.26 0.02 0.00 376.67 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.31 3.67 2.72 0.13 0.13 0.01 623.04 0.03 0.00 625.12 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.38 1.69 4.65 0.15 0.14 0.01 640.86 0.21 0.01 647.76 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.04 0.21 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 34.48 0.00 0.00 34.65 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.33 3.73 2.75 0.13 0.13 0.01 623.04 0.03 0.00 625.14 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.11 2.29 1.40 0.04 0.04 0.00 333.80 0.11 0.00 337.40 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 1.57 12.27 16.57 0.65 0.60 0.03 2,940.26 0.95 0.03 2,971.94 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.11 0.60 0.72 0.03 0.03 0.00 98.63 0.01 0.00 99.13 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.30 4.46 3.07 0.15 0.14 0.01 603.15 0.20 0.01 609.64 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade pounds per day 3.41 31.34 33.87 1.39 1.31 0.07 6,272.51 1.55 0.05 6,327.46 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade tons per phase 0.07 0.62 0.67 0.03 0.03 0.00 124.20 0.03 0.00 125.28 Default
Paving Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.19 2.88 1.88 0.09 0.08 0.00 455.22 0.15 0.00 460.13 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.17 2.56 1.60 0.08 0.07 0.00 394.47 0.13 0.00 398.72 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.46 5.56 4.83 0.27 0.24 0.01 762.32 0.25 0.01 770.54 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.11 0.60 0.72 0.03 0.03 0.00 98.63 0.01 0.00 99.13 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.30 4.46 3.07 0.15 0.14 0.01 603.15 0.20 0.01 609.64 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving pounds per day 1.24 16.06 12.11 0.61 0.57 0.02 2,313.79 0.73 0.02 2,338.16 Paving tons per phase 0.01 0.16 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.00 22.91 0.01 0.00 23.15 Total Emissions all Phases (tons per construction period) => 0.20 1.90 2.05 0.09 0.08 0.00 383.42 0.11 0.00 387.28 Mitigation Option

0.00 0.00

0.00 Number of Vehicles

0.00 0.00
Number of Vehicles

0.00 0.00

0.00 N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 5
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 11/23/2022 Equipment default values for horsepower and hours/day can be overridden in cells D403 through D436 and F403 through F436.

END OF DATA ENTRY SHEET
Data Entry Worksheet 6
Attachment B
Redlands Station Windrose
A Q M m
M
W
%
%
%
%
%
W
%
W
w
Attachment C
Biological Resources Letter Report
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
16485 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92618
949.234.8770 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com/
April 10, 2023 02939.00008.001
Ms. Kelly Lucia
City of Calimesa
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
Subject: Biological Letter Report for the Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project Dear Ms. Lucia:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) completed a general biological survey and jurisdictional delineation for the approximately 20.6-acre proposed Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project (project) located in the City of Calimesa (City), Riverside County (County), California. This letter report was prepared on behalf of the City to support biological technical documentation for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance required for the project, and to support regulatory permit processing required for impacts to a trapezoidal concrete-lined ditch located along the north side of Singleton Road, including a Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Agreement (LSA) through the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). This letter report also intends to address consistency with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP; County 2003) and provide an analysis of potential impacts to biological resources within the project site. Recommended avoidance and minimization measures for impacts to biological resources are also presented in this letter report.

PROJECT SITE LOCATION
The approximately 20.6-acre project site is located in the City of Calimesa, within Riverside County, California (Figure 1, Regional Location). The site is located within Township 2 South, Range 2 West, Section 24 on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) El Casco 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Figure 2, USGS Topography). Specifically, the project site is bound by Monty’s Montessori Academy and agricultural land to the east, Calimesa Boulevard to the north and south, and Interstate 10 (I-10) to the west (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph).

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 2 of 25
April 10, 2023

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION
At the time the City of Calimesa 2014 General Plan (General Plan Update) was prepared, the Transportation and Mobility Chapter classified Calimesa Boulevard as a 4-lane major arterial that could be improved to a 4- to 6-lane major arterial road within its existing alignment. Within the project site, Singleton Road is classified as a 2-lane major arterial road that is proposed as a 4-lane to 6-lane major arterial road within its existing alignment. The proposed improvements will require the disturbance to approximately 8.7 acres within the approximately 20.6-acre project site. As part of the proposed project, the proposed modifications include realigning an approximately 0.6-mile portion of Calimesa Boulevard, such that the intersection of Calimesa Boulevard and Singleton Road would be located approximately 300 feet to the east of its existing location and approximately 400 feet from the I-10 westbound ramps (Figure 4, Site Plan). In compliance with the improvements identified in the General Plan, Calimesa Boulevard and Singleton Road would remain classified as 4-lane to 6-lane major arterials and both would be widened to approximately 75 feet. Singleton Road would remain in its current alignment and would be widened to a length of approximately 700 feet.

METHODS
Prior to conducting the general biological survey, HELIX reviewed Google Earth aerials (2022), the U.S.

Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (2022), and sensitive species database records, including California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2022), CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; 2022), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) critical habitat maps (2022). A one-quadrangle database search was conducted on CNDDB and CNPS (El Casco).

General Biological Survey and Jurisdictional Delineation General biological surveys were conducted on May 12, 2022, by HELIX Biologist Matthew Dimson and on May 26, 2022, by HELIX Senior Regulatory Specialist Ezekiel Cooley to map existing plant communities, assess the suitability of habitat for sensitive plant and animal species, map jurisdictional limits, and note other sensitive biological resources present or that have potential to occur within the project site.

Vegetation and jurisdictional features observed on the project site were identified and mapped. Plant communities were classified in accordance with the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV; Sawyer et al. 2009), with additional vegetation community information taken from Oberbauer (1996).

Burrowing Owl Focused Surveys
A burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; BUOW) habitat assessment was conducted on the project site by Mr. Dimson on May 12, 2022. All suitable burrows (i.e., greater than approximately 4 inches [11 cm] in height and width and greater than approximately 59 inches [150 cm] in depth) and burrow surrogates were recorded using a handheld Global Positioning System unit. Since suitable habitat was observed, focused surveys were completed between May 12, 2022, and August 17, 2022, by Mr. Dimson. Surveys were conducted in accordance with the survey protocol outlined in the March 29, 2006, Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside MSHCP Area. The findings for the focused BUOW survey are included as Attachment A, 2022 Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report.

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 3 of 25
April 10, 2023

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Site Characteristics
The existing roadways within the project site were originally constructed in 1938, with additional improvements added in 1944 and 1945, when the property was developed as a rest stop to serve travelers on State Route 99. The rest stop included two homes, a gas station, a restaurant, and several ancillary structures. Many of these buildings were destroyed or moved in the early 1960s during the development of I-10. The project is currently surrounded by Monty’s Montessori Academy and Calimesa Boulevard to the north, agricultural land to the east, Calimesa Boulevard to the south, and the I-10 to the west (Figure 3).

The project site is dominated by disturbed, non-native vegetation species, including red brome (Bromus rubens), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), and short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), as well as developed land. Patches of ornamental trees were noted along Calimesa Boulevard, which consist of eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus sp.) and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta). Three soil types are mapped on the project site, including Hanford coarse sandy loam (2 to 8 percent slopes); Tujunga loamy sand, channeled (0 to 8 percent slopes); and Terrace escarpments (shallow loamy; NRCS 2021).

Elevations on the project site range from approximately 2,290 feet (698 meters) above mean sea level (AMSL) adjacent to the on and off-ramp areas associated with Calimesa Boulevard to approximately 2,300 feet (701 meters) AMSL on the intersection of Calimesa Boulevard and Singleton Road in the central portion of the project site.

In addition to existing road infrastructure (Calimesa Boulevard and Singleton Road), the project site includes a concrete-lined trapezoidal flood control channel located northeast of the intersection of Calimesa Boulevard and Singleton Road, directly north of Singleton Road.

Vegetation Communities and Land Uses
A total of seven vegetation communities and land uses were mapped within the project site (Table 1, Vegetation Communities and Land Uses; Figure 5, Vegetation and Land Uses). The CDFW CaCodes and Oberbauer (1996) Element Codes are provided in parentheses next to each community name in Table 1.

A brief description of each vegetation community and land use mapped within the project site is provided below. Representative photographs of the site are included in this report as Attachment B, Site Photographs.

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 4 of 25
April 10, 2023
Table 1

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND USES
MSHCP Vegetation Community Classification1 Manual of California Vegetation/Oberbauer Acres2 Coastal Sage Scrub Riversidean Sage Scrub California Buckwheat Scrub (CaCode 32.040.023) 0.40 Chaparral Chaparral Scrub Oak Chaparral (CaCode 37.407.02) 0.88 Developed/ Residential/ Urban/ Developed (O4 12000) 5.10 Disturbed Land Exotic Disturbed (O11000) 0.58
Disturbed (O11000)/California Buckwheat Scrub
(CaCode 32.040.02)

0.16 Upland Mustard Fields (CaCode 42.011.01) 10.64
Ornamental (N/A) 2.84
TOTAL 20.60 1 Collapsed and uncollapsed community classifications are terms from MSHCP Table 2-1. 2 Acreages are rounded to the nearest hundredth. 3 CDFW CaCodes. 4 Oberbauer Element Code.

California Buckwheat Scrub (CaCode 32.040.02)
California buckwheat scrub is dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) with a sub-dominance of California brittlebush (Encelia californica). Other associated species observed within this community include California sagebrush and shortpod mustard. California buckwheat scrub comprises approximately 0.40 acre in the northwestern portion of the project site.

Scrub Oak Chaparral (CaCode 37.407.02)
Scrub oak chaparral (classified as chaparral under the MSHCP) is a dense, evergreen chaparral with shrubs up to 20 feet tall and is dominated by scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia) with considerable mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides). Scrub oak chaparral occurs in somewhat more mesic areas than other chaparrals, such as north-facing slopes, and recovers more rapidly from fires than other chaparrals due to resprouting capabilities of scrub oak (Holland 1986). This vegetation community often occurs at slightly higher elevations (up to 5,000 feet).

One area of scrub oak chaparral was observed along the northern boundary of the project site, totaling

0.88 acre. Scrub oak was the dominant shrub species. The understory consisted of mostly non-native grasses and red brome.

Developed (O 12000)
Developed land is included under the Urban/Residential/Exotic classification in the MSHCP. This land use includes areas where permanent structures and/or pavement have been placed, which prevents the growth of vegetation, or where landscaping is clearly tended and maintained.

Developed land was observed in several areas throughout the project site, totaling 5.10 acres. The developed land consisted of roads and sidewalks.

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 5 of 25
April 10, 2023
Disturbed (O 11000)
Disturbed land is included under the Urban/Residential/Exotic classification in the MSHCP. This land use includes land cleared of vegetation (e.g., dirt roads), land containing a preponderance of non-native plant species such as ornamentals or ruderal exotic species that take advantage of disturbance (previously cleared or abandoned landscaping), or land showing signs of past or present animal usage that removes any capability of providing viable habitat.

Disturbed land was observed within the project site, totaling 0.58 acre. These areas consisted of compacted dirt roads and were mostly unvegetated due to historical and ongoing disturbances.

Disturbed (O 11000)/California Buckwheat Scrub (CaCode 32.040.02) Disturbed/California buckwheat scrub is included in the Residential/Urban/Exotic/coastal scrub category under the MSHCP. This community consisted mostly of disturbed areas and included a sparse amount of species associated with California buckwheat scrub.

This plant community was observed in one location on the project site, along the north side of Singleton Road and east of Calimesa Boulevard, totaling 0.16 acre. The disturbed/California buckwheat scrub within the project site was mostly bare ground with scattered amounts of California buckwheat.

Upland Mustard Fields (CaCode 42.011.01)
Upland mustard fields are included under the Urban/Residential/Exotic classification in the MSHCP. This vegetation community is typically associated with land that has been heavily influenced by human activities, including areas adjacent to roads, manufactured slopes, and abandoned lots. Non-native vegetation areas are dominated by ornamental and exotic species that take advantage of previously cleared or abandoned landscaping or land showing signs of past or present animal usage that removes any capability of providing viable habitat.

Approximately 10.64 acres of upland mustard fields were observed within the project site. This community was mostly dominated by red brome (Bromus rubens), London rocket, and short-pod mustard.

Ornamental (N/A)
Ornamental vegetation is included under the Urban/Residential/Exotic classification in the MSHCP. This vegetation community is characterized as stands of naturalized trees and shrubs (e.g., acacias [Acacia spp.], peppertrees [Schinus spp.]), many of which are also used in landscaping.

Ornamental vegetation was observed along the western border of the project site, totaling 2.84 acres.

Ornamental vegetation consisted of landscaping associated with adjacent residential and commercial development as well as naturalized stands of ornamental vegetation. Ornamental species observed included eucalyptus trees and tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima).

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 6 of 25
April 10, 2023
Sensitive Biological Resources
Rare Plant Species
Sensitive plant species are those listed or candidate listed as federally threatened or endangered by the USFWS; State listed as threatened, endangered, or considered sensitive by the CDFW; and/or are CNPS California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) List 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, or 3 species, as recognized in the CNPS’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California and consistent with the CEQA Guidelines.

No rare plant species have been reported on the project site, although nine species were reported on CNDDB (CDFW 2022) and/or CNPS (2022) to occur within a one-quadrangle database search (Table 2, Rare Plant Species – Potential to Occur). Eight of these species were not considered to have the potential to occur on the project site. Only Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi), which is a California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1 species and conditionally covered under the MSHCP, was determined to have a low potential to occur. This species was not observed on the project site during a rare plant survey conducted during the plant’s blooming period (May through June) on May 26, 2022, by Mr.

Cooley. Rainfall in Calimesa during the 2022 Water Year (October 1, 2021 through November 30, 2022) was slightly below average (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2023). Normal rainfall for the area is generally between 10 and 15 inches, while the 2022 Water Year was between 5 and 10 inches. Despite below-normal rainfall, this species was reported on iNaturalist in 2022 within the vicinity of the project site. There are seven reported observations of this species in May 2022 within a ten-mile radius of the project site, in addition to four observations between March and April 2022 (iNaturalist 2023). Therefore, this species should have been detected during the rare plant surveys, if present. This species is presumed absent from the project site based on negative survey findings.

Table 2

RARE PLANT SPECIES - POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal
Listing
State
Listing
MSHCP
Status
Potential to Occur
Allium marvinii Yucaipa onion None CRPR1
1B.2
Conditionally
Covered
Species
None. The project site does not
support suitable soils (i.e., clay) and is
below the elevation range of this
species (850-1070 m).

Atriplex
coronata var.
notatior
San Jacinto
Valley
crownscale
FE2 CRPR
1B.1
Conditionally
Covered
Species
None. The project site does not
support suitable soils (i.e., silty-clay
soils) or habitat (i.e., alkali sink scrub,
alkali playas, vernal pools, or alkali
grassland habitats). The project site is
above the elevation range of this
species (400-500 m).

Atriplex
serenana var.
davidsonii
Davidson’s
saltscale
None CRPR
1B.2
Conditionally
Covered
Species
None. The project site does not
support suitable habitat (i.e., alkaline
flats). The project site is above the
elevation range of this species
(0-200 m).

Centromadia
pungens ssp.
laevis
smooth
tarplant
None CRPR
1B.1
Conditionally
Covered
Species
None. The project site is above the
elevation range of this species
(90-500 m).

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 7 of 25
April 10, 2023
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal
Listing
State
Listing
MSHCP
Status
Potential to Occur
Chorizanthe
parryi var.
parryi
Parry’s
spineflower
None CRPR
1B.1
Conditionally
Covered
Species
Presumed Absent. While the project
site supports some suitable habitat
(i.e., sandy soils with mixed
grassland, coastal sage scrub, and
chaparral communities), this species
was not observed during the rare
plant survey.

Lasthenia
glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter’s
goldfields
None CRPR
1B.1
Conditionally
Covered
Species
None. The project site does not
support suitable habitat (i.e., coastal
habitat or vernal pools).

Nama
stenocarpa
mud nama None CRPR
2B.2
Conditionally
Covered
Species
None. The project site does not
support suitable habitat (i.e.,
marshes, swamps, lake margins, or
riverbanks). The project site is above
the elevation range of this species
(5-500 m).

Symphyotrichu
m defoliatum
San
Bernardino
aster
None CRPR
1B.2
None None. The project site does not
support suitable habitat (i.e., vernally
mesic soils).

Trichocoronis
wrightii var.
wrightii
Wright’s
trichocoronis
None CRPR
2B.1
Conditionally
Covered
Species
None. The project site is located
above the elevation range of this
species (0-500 m).
1 California Rare Plant Rank 2 Federally Endangered.

Sensitive Animal Species
Sensitive animal species are those listed or candidate listed as federally threatened or endangered by USFWS and/or State listed as threatened or endangered or considered species of special concern (SSC) by CDFW.

The project site is located outside of any USFWS-designated critical habitat for federally listed plant or animal species (USFWS 2022). Eighteen sensitive animal species were reported within the El Cascoquadrangle CNDDB search (CDFW 2022; Table 3, Sensitive Wildlife Species – Potential to Occur). Of the 18 sensitive animal species, eight species were not considered to have the potential to occur on the project site due to a lack of suitable habitat. The remaining 10 species have the potential to occur based on the literature review and existing habitat on the project site. Focused BUOW surveys were conducted in 2022; the survey results are summarized below.

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 8 of 25
April 10, 2023
Table 3

SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES - POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Scientific Name Common
Name
Federal
Listing
State
Listing
MSHCP
Status Potential to Occur
Agelaius tricolor tricolored
blackbird
None ST1 Covered
Species
None. The project site and adjacent
areas do not support suitable habitat
(i.e., freshwater marsh habitat).

Anniella
stebbinsi
Southern
California
legless lizard
None SSC2 None None. The project site does not
support suitable habitat (i.e., loose,
moist soil).

Aquila
chrysaetos
golden eagle None SFP3 Covered
Species
Low. The project site does not
support suitable breeding habitat
(i.e., cliffs), although open areas
within the project site may provide
suitable foraging habitat. Surrounding
development and I-10 freeway likely
limits presence.

Aspidoscelis
tigris stejnegeri
coastal
whiptail
None SSC Covered
Species
Moderate. The project site supports
potentially suitable habitat (i.e., open
coastal sage scrub and chaparral),
although suitable habitat is limited
(1.44 acres).

Athene
cunicularia
burrowing owl None SSC Conditionally
Covered
Species
Presumed Absent. Although the
project site supports potentially
suitable habitat and burrows, no
burrowing owls were observed during
the focused surveys.

Chaetodipus
fallax fallax
northwestern
San Diego
pocket mouse
None SSC Covered
Species
Moderate. The project site supports
potentially suitable habitat (i.e.,
herbaceous openings in coastal sage
scrub and chaparral), although
suitable habitat is limited
(1.44 acres).

Dipodomys
merriami parvus
San Bernardino
kangaroo rat
FE4 SCE5 Conditionally
Covered
Species
None. The project site and adjacent
areas do not support habitat (i.e.,
alluvial fan sage scrub).

Dipodomys
stephensi
Stephens’
kangaroo rat
FT6 ST7 Covered
Species
Low. The project site supports
potentially suitable habitat (i.e., open
coastal scrub), although suitable
habitat is limited (0.56 acre).

Elanus leucurus white-tailed
kite
None SFP Covered
Species
Moderate. The project site supports
potentially suitable breeding habitat
(i.e., ornamental trees) and foraging
habitat (upland mustard fields).

Proximity of ornamental trees to I-10
and Calimesa Boulevard may reduce
the likelihood of nesting.

Empidonax
traillii extimus
southwestern
willow
flycatcher
FE SE7 Conditionally
Covered
Species
None. The project site does not
support suitable habitat (i.e., dense
willows thickets).

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 9 of 25
April 10, 2023
Scientific Name Common
Name
Federal
Listing
State
Listing
MSHCP
Status Potential to Occur
Icteria virens yellowbreasted chatNone SSC Covered
Species
None. The project site does not
support suitable habitat (i.e., mature
riparian woodlands).

Lanius
ludovicianus
loggerhead
shrike
None SSC Covered
Species
Moderate. The project site supports
potentially suitable nesting habitat
(i.e., shrublands) and foraging habitat
(open areas), although suitable
nesting habitat is limited (1.44 acres).

Onychomys
torridus ramona
southern
grasshopper
mouse
None SSC None Low. The project site does not
support this species’ preferred
habitat (i.e., desert scrub), although
limited coastal scrub and chaparral
habitats are present (1.44 acres).

Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus
Los Angeles
pocket mouse
None SSC Conditionally
Covered
Species
Low. The project site supports
potentially suitable habitat (i.e.,
sandy soils within coastal scrub
habitat), although suitable habitat is
limited (0.56 acre).

Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned
lizard
None SSC Covered
Species
Moderate. The project site supports
potentially suitable habitat (i.e.,
coastal sage scrub and open areas
within chaparral), although suitable
habitat is limited (1.44 acres).

Setophaga
petechia
yellow warbler None SSC Covered
Species
None. The project site does not
support suitable habitat (i.e., riparian
woodlands).

Spea
hammondii
western
spadefoot
None SSC Covered
Species
None. The project site and adjacent
areas do not support suitable
breeding habitat (i.e., temporary
pools).

Vireo bellii
pusillus
least Bell’s
vireo
FE SE Conditionally
Covered
Species
None. The project site does not
support habitat (i.e., riparian
woodlands).
1 State Threatened 2 Species of Special Concern 3 State Fully Protected 4 Federally Endangered 5 State Candidate Endangered 6 Federally Threatened 7 State Endangered Burrowing Owl
BUOW is a state SSC that occupies grasslands, open scrublands, agricultural fields, and other areas where there are ground squirrel burrows or other areas to burrow (e.g., rock outcrops, debris piles). The project site supports suitable habitat for BUOW. The nearest observation occurred in 2006, approximately six miles southwest of the project site (CDFW 2022).

HELIX conducted a habitat assessment and focused surveys for BUOW between May and August 2022.

No BUOWs were observed or detected within the project site (Attachment A).

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 10 of 25
April 10, 2023
Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitats
Sensitive vegetation communities/habitats are considered either rare within the region or sensitive by CDFW (CDFW 2021). Communities are given a Global and State (S) ranking on a scale of 1 to 5.

Communities afforded a rank of 5 are most common, while communities with a rank of 1 are considered highly periled. CDFW considers sensitive communities as those with a rank between S1 and S3.

No sensitive vegetation communities/habitats pursuant to CDFW were mapped on the project site.

Wildlife Movement and Migratory Species
The project site is constrained by I-10 to the west, a school to the north, and residential development to the east. The project site is not identified by the MSHCP (County 2003) or South Coast Missing Linkages (South Coast Wildlands 2008) as being part of a local or regional corridor or linkage. Minimal wildlife movement likely occurs within an off-site area to the west of the project site, which traverses southwest of the project site and crosses under the I-10 freeway. Given the location of the project site in relation to existing development, it is unlikely the project would significantly impact the movement of wildlife or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

The project could disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests, including eggs and young. Disturbance to or destruction of migratory bird eggs, young, or adults is in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game (CFG) Code. To help ensure compliance with these regulatory requirements and to prevent potential project impacts to nesting birds, a nesting bird survey will be performed prior to the commencement of project activities (see PDF-BIO1 below).

Jurisdictional Waters
A jurisdictional assessment was conducted within the project site by Mr. Cooley on May 26, 2022. The project site includes one jurisdictional feature, characterized as a concrete-lined trapezoidal channel, which extends approximately 529 linear feet along the north side of Singleton Road before entering a culvert beneath I-10.

The unnamed concrete channel supports approximately 0.073 acre of USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional waters and 0.27 acre of unvegetated CDFW jurisdictional streambed (Figure 6, Jurisdictional Features).

City-Protected Oaks
City General Plan Resource Management Policy RM-13 states that native oak trees should be preserved whenever feasible and that if preservation is not possible, trees should be replaced with oak trees of the same species at a ratio of 1:1. This policy is implemented through the City’s Ordinance (Chapter 18.80; City 2016), which protects heritage oak trees, protected oak trees, and stands of oak trees (oak groves), which are defined as the following:
• Heritage oak tree: An oak tree of the genus Quercus, other than a protected oak tree or scrub oak, which has a trunk measuring 12 inches or more in diameter as measured 4.5 feet from the natural grade (i.e., DBH [diameter at breast height]).

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 11 of 25
April 10, 2023
• Protected oak tree: An oak tree of the genus Quercus, including Nuttall’s scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), other than a heritage oak tree or scrub oak, which has a trunk measuring two inches or more in diameter as measured 4.5 feet from the natural grade (i.e., DBH). • Protected stand of oak trees (oak grove): A cluster of four or more oak trees of the genus Quercus, including Nuttall’s scrub oaks.

The City requires an Oak Tree Preservation and Replacement Permit for projects that propose removing or encroaching into the protected zone (i.e., five feet from the dripline or 15 feet from the trunk, whichever is greater) of heritage oak trees, protected trees, or protected stand of oak trees. To obtain a permit, an Oak Tree Preservation Plan must be submitted in conjunction with the Permit application.

Based on 18.80.030(E) of the City’s Ordinance, the removal of trees by a public agency that are located within an area for required improvements, such as within a public street right-of-way or within a utility right-of-way, is not required to comply with the City’s Oak Tree Preservation and Replacement Permit requirements. Although scrub oak chaparral was mapped in the northern portion of the project site, the project is exempt from oak tree permit requirements since the project consists of a City road improvement project.

Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency
Project Location within the MSHCP
The project site is located within The Pass Area Plan and is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Cell, except for a very small portion of the northernmost portion of the project site. However, the proposed covered road activity does not propose any widening activities within Cell 410 that would affect conservation goals for the cell; therefore, the project site is not subject to special conservation requirements that apply to MSCHP Criteria Cells and is not required to undergo the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy process (Figure 7, MSHCP Criteria Cells). The project site is located approximately one mile southeast of Proposed Constrained Linkage 23 and 1.5 miles east of Proposed Linkage 12.

Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat
The identification of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources is based on the potential for the habitat to support, or be a tributary to habitat that supports, Riparian/Riverine Covered Species. Riparian/Riverine Covered Species are identified in MSHCP Section 6.1.2. The MSHCP defines Riparian/Riverine habitat as “lands which contain Habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year” (County 2003). The MSHCP defines Vernal Pools as “seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season” (County 2003). Artificially created features, except for those created intentionally to provide wetland habitat or resulting from the creation of open waters or alteration of natural stream courses, are not Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 12 of 25
April 10, 2023
considered MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas or Vernal Pools. Therefore, the concrete-lined channel does not meet the definition of a Riparian/Riverine Area or Vernal Pool.

In accordance with the MSHCP, a Riparian/Riverine Area and Vernal Pool habitat assessment was conducted by Mr. Cooley on May 26, 2022. No Riparian/Riverine Areas or Vernal Pool habitats were identified within the project site. The project site contains an artificial concrete-lined trapezoidal channel. Based on an aerial review of the project site, the unnamed channel was created sometime before 1966 when Singleton Road and Calimesa Boulevard were constructed (Historic Aerials 2023). At Calimesa Boulevard, the channel transitions from an open channel to an underground channel via a single box culvert. The channel continues southwest below Calimesa Boulevard, Singleton Road, and I-10 for approximately 900 feet. At the I-10 eastbound interchange, the channel transitions into a natural drainage course that meanders through a residential property for approximately 500 feet. At Roberts Road, the Oak Valley Town Center Project, which is currently being constructed, will ultimately direct flows into a subsurface storm drain system.

Based on the definition in Section 6.1.2 of the MHSCP, the unnamed channel within the project site is not considered an MSHCP Riverine/Riverine Area, and the project site does not support Vernal Pool habitat. Moreover, the biological function of the channel is significantly diminished in that it is not capable of supporting Riparian/Riverine or Vernal Pool plant species. The only remaining function of the channel is to convey upstream flows to downstream resources, and this function will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. As discussed below, the project site does not support suitable habitat for Riparian/Riverine or Vernal Pool Species. Therefore, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) is not required for impacts to the channel. Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Species
Plants
The MSHCP lists 23 plant species that have the potential to occur in Riparian/Riverine and/or Vernal Pool habitats within the MSHCP Plan Area, which are listed below in Table 4, MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Plant Species. None of these species were determined to have the potential to occur within the project site, given that Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Areas were not observed.

Table 4

MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AND VERNAL POOL PLANT SPECIES
Common Name Scientific Name Potential to Occur
Brand’s phacelia Phacelia stellaris None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., sandy washes). The project site is above the elevation range of this species (<400 m).

California black
walnut
Juglans californica None. This species was not observed during field surveys.

This species is conspicuous and would have been detected during field surveys if present.

California Orcutt
grass
Orcuttia californica None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., vernal pools or ponded areas). The project site is above the elevation range of this species (15-660 m).

Coulter’s matilija
poppy
Romneya coulteri None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., dry washes or canyons).

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 13 of 25
April 10, 2023
Common Name Scientific Name Potential to Occur
Engelmann oak Quercus engelmannii None. This species was not observed during field surveys.

This species is conspicuous and would have been detected during field surveys if present.

Fish’s milkwort Polygala cornuta var.
fishiae
None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., shaded, rocky places in canyons).
graceful tarplant Holocarpha virgata ssp.
elongata
None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., coastal mesas or foothills).
lemon lily Lilium parryi None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., moist montane meadows). The project site is below the elevation range of this species (1,220-2,745 m).

Mojave tarplant Deinandra mohavensis None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., drainages with arid montane chaparral habitat).
mud nama Nama stenocarpum None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., marshes, swamps, lake margins, or riverbanks along muddy embankments). The project site is above the
elevation range of this species (5-440 m).
ocellated Humboldt
lily
Lilium humboldtii ssp.
ocellatum
None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., shaded montane canyons).

Orcutt’s brodiaea Brodiaea orcuttii None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., vernal pools or vernally moist grasslands).

Parish’s
meadowfoam
Limnanthes alba var.
parishii
None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., montane meadows).
prostrate navarretia Navarretia prostrata None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (alkaline soils in grasslands or vernal pools).

San Diego buttonceleryEryngium aristulatum var.
parishii
None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., vernal pools or ponded areas). The project site is above the elevation range of this species (20-620 m).

San Jacinto Valley
crownscale
Atriplex coronata var.
notatior
None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., highly alkaline and silt-clay soils). The project site is above the elevation range of this species (140-500 m).

San Miguel savory Clinopodium chandleri None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., rocky, gabbroic, or metavolcanic substrate).

Santa Ana River
woolly-star
Eriastrum densifolium ssp.
sanctorum
None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., flood plains or terraces). The project site is above the elevation range of this species (90-610 m).
slender-horned
spineflower
Dodecahema leptoceras None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., alluvial scrub).
smooth tarplant Centromadia pungens ssp.
laevis
None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., alkali or riparian habitats). The project site is above the elevation range of this species (<640 m).
spreading navarretia Navarretia fossalis None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., vernal pools, depressions, or ditches). The project site is above the elevation range of this species (30-655 m). thread-leaved
brodiaea
Brodiaea filifolia None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., vernally moist grasslands or vernal pools).
vernal barley Hordeum intercedens None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., saline flats, depressions in grasslands, or vernal pools).

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 14 of 25
April 10, 2023
Animals
The MSHCP lists 12 sensitive animal species that have the potential to occur in Riparian/Riverine and/or Vernal Pool habitats within the MSHCP Plan Area, which are provided in Table 5, MSHCP Riparian/ Riverine and Vernal Pool Animal Species. The MSHCP requires focused surveys to be conducted for projects that propose impacts to three invertebrate species, including Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), and three bird species, including least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus), and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). No depressional areas capable of supporting fairy shrimp species were observed within the project site. The project site does not support suitable riparian habitat for MSHCP Riparian/Riverine bird species. As a result, the project will not directly or indirectly impact Riparian/Riverine Areas, Vernal Pools, or associated species to implement the proposed development, and no further analysis is required. No other species listed in Table 5 are expected to occur within the project site.

Table 5

MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AND VERNAL POOL ANIMAL SPECIES
Common Name Scientific Name Potential to Occur
Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., vernal pools or other
depressional areas capable of holding water).

Santa Rosa Plateau fairy
shrimp
Linderiella santarosae None. This species is restricted to the Santa Rosa Plateau, which the project is not located
within.
vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., vernal pools or other
depressional areas capable of holding water).
arroyo toad Anaxyrus californicus None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., washes or intermittent
streams with open-canopy riparian forest).

California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., perennial streams).
mountain yellow-legged frog Rana muscosa None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., perennial streams).

Santa Ana sucker Catostomus santaanae None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., perennial streams).
bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., proximity to lakes or other
water bodies).
least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus None. The project site does not support suitable habitat (i.e., riparian woodlands).
peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus None. The project site does not support habitat (i.e., cliffs or tall buildings near water).
southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus None. The project site does not support habitat (i.e., dense willows thickets ).

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 15 of 25
April 10, 2023
Common Name Scientific Name Potential to Occur
western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
None. The project site does not support
suitable habitat (i.e., extensive stands of
mature riparian woodland).

Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (MSHCP Section 6.1.3) The project site is located within Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) 8, which requires a habitat assessment for Yucaipa onion (Allium marvinii) and many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis). These species are generally associated with clay soils within upland habitats. Manystemmed dudleya can also occur on sandstone outcrops. The project site does not support suitable clay soil or sandstone outcrops; rather, it primarily supports loamy and sandy soil types. The project site is also located below the elevation range of Yucaipa onion (between 760 meters and 1,065 meters). Given that the project site does not support suitable habitat for either species, surveys for NEPSSA species were not required.

Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP Section 6.3.2) Criteria Area Species
Focused surveys for rare plant species must be conducted for projects located within a Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA). There are 13 criteria area species that are associated with eight CASSAs located throughout the MSHCP Plan Area (see Table 6-1 in the MSHCP). The project site is not within a CASSA; therefore, focused CASSA surveys were not required.

Amphibian Species
Focused surveys for arroyo toad (Bufo californicus), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), and mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) must be conducted for projects located within an Amphibian Species Survey Area.

The project site is not within the Amphibian Species Survey Area; therefore, focused surveys were not required.

Bird Species
The project site is located within the MSHCP’s BUOW Survey Area. Therefore, BUOW focused surveys were required in accordance with the County’s survey protocol (County 2006). As discussed in Section

3.6.2, BUOW or BUOW sign were not observed during the focused surveys.

Mammal Species
Focused surveys for Aguanga kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami collinus), San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), and Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) must be conducted for projects located within a Mammal Species Survey Area.

The project site is not within the Mammal Species Survey Area; therefore, focused surveys were not required.

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 16 of 25
April 10, 2023

PROJECT IMPACTS
Direct impacts immediately alter the affected biological resources such that those resources are eliminated temporarily or permanently. Indirect impacts consist of secondary effects of a project, including noise, decreased water quality (e.g., through sedimentation, urban contaminants, or fuel release), fugitive dust, colonization of non-native plant species, animal behavioral changes, and night lighting. The magnitude of an indirect impact can be the same as a direct impact; however, the effect usually takes longer to become apparent.

Rare Plant Species
Ten of the eleven rare plant species recorded within the vicinity of the project site were not considered to have the potential to occur. One species (Parry’s spineflower [Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi]) was determined to have a low potential to occur on the project site based on mapped sandy soils on flats and foothills on the project site with chaparral habitat. Parry’s spineflower is conditionally covered under the MSHCP and is a CRPR 1B.1 species. This species was not observed during the rare plant survey. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to impact rare plant species.

Sensitive Animal Species
Of the 18 sensitive animal species reported within the El Casco-quadrangle CNDDB search, eight species were not considered to have the potential to occur on the project site due to a lack of suitable habitat.

Therefore, no significant impacts to these sensitive wildlife species by the project are anticipated. The remaining 10 species were determined to have the potential to occur on the project site. Potential project impacts to these species are discussed in detail below.

Low Potential Species
Southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona) is listed as State SSC and is not a covered species under the MSHCP. This species was determined to have a low potential to occur on the project site based on the absence of this species’ preferred habitat (desert scrub) and the lack of recent observations within the vicinity of the project site. This species was recorded in CNDDB in 1938, approximately two miles south of the project site (CDFW 2022). If present, a loss of a few individuals would not be expected to reduce regional population numbers. Impacts to this species would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Three additional species, including golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos; foraging potential only), Los Angeles pocket mouse, and Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), were determined to have a low potential to occur on the project site based on limited habitat. Golden eagle and Stephens’ kangaroo rat are fully protected species under the MSHCP. The Los Angeles pocket mouse is conditionally covered under the MSHCP. However, the project site is not located within a mammal survey area; therefore, surveys for Los Angeles pocket mouse are not required under the MSHCP. With the payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF), no additional mitigation is required for potential impacts to these species.

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 17 of 25
April 10, 2023
Moderate Potential Species
Five species were determined to have a moderate potential to occur based on the presence of suitable habitat and recent observations within the vicinity of the project site. These species included coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), and whitetailed kite (Elanus leucurus). These five species are fully covered under the MSHCP. With the payment of the MSHCP LDMF, no additional mitigation is required for potential impacts to these species. In addition, PDF-BIO1 would be implemented to avoid impacts to nesting loggerhead shrike and white-tailed kite, if present at the time of construction.

Presumed Absent
BUOW is considered an SSC and MSHCP conditionally covered species. Since the project site supports potentially suitable habitat for BUOW, focused surveys were conducted in 2022 in accordance with the County’s survey protocol (2006). No BUOWs or BUOW sign were observed on the project site during the focused survey; therefore, BUOW is currently presumed absent from the project site and preparation of a DBESP is not required. A pre-construction survey is required within 30 days prior to ground disturbance pursuant to the MSHCP (see PDF-BIO2 below).

Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitats
The project site does not support any vegetation communities or habitat considered sensitive by CDFW (Figure 8, Impacts to Vegetation and Land Uses).

The project could disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests, including eggs and young. Disturbance to or destruction of migratory bird eggs, young, or adults is in violation of the MBTA and CFG Code. To comply with these regulatory requirements and to prevent potential project impacts to nesting birds, a nesting bird survey would be performed prior to the commencement of project activities pursuant to PDF-BIO1 below.

Jurisdictional Waters
The project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.047 acre of non-wetland USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and 0.172 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed (Figure 9, Impacts to Jurisdictional Features; Table 6, Impacts to Jurisdictional Features).

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 18 of 25
April 10, 2023
Table 6

IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES

USACE/RWQCB CDFW
Drainage
Permanent
Impacts
(acres)
Permanent
Impacts
(linear feet)
Permanent
Impacts
(acres)
Permanent
Impacts
(linear feet)
Unnamed Concrete
Channel

0.047 339 0.172 339
1 Acreages rounded to the nearest thousandth.

Impacts to USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction would require a Section 404 Nationwide Permit from the USACE and a Section 401 WQC from the Santa Ana RWQCB. Impacts to CDFW jurisdiction would require a Section 1602 LSA from CDFW. However, compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts to USACE/RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction is not anticipated to be required as part of subsequent Section 404/401 permitting requirements and/or the Section 1602 permitting requirements, respectively, due to the lack of biological function and value of the concrete channel. Lining of a channel with concrete is an activity that, in and of itself, results in permanent impacts to a jurisdictional drainage feature and generally requires authorization pursuant to Sections 404, 401, and/or 1602. The biological function and value of the concrete-lined channel have been significantly diminished by the concrete-lining of the channel.

Generally, a channel that has been concrete-lined is viewed as an existing fill, or an existing permanent impact, to the drainage feature that results in the inability of the channel to support vegetation capable of being utilized by sensitive wildlife species or to provide groundwater recharge. The ability to convey flows downstream is the only remaining function of a concrete-lined channel, and the conveyance of downstream flows will not be altered or adversely affected by the proposed project in any way. As such, the biological function and value of a concrete-lined drainage feature is significantly diminished and does not generally warrant compensatory mitigation provided that the flows conveyed through the concrete-lined channel will continue to reach downstream receiving waters, which this project will ensure as part of the project design. Moreover, the USACE does not typically require compensatory mitigation for impacts to non-wetland resources that do not exceed 0.10 acre of fill within waters of the U.S.

City-Protected Oaks
Based on 18.80.030(E) of the City’s Ordinance, the removal of trees by a public agency that are located within an area for required improvements, such as within the public street right-of-way or within a utility right-of-way, is not required to comply with the City’s Oak Tree Preservation and Replacement Permit requirements. Although scrub oak chaparral was mapped in the northern portion of the project site, the project is exempt from oak tree permit requirements since the project consists of a City road improvement project.

Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency
Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) Based on the definition in Section 6.1.2 of the MHSCP, the unnamed channel within the project site is not considered an MSHCP Riverine/Riverine Area, and the project site does not support Vernal Pools.

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 19 of 25
April 10, 2023
Therefore, a DBESP is not required for impacts to the channel. The project site does not support suitable habitat for Riparian/Riverine or Vernal Pool plant or animal species.

As discussed above, the proposed project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.1.2.

Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Section 6.1.3)
The project site is located within NEPSSA 8, which requires a habitat assessment for Yucaipa onion and many-stemmed dudleya. Since the project site does not support suitable habitat for either species, focused surveys were not required, and the proposed project is consistent with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.

Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines (MSHCP Section 6.1.4) Proposed developments adjacent to MSHCP Conservation Areas may create edge effects that can impact conserved biological resources. The MSHCP provides several guidelines that address the potential indirect effects of proposed developments that are in proximity to MSHCP Conservation Areas.

These guidelines include measures addressing the quantity and quality of runoff generated by the development (i.e., drainage and toxics), night lighting, noise, non-native invasive plant species, barriers to humans and animal predators, and grading/land development encroachment.

The project site does not occur directly adjacent to land targeted for conservation or existing MSHCP Conservation Areas. The project site is located approximately one mile southeast of Proposed Constrained Linkage 23 and 1.5 miles east of Proposed Linkage 12. The I-10 freeway and existing developed land separate the project site from the proposed linkages. The project is required to comply with the following Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines. As discussed below, the project will comply with each applicable guideline to ensure consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.4. • Drainage: The project will incorporate measures to avoid the discharge of untreated surface runoff into downstream waters. Measures will include those required for construction pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Storm Water Permit and the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program, while post-construction water quality measures will be implemented in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Municipal Storm Drain Permit requirements, and subsequent 401 Water Quality Certification from RWQCB for the project. The project will be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes downstream from the project site.

In addition, post-construction Best Management Practices are intended to help ensure that post-project hydrologic conditions remain consistent with pre-project conditions, thereby minimizing the potential for downstream erosion and/or sedimentation that could otherwise result from the implementation of the proposed project. • Toxics: The project will incorporate measures to ensure the application of toxic chemicals will not adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality. Furthermore, the project shall ensure that the application of toxic chemicals does not result in a discharge into downstream waters. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues would be implemented by the proposed project to avoid the potential impacts of toxics.

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 20 of 25
April 10, 2023
• Lighting: Although the project site is not located within or directly adjacent to an MSHCP Conservation Area, proposed linkages are located approximately one mile southeast of Proposed Constrained Linkage 23 and 1.5 miles east of Proposed Linkage 12. Temporary construction lighting and ambient lighting from the realigned roadway will be required to be selectively placed, directed, and shielded away from any MSHCP linkages. In addition, large spotlight-type lighting directed into linkages will be prohibited. • Noise: Proposed noise-generating activities affecting MSHCP linkages shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on the resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP linkages should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards.
• Invasives: The project shall not use invasive plants listed in Table 6.2 of the MSHCP for erosion control, landscaping, windrows, or other purposes.
• Barriers: Since the project site is not directly adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, barriers or signage are not necessary.
• Grading/Land Development: The project is not adjacent to an existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Area. Therefore, manufactured slopes associated with the proposed site development will not extend into an MSHCP Conservation Area.

Additional Surveys (MSHCP Section 6.3.2)
The project site is not within a CASSA, or an Amphibian or Mammal Species Survey Area. Therefore, focused surveys were not required.

The project site is within the MSHCP BUOW Survey Area and supports suitable habitat and burrows.

Focused surveys were completed in 2022 and were negative (Attachment A). As such, preparation of a DBESP for BUOW is not required. A pre-construction survey is required within 30 days prior to ground disturbance pursuant to the MSHCP (see PDF-BIO2 below).

As discussed above, the proposed project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.3.2.

Fuels Management (MSHCP Section 6.4)
The property is not adjacent to an MSHCP Conservation Area. Therefore, fuel modification impacts would not extend into a Conservation Area. The project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.4.

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Fees In order for the project to participate in the MSHCP, the project proponent is required to pay an LDMF in order to finance the acquisitions of conservation areas to provide habitat for MSHCP-covered species (County 2003). The applicant shall pay the LDMF as determined by the County. Final fee credits shall be determined through coordination with the County.

The project site is not located within the SKR Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP; Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency 1996). Therefore, the project is not Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 21 of 25
April 10, 2023
required to pay an SKR mitigation fee for incidental take authorization under the HCP. Since the project site is located outside of the boundaries of the HCP, the MSHCP provides take authorization for SKR.

RECOMMENDED PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
The following project design features (PDF) are intended to minimize or avoid project impacts to biological resources.

PDF-BIO1 Nesting Birds: If construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) must occur during the general bird nesting season for migratory songbirds (March 15 through August 31) and raptors (January 15 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall perform a preconstruction survey of potential nesting habitat to confirm the absence of active nests belonging to migratory birds and raptors afforded protection under MBTA (FR Doc. 05-5127) and CFG Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513). The pre-construction survey shall be performed no more than seven days prior to the commencement of construction activities.

If construction is inactive for more than seven days, an additional survey shall be conducted.

The qualified biologist shall document the results of the pre-construction survey.

If the qualified biologist determines that no active migratory bird or raptor nests occur, the activities shall be allowed to proceed without any further requirements. If the qualified biologist determines that an active migratory bird or raptor nest is present, no impacts within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the active nest shall occur until the young have fledged the nest and the nest is confirmed to no longer be active, or as determined by the qualified biologist. The biological monitor may modify the buffer or propose other recommendations to minimize disturbance to nesting birds.

PDF-BIO2 Burrowing Owl: Due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat, a 30-day preconstruction survey for burrowing owls is required prior to initial ground-disturbing activities (including vegetation clearing, clearing, and grubbing, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging, grading, etc.) to help ensure no BUOWs have colonized the project site in the days or weeks preceding the ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls have colonized the project site prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the project proponent will immediately inform the CDFW and will need to coordinate further with CDFW, including the possibility of preparing a BUOW Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. If ground-disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre-construction survey will again be necessary to help ensure BUOW has not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If burrowing owl is found, the same coordination described above will be necessary.

CONCLUSION
The proposed project consists of modifications that include realigning an approximately 0.6-mile portion of Calimesa Boulevard at the intersection of Calimesa Boulevard and Singleton Road. HELIX conducted a general biological survey and jurisdictional delineation within the project site. The project site includes one jurisdictional feature, characterized as a concrete-lined trapezoidal channel, which extends approximately 529 linear feet along the north side of Singleton Road before entering a culvert beneath I-10.

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 22 of 25
April 10, 2023
The project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.047 acre of USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and 0.172 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed associated with a concrete trapezoidal channel. The unnamed concrete channel is considered a jurisdictional streambed and will require regulatory permits, including the issuance of Section 404 Nationwide Permit NWP by the USACE, the issuance of a Section 401 WQC by the Santa Ana RWQCB, and the issuance of a Section 1602 LSA by CDFW. No compensatory streambed mitigation requirements are anticipated to be required by subsequent regulatory permits. No MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas or Vernal Pools, or associated plants/animals occur within the project site, and a DBESP is not required.

No sensitive vegetation communities were documented on the project site. A total of seven vegetation communities and land uses were mapped within the project site, including California buckwheat scrub, scrub oak chaparral, developed, disturbed, disturbed/California buckwheat scrub, upland mustard fields, and ornamental.

Four species (golden eagle, Los Angeles pocket mouse, Stephens’ kangaroo rat, and southern grasshopper mouse) have a low potential to occur, and five species (coast horned lizard, coastal whiptail, loggerhead shrike, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, and white-tailed kite) have a moderate potential to occur on the project site. Impacts to these species are not considered significant.

BUOW focused surveys were negative, and this species is presumed currently absent from the project site; therefore, a DBESP is not required. Although some wildlife may be temporarily displaced during construction, the constructed improvements would not further impede wildlife movement through the project site.

Vegetation on the project site and adjacent areas may provide suitable habitat for nesting birds.

Avoidance and minimization measure PDF-BIO1 is recommended to avoid or minimize project impacts to nesting birds BUOW. The project site supports suitable habitat for BUOW; however, no BUOW were observed during focused surveys. In addition, the project will be required to conduct a pre-construction BUOW survey no more than 30 days prior to ground-disturbing activities, in compliance with the MSHCP and PDF-BIO2.

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 23 of 25
April 10, 2023
If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter report, please contact Lauren Singleton at [email protected] or Jessica Lee at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Lauren Singleton Jessica Lee
Senior Biology Project Manager Regulatory Specialist
Attachments:

Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: USGS Topography
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph
Figure 4: Site Plan
Figure 5: Vegetation and Land Uses
Figure 6: Jurisdictional Features
Figure 7: MSHCP Criteria Cells
Figure 8: Impacts to Vegetation and Land Uses
Figure 9: Impacts to Jurisdictional Features
Attachment A: 2022 Burrowing Owl Survey Report
Attachment B: Site Photographs
Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 24 of 25
April 10, 2023

REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and Rarefind. California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Sacramento, California. Retrieved from: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed October 10, 2022. 2021. California natural community list. The Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program.

Wildlife & Habitat Data Analysis Branch. September 2022. Retrieved from:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline. Accessed October 10, 2022.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2022. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of California.

California Native Plant Society. Retrieved from: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed October 10, 2022.
iNaturalist. 2023. Explore Observation. Parry’s Spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi) Retrieved from: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?d1=2022-01-01&d2=2022-12-31&locale=enUS&order_by=observed_on&place_id=any&subview=map&taxon_id=76314. Accessed February 7, 2023.

Google Earth. 2022. Aerial imagery of the Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project, 33.979378°, - 117.048521°. Aerial Imagery from October 2, 2022. Retrieved from:
https://earth.google.com/web/. Accessed October 10, 2022.

Historic Aerials. 2023. Aerial imagery of the Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project, 33.979378°, - 117.048521°. Aerial Imagery from 1966. Available at: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Accessed February 7, 2023.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2023. National Weather Service Advanced Hydrologic Predication Service. Observed and Normal Precipitation Tool. Retrieved from:
https://water.weather.gov/precip/#. Accessed February 7, 2023.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022. Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Retrieved from:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.Aspx. Accessed October 10, 2022.

Oberbauer, T. 1996. Terrestrial vegetation communities in San Diego County based on Holland’s Descriptions, San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego, CA.

Riverside, County of. 2006. Burrowing owl survey instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. Environmental Programs Department. Retrieved from:
https://www.wrc-rca.org/species/survey_protocols/burrowing_owl_survey_instructions.pdf.

Accessed October 10, 2022.
2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Final MSHCP Volume I. Prepared by Dudek & Associates. Available from:
http://www.rctlma.org/Portals/0/mshcp/index.html. Accessed October 10, 2022.

Letter to Ms. Kelly Lucia Page 25 of 25
April 10, 2023
Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency. 1996. Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County California. March 1996. Retrieved from:
https://www.rchca.us/DocumentCenter/View/549/SKR-Habitat-Conservation-Plan. Accessed October 10, 2022.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation. 2nd Ed. Sacramento:

California Native Plant Society.

South Coast Wildlands. 2008. South Coast missing linkages: A wildland network for the South Coast ecoregion. Retrieved from: http://www.scwildlands.org/reports/SCMLRegionalReport.pdf.

March 2008.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. Critical habitat mapping. GIS files provided by USFWS.

Retrieved from: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html. Accessed October 10, 2022.
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!!
!!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!!!
! !! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!"^$
!"`$
!"`$
!"`$
!"`$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
å?
ø?
?a
?z
?z ?¡
?¡
?¥
?± ?±
?±
?±
?±
?³
?¹
?¹
?¹
?¹
?¿
?¿
?Æ
?Æ
AÙ
AÙ
Añ
A¨
%&h(
%&h(
%&h(
AÎ
AÐ
AÔ
Añ

SAN BERNARDINO

RIVERSIDE

IMPERIAL

RIVERSIDE

SAN DIEGO

RIVERSIDE ORANGE

IMPERIAL
SAN
DIEGO

SAN DIEG
OR
O
ANGE

SAN JACINTO RIVER

WHITEWATER RIVER
Big Bear Lake
Mesquite Lake
Coyote
Lake
Perris
Reservoir Lake Mathews
Lake Elsinore
Skinner
Reservoir
Salton Sea
Clark Lake
Diamond
Valley Lake
Project
Location
Laguna Niguel
Rancho Santa
Margarita
Mission Viejo
Lake Forest
Irvine
Anaheim
Yorba Linda
Temecula
Murrieta
Coachella
Lake
Elsinore
Menifee
Hemet Palm Desert
Indio
San
Jacinto Perris
Corona
Cathedral
City
Chino
Hills
Palm Springs
Moreno Valley
Riverside
Ontario
Eastvale
Yucaipa
Colton Redlands
Upland Fontana Rialto
Chino
Rancho
Cucamonga
San
Bernardino
Highland
Jurupa Valley
San Clemente
San
Jacinto
Reservoir
Lake Gregory
Lee Lake
Poorman
Reservoir
Canyon Lake
Lake Hemet
Lake Cahuilla
Vail Lake
O'Neill Lake
Yucaipa Lake
Prado
Park
Lake
0 10 Miles
Figure 1
Regional Location
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\Bio\Bio.aprx Fig1_Regional : 02939.8.1 : 12/1/2022 - SAB Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013)
K
Calimesa Blvd Realignment
Project
Location
0 2,000 Feet
K
Figure 2
USGS Topography
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\Bio\Bio.aprx Fig2_USGS : 02939.8.1 : 1/13/2023 - SAB Source: EL CASCO 7.5' Quad (USGS)
Calimesa Blvd Realignment

SINGLETON RD

CALIMESA BLVD
§¨¦10
0 500 Feet
K
Figure 3
Aerial Photograph
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\Bio\Bio.aprx Fig3_Aerial : 02939.8.1 : 2/8/2023 - SAB Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2022)
Calimesa Blvd Realignment
Project Site

SINGLETON RD

CALIMESA BLVD
§¨¦10
0 400 Feet K
Figure 4
Site Plan
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\Bio\Bio.aprx Fig4_SitePlan : 02939.8.1 : 1/9/2023 - SAB Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2022)
Calimesa Blvd Realignment
Project Site (20.6 acres)
Proposed Improvements (8.7 acres)

SINGLETON RD

CALIMESA BLVD
§¨¦10
0 350 Feet K
Figure 5
Vegetation and Land Uses
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\Bio\Bio.aprx Fig5_Veg : 02939.8.1 : 1/9/2023 - SAB Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2022)
Calimesa Blvd Realignment
Project Site
Vegetation Communities
California Buckwheat Scrub
Disturbed-California Buckwheat Scrub
Ornamental
Scrub Oak Chaparral
Upland Mustard Fields
Disturbed
Developed

SINGLETON RD

BECKWITH AVE

CALIMESA BLVD
0 100 Feet K
Figure 6
Jurisdictional Features
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\Bio\Bio.aprx Fig6_JD : 02939.8.1 : 2/8/2023 - SAB Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2022)
Calimesa Blvd Realignment
Project Site
Jurisdictional Features
USACE/RWQCB Concrete-lined Channel
CDFW Concrete-lined Channel

SINGLETON RD

CALIMESA BLVD
§¨¦10
Detail Area

COUNTRY CLUB DR
H

ERITAGE
D
R

DESERT LAWN DR

PALMER AVE
PI
N
E
HUR
ST DR

DEVLIN DR

CRENSHAW ST

AVENUE L

CALIFORNIA ST

CHERRY VALLEY BLVD

DESERT LAWN DR

SAN TIMOTEO CANYON RD

CALIMESA BLVD
§¨¦10
753
311 323 326
412 417 411 410 407 408
572
662 663
0 2,000 Feet
K
Figure 7
MSHCP Criteria Cells
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\Bio\Bio.aprx Fig7_MSHCP : 02939.8.1 : 2/8/2023 - SAB Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2022)
Calimesa Blvd Realignment
Project Site
Criteria Cells

SINGLETON RD

CALIMESA BLVD
§¨¦10
0 350 Feet K
Figure 8
Impacts to Vegetation and Land Uses
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\Bio\Bio.aprx Fig8_VegImps : 02939.8.1 : 1/9/2023 - SAB Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2022)
Calimesa Blvd Realignment
Project Site
Grading Area
Vegetation Communities
California Buckwheat Scrub
Disturbed-California Buckwheat Scrub
Ornamental
Scrub Oak Chaparral
Upland Mustard Fields
Disturbed
Developed

SINGLETON RD

BECKWITH AVE

CALIMESA BLVD
0 100 Feet K
Figure 9
Impacts to Jurisdictional Features
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\Bio\Bio.aprx Fig9_JDImps : 02939.8.1 : 1/9/2023 - SAB Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2022)
Calimesa Blvd Realignment
Project Site
Grading Area
Jurisdictional Features
USACE/RWQCB Concrete-lined Channel
CDFW Concrete-lined Channel

SINGLETON RD

CALIMESA BLVD
§¨¦10
Detail Area
Attachment A
2022 Burrowing Owl Survey Report
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
16485 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92618
949.234.8792 tel.
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
January 13, 2023 02939.00008.001
Ms. Bonnie Johnson
City of Calimesa
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
Subject: 2022 Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Survey Report the Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project
Dear Ms. Johnson:

This letter report presents the results of the 2022 focused burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; BUOW) survey conducted by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) for the Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project (project) in the City of Calimesa, Riverside County (County), California. The survey was conducted in accordance with the County’s BUOW Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).1 The MSHCP is a comprehensive planning effort that includes the County and multiple cities throughout the County. As part of the MSHCP implementation, enrolled jurisdictions are required to impose terms of the MSHCP, including appropriate surveys in accordance with Volume 1, Section 6. The project site is located within the MSHCP BUOW survey area; therefore, surveys are required if suitable habitat is present. This letter report describes the methods used to perform the survey and the survey results.

PROJECT SITE LOCATION
The approximately 12-acre project site is located directly east of Interstate (I-) 15 in the City of Calimesa, Riverside County, California (Figure 1, Regional Location). The site is located within Township 2 South, Range 2 West, Section 24 on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) El Casco 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Figure 2, USGS Topography). Specifically, the project site is bound by Monty's Montessori Academy and agricultural land to the east, Calimesa Boulevard to the north and south, and I10 to the west (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph).

PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is dominated by disturbed, non-native vegetation species, including red brome (Bromus rubens), London Rocket (Sisymbrium irio), and short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), as well as developed land. Patches of ornamental trees were noted along Calimesa Boulevard, which consist of eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus sp.) and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta). The project site 1 Riverside, County of. 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Final MSHCP Volume I.

Prep. for County of Riverside, Transportation and Land Management Agency.

Letter to Ms. Bonnie Johnson Page 2 of 4
January 13, 2023
includes a concrete-lined trapezoidal flood control channel located northeast of the intersection of Calimesa Boulevard and Singleton Road directly north of Singleton Road. Three soil types are mapped on the project site, including Hanford coarse sandy loam, (2 to 8 percent slopes), Tujunga loamy sand (channeled; 0 to 8 percent slopes), and Terrace escarpments (shallow loamy).2 Elevations on the project site range from approximately 2,290 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) adjacent to the on and off-ramp areas associated with Calimesa Boulevard to approximately 2,300 feet AMSL on the intersection of Calimesa Boulevard and Singleton Road in the central portion of the project site. Representative photographs of the project site are depicted in Attachment A, Representative Site Photographs.

METHODS
A Step I Habitat Assessment and Step II Locating Burrows and BUOWs, including Part A: Focused Burrow Surveys and Part B: Focused BUOW Surveys, were conducted on the project site by HELIX biologist Matthew Dimson between May 12 and August 17, in accordance with the County’s survey protocol.3 The specific survey information is provided in Table 1, Survey Information. The Step I and Step II surveys are described in detail below.

Table 1

SURVEY INFORMATION
Site
Visit
Survey
Date Biologists Start/Stop Time
Start/Stop
Weather Conditions Survey Results
11 05/12/22 Matthew Dimson 0545-0745 47°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds 58°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds
Suitable habitat and
burrows observed;
no BUOW detected.
2 06/28/22 Matthew Dimson 0540-0740 73°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds 82°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds
No BUOW detected.
3 08/03/22 Matthew Dimson 0600-0800 72°F, wind 0-1 mph, 20% clouds 77°F, wind 0-1 mph, 20% clouds
No BUOW detected.
4 08/17/22 Matthew Dimson 0600-0715 72°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds 79°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds
No BUOW detected.
1 This visit included the habitat assessment, focused burrow survey, and first focused burrowing owl survey.

Step I – Habitat Assessment
The project site is located within an MSHCP BUOW survey area; therefore, a Step I Habitat Assessment was conducted to determine whether the project site supports suitable BUOW habitat. The habitat assessment was conducted prior to the commencement of the Step II surveys described below. The assessment was conducted on the project site and within a 150-meter (approximately 500-foot) buffer zone around the periphery project site (collectively, the survey area). The survey area was slowly walked and assessed for suitable BUOW habitat, including:
2 Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022. Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.Aspx. Accessed September 7, 2022. 3 Riverside, County of. 2006. Environmental Programs Department. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. Retrieved from: https://www.wrcrca.org/species/survey_protocols/burrowing_owl_survey_instructions.pdf. March 29. Accessed September 7, 2022.

Letter to Ms. Bonnie Johnson Page 3 of 4
January 13, 2023
• disturbed low-growing vegetation within grassland and shrublands (less than 30 percent canopy cover);
• gently rolling or level terrain;
• areas with abundant small mammal burrows, especially California ground squirrel burrows (Otospermophilus beecheyi);
• fence posts, rocks, or other low perching locations; and • artificially-created structures, such as earthen berms, debris piles, and cement culverts.

Inaccessible areas of the buffer zone were visually assessed using binoculars.

Step II – Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls
Since suitable habitat was observed during the habitat assessment, Step II surveys were conducted within the survey area. Step II surveys, which consist of a focused burrow survey (Part A) and four focused BUOW surveys (Part B), were conducted to determine whether the survey area supports suitable burrows and/or BUOW. The focused burrow survey was conducted concurrently with the first BUOW survey.

All potential burrows were checked for signs of recent owl occupation. Signs of occupation include:
• pellets/casting (regurgitated fur, bones, and/or insect parts); • white wash (excrement); and/or
• feathers.

Since suitable burrows were observed within the survey area, three additional BUOW surveys were conducted. The biologists walked transects spaced no greater than 30 meters apart (approximately 100 feet) to allow for 100 percent visual coverage of all suitable habitat within the survey area. The biologists walked slowly and methodically, closely checking suitable habitat within the survey area for suitable burrows, BUOW diagnostic sign (e.g., molted feathers, pellets/castings, or whitewash at or near a burrow entrance), and individual BUOW. Inaccessible areas of the survey area were visually assessed using binoculars. All suitable burrows, burrow surrogates, BUOW sign, and/or BUOW observations were recorded using a handheld Global Positioning System unit (Figure 4, Suitable Burrow and Transect Locations).

RESULTS
Suitable BUOW habitat was observed within the survey area, including disturbed habitat (Attachment A). Suitable burrows that could potentially be used by BUOW were observed within and adjacent to the survey area. No BUOW or sign of BUOW occupation were observed during the four focused surveys.

Therefore, BUOW does not currently occupy the project site. Observed burrow locations and transects walked are shown on Figure 4.

Letter to Ms. Bonnie Johnson Page 4 of 4
January 13, 2023

CONCLUSION
No BUOWs were observed or detected within the survey area during the focused surveys. Burrows with the potential to support BUOW were noted in the survey area, but no sign of BUOW occupation was observed. A pre-construction survey is required 30 days prior to ground disturbance pursuant to the County’s survey protocol. If ground-disturbing activities are delayed more than 30 days after the preconstruction survey has been completed, the project site must be resurveyed.

If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter report, please contact Matthew Dimson ([email protected]) at (949) 234-8770.

Sincerely,
Matthew Dimson
Biologist
Attachments:

Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: USGS Topography
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph
Figure 4: Suitable Burrow and Transect Locations
Attachment A: Representative Site Photographs
!
!! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!!! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
!!
!! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!!
!
!!
!! !!!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !

WHITEWATER RIVER
! !
! !
!! ! ! ! ! !
!! !! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!

SAN JACINTO RIVER
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
ORANGE
!

RIVERSIDE
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
! !!
!
! !
! ! !! !
ORANGE
! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
O !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
G ! ! !
E ! I
SAN D !

RIVERSIDE

SAN DIEGO
! ! !! ! !!
!
! !
! !
!
!!
!! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Big Bear Lake
AÔ
?a Coyote
San Lake
Upland
Rancho ø?
Cucamonga Fontana ?¥
Bernardino
Rialto Highland
Redlands Yucaipa Lake
å?
?¡
Lake Hemet Coachella
!"`$ %&h(
Ontario SAN BERNARDINO Yucaipa ?z RIVERSIDE
Jurupa Valley Project Prado
?±
?¹
!
Poorman Park Reservoir Location Lake
Chino !"a$ !"`$
Chino Riverside
Moreno Valley ?z ?¡
Hills !"`$ ?Æ ?¹ %&h( !
Anaheim Corona Perris
Reservoir Lake Mathews San
Jacinto Cathedral
Reservoir AÐ City
San Palm Springs
!"a$
!
Perris
Lee Lake
Jacinto AÙ
Lake ?± Hemet ?¹ Palm Desert Indio Elsinore
AÎ Menifee Canyon Lake Diamond
%&h( Valley Lake !"`$
!"a$
Lake Elsinore
Lake Cahuilla
?±
Skinner ?± ?¿ Reservoir
Murrieta
?± Añ AÙ Vail Lake
Salton Sea
!"a$ ?¹
!"^$
O'Neill Lake ?³
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\BUOW_SrvyRpt\BUOW_Srvy2022.aprx Fig1_Regional : 02939.8.1 : 12/23/2022 - SAB Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project
Lake Gregory
Mesquite Lake
Colton
Eastvale
Yorba Linda
Lake Forest
Irvine
Rancho Santa
Margarita
Mission Viejo
Laguna Niguel
A¨
Temecula
¿?RIVERSIDE

IMPERIAL
San Clemente
K Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013) 10 Miles
Regional Location
Figure 1
SAN
DIEGO

IMPERIAL
Clark Lake
0 Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project
Project
Location
0 2,000 Feet
K
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\BUOW_SrvyRpt\BUOW_Srvy2022.aprx Fig2_USGS : 02939.8.1 : 12/23/2022 - SAB Source: EL CASCO 7.5' Quad (USGS)
USGS Topography
Figure 2
Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project

SINGLETON RD

CALIMESA BLVD
§¨¦10
0 500 Feet
K
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\BUOW_SrvyRpt\BUOW_Srvy2022.aprx Fig3_Aerial : 02939.8.1 : 12/23/2022 - SAB Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2022)
Project Site
Aerial Photograph
Figure 3
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#*#

SINGLETON RD

CALIMESA BLVD
§¨¦10
0 450 Feet K
Figure 4
Suitable Burrows and Transect Locations
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\BUOW_SrvyRpt\BUOW_Srvy2022.aprx Fig4_Results : 02939.8.1 : 1/12/2023 - SAB Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2022)
Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project
Project Boundary
Survey Area - 500ft Buffer
Transects
*# Suitable Burrow
Attachment B
Site Photos
G:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvdRealignmentDraftCEQAAdd\_Reports\Biology\BUOW\Attachment A\Photos Representative Site Photos
Attachmenmt A
Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project
Photo 1. View of disturbed habitat to the east of Calimesa Boulevard in the northern portion of the project site, facing northwest.

Photo 2. View of disturbed habitat to the west of Calimesa Boulevard in the northern portion of the project site, facing southeast.

Attachment D
Cultural Resources Survey
Memorandum
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
619.462.1515 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
Date: April 6, 2023
To: John Ohanian
Oak Valley Development Company
P.O. Box 645
Calimesa, CA 92320
From: Trevor Gittelhough, RPA
Cultural Resources Assistant Project Manager
Mary Robbins-Wade, RPA
Cultural Resources Group Manager
Teri Delcamp
Senior Architectural Historian
Subject: Cultural Resources Survey for the Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project HELIX Project: 02939.00008.001
Message:

This memorandum presents the results of a cultural resource study associated with the development of the Calimesa Boulevard Realignment project (project). HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) conducted a cultural resources records search and field survey of the proposed project area. While two historic period cultural resources have been identified within the project site and no Native American resources have been identified, the project is located in an area that is quite sensitive for tribal cultural resources, as addressed below. Due to the cultural resource sensitivity of the project area and vicinity, it is recommended that all ground-disturbing activity for the project be monitored by an archaeologist and Native American monitor(s) from one or more of the Consulting Tribes for the Oak Valley Town Center project (located on the west side of Interstate 10 [1-10] from the current project area and with which the current project is associated).

INTRODUCTION
Project Location
The project site is an approximately 9-acre area within the City of Calimesa (City), Riverside County, California (Figure 1, Regional Location). The project site, which consists of the impact footprint of the proposed realignment, is on the east side of the existing alignment of Calimesa Boulevard, east of Memorandum to John Ohanian Page 2 of 7
April 6, 2023
Interstate 10, extending north and south of Singleton Road (Figure 2, USGS Topography, and Figure 3, Aerial Photograph of Project Location). It is located within Township 2 South, Range 2 West, Section 24 on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) El Casco 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Figure 2).

Project Description
In response to the General Plan Update, which classified Calimesa Boulevard as a four-lane major arterial and recommended it as a four- to six-lane major arterial within its existing alignment, the City is proposing to realign Calimesa Boulevard to the east of its current alignment and widen it to meet that recommendation. The proposed Calimesa Boulevard/Singleton Road intersection would be located approximately 400 feet from the I-10 westbound ramps on Singleton Road. This includes modifications to portions of Singleton Road that would be impacted by the realignment of Calimesa Boulevard.

METHODS
HELIX undertook a records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) on August 31, 2020 for the Oak Valley Town Center project to the west. The records search included a one-mile radius around Oak Valley Town Center and thus encompassed the realignment project area. A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on February 16, 2021 for Oak Valley Town Center, the results of which were received on March 2, 2021. As the records search and SLF search included the current project area, both were used in support of this study.

A field survey of the project site was conducted on September 9, 2022 by HELIX archaeologist Trevor Gittelhough, M.A., RPA, and Native American monitor Lerae Nechochea of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (Morongo). The project area was surveyed in parallel transects spaced approximately 10 meters apart. Ground visibility was excellent (76-100 percent), with vegetation comprised of dried grasses and weeds, as well as ornamental plants apparently associated with the previously recorded historic site.

RESULTS
Records Search
HELIX obtained a records search from the EIC in August 2020 that included the entirety of the Calimesa Boulevard Realignment project. The records search included records for archaeological and historical resources, historic addresses, locations and citations for previous cultural resources studies, and a review of the state Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) historic properties directory. The records search identified 50 cultural resources reports within the records search area. Thirty-two cultural resources with Primary numbers and/or trinomials were identified within the search radius, one of which is a historic district (the Singleton Ranch Historic District) comprised of six resources, along with ten historic addresses, buildings that range in age of construction from the late-nineteenth century to the midtwentieth century. Of these 32 resources, one is located immediately adjacent to the project area.

Site P-33-14868/CA-RIV-7923H is a historic-era site originally recorded by Tibbet in 2005, who described the site as an unoccupied property with several historic period features, including a freestanding canopy, a water tower building, remains of a garage with a service pit, concrete slabs, and the remnants of a shed. The canopy also had a low wall made of adobe blocks with a concrete cap, and there was an additional adobe retaining wall to the south. Tibbet also noted bricks with “LAPBCo” which was the Los Angeles Pressed Brick Company, in operation between 1887 and 1926. Ornamental vegetation, Memorandum to John Ohanian Page 3 of 7
April 6, 2023
including pine and pepper trees, was observed across the site. The property was first minimally developed in 1938, with additional structures added in 1944 and 1945, when the property was developed as a rest stop to serve travelers on State Route 99. The rest stop included two homes, a gas station, a restaurant, and several ancillary structures. Many of these buildings were destroyed or moved in the early 1960s during the development of Interstate 10. P-33-14868/CA-RIV-7923H was evaluated as ineligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (Tibbet 2005); thus, it is not a significant historical resource under CEQA.

Sacred Lands File Search
A Sacred Lands File search was undertaken for the Oak Valley Town Center Project, located just west of the current project area, the results of which were received on March 2, 2021. The NAHC indicated that the results of the search were positive and to contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians for further information. At that time, HELIX Principal Archaeologist, Mary Robbins-Wade, communicated with Morongo representatives via email; no telephone conversation or virtual meetings could be arranged to discuss the project. HELIX worked with Morongo on the survey for the Oak Valley Town Center project, and they are currently one of four Consulting Tribes on that project; the others are the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. Due to the location of the current project area in proximity to the Oak Valley Town Center project, HELIX used the 2021 Sacred Lands File search for the current project and contacted the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, which participated in the fieldwork for this project. No additional tribal outreach was conducted. No tribal cultural resources had been identified in conjunction with the survey and tribal outreach for the Oak Valley Town Center project.

Field Survey
The project area was surveyed for cultural resources by HELIX archaeologist Mx. Gittelhough and Native American Monitor Ms. Nechochea of Morongo. As previously noted, ground visibility was excellent. No Native American cultural resources were observed during the survey. Along the northern edge of Singleton Road, extending east from Calimesa Boulevard, is a concrete-lined drainage that was constructed between 1962 and 1965, when I-10 was built. While this drainage channel does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the CRHR or NRHP as summarized in the next section, it is being recorded on a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Primary Record (CBR-S-001), due to its age (over 50 years old).

The previously recorded site P-33-14868/CA-RIV-7923H was reidentified during the survey. While many of the components were identified, the water tower, shed, and canopy were no longer standing, though their foundations were observed. An additional component was noted during the survey, within the recorded boundaries of the site, consisting of a concrete retaining wall along the west side of Calimesa Boulevard measuring approximately 100 feet long (Feature 5). Additionally, several previously unrecorded components were observed on the east side of Calimesa Boulevard, including ornamental pine trees, a large concrete and asphalt slab measuring 40 feet by 40 feet (Feature 4), two smaller asphalt pads measuring 18 feet by 7 feet (Feature 3 and Feature 2), an asphalt driveway measuring 30 feet by 12 feet (Feature 1), and associated historic refuse including crushed sanitary and fuel cans, broken tile, brick fragments, and colorless glass sherds. Considering the similarity of ornamental vegetation observed during the survey, as well as the location, it was determined that this was an extension of the originally recorded site. A small portion of the newly expanded site is within the realignment project area (Figure 4, Locations of Cultural Resources [Confidential, bound separately]).

Memorandum to John Ohanian Page 4 of 7
April 6, 2023
Nothing observed during the survey would revise the previous evaluation of P-33-14868/CA-RIV-7923H as ineligible for the CRHR and the NRHP.

Concrete-lined Drainage (CBR-S-001)
A concrete-lined drainage channel along the northern edge of Singleton Road extends east approximately 570 feet from the intersection of Calimesa Boulevard and Singleton Road. Based on a review of aerial photographs, the channel was constructed between 1962 and 1965 when I-10 was built.

Due to the feature being over 50 years old, Senior Architectural Historian Teri Delcamp evaluated the channel in accordance with NRHP and CRHR criteria. Ms. Delcamp meets and exceeds the Secretary of Interior Professional Qualifications Standards for architectural history and history. Her resume is included as an attachment to this memorandum, along with resumes for Mx. Gittelhough and Ms.

Robbins-Wade.

NRHP Criteria
In order to qualify for the NRHP, a property must be significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of four criteria. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects:

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition to meeting one of more of the above criteria, a NRHP-eligible property must also retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance and be at least 50 years of age or of extraordinary importance.

CRHR Criteria
The criteria for listing in the CRHR are generally consistent with the NRHP criteria. In order to qualify for the CRHR, a historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:

1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method or construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or Memorandum to John Ohanian Page 5 of 7
April 6, 2023

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, a CRHR-eligible property must also retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance. Unlike the NRHP, a CRHR-eligible property need not be 50 years of age to be eligible if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance.

Evaluation
The following NRHP/CRHR evaluation adheres to the National Park Service (NPS) guidelines for evaluation as provided in National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (NPS 1995).

Criterion A/1
The concrete-lined drainage channel (CBR-S-001) was constructed between 1962 and 1965. There were no observed markings or date stamps in the concrete to identify a more specific construction date. Prior to the channel’s construction, aerial photographs indicate that the area was a drainage wash created by runoff from the hills to the east. The aerials show no indication of farming—either crops or grazing—in the area prior to or after the 1962/1965 period, so there is no indication that the channel was intended or used for irrigation purposes (NETR Online 2023). Rather, the feature appears to have been built as part of the construction of I-10 to address the existing surface runoff drainage patterns in the area.

Additional aerial photographs indicate that by 1972, the drainage channel was extended further east beyond the project boundary when Singleton Road was extended to I-10 and paved. Eventually by 2010/2012, based on aerial photographs, the drainage channel was extended significantly to the northeast, connecting to the drainage infrastructure of the Singleton Heights residential subdivision north of Singleton Road at Singleton Canyon Road. The concrete-lined drainage channel does not appear to be directly associated with any historically significant events, trends, patterns, or themes at the local, state, or federal level. Therefore, the concrete-lined drainage channel is not historically significant under Criterion A/1 (association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history).

Criterion B/2
Research has not revealed any significant association between the drainage channel and any historically significant persons at the national, state, or local level. Therefore, the concrete-lined drainage channel is not historically significant under Criterion B/2 (association with the lives of significant persons in our past).

Criterion C/3
The concrete-lined drainage channel was built between 1962 and 1965 as part of the construction of I-10 and Singleton Road to address existing runoff in the area. The purpose of the drainage channel was purely functional to address the existing surface runoff drainage patterns in the area prior to the freeway’s construction. The design, materials, and method of construction are not unique and are typical of similar structures found all over the state. The drainage channel is not a significant design feature or element of the freeway infrastructure. Therefore, the concrete-lined drainage channel is not Memorandum to John Ohanian Page 6 of 7
April 6, 2023
historically significant under Criterion C/3 (embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction).

Criterion D/4
This criterion is most relevant for archaeological sites, but it can be applied to historic built-environment resources if further study has the potential to yield information that cannot be obtained from other sources. However, further study of the concrete-lined drainage channel would not add any new information to the historic record or our understanding of the area or the development of I-10 or Singleton Road. Therefore, the concrete-lined drainage channel is not historically significant under Criterion D/4 (has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory).

CONCLUSIONS
A cultural resources survey was conducted for the proposed Calimesa Boulevard Realignment Project. A single historic archaeological site, P-33-14868/CA-RIV-7923H, had been previously recorded adjacent to the project area. This site was reidentified, and additional components were documented, during the field survey conducted by HELIX and Morongo on September 8, 2022. A small section of the resource is within the realignment project area. In addition, a concrete-lined drainage channel constructed in the early 1960s was recorded during the field survey (CBR-S-001) but was found not to meet criteria for listing in the NRHP or CRHR. No other cultural resources were identified within the project area.

P-33-14868/CA-RIV-7923H was previously evaluated to be ineligible for inclusion in the CRHR and the NRHP. Only a small portion of the site, newly identified in the southern portion of the project area, would be impacted by the proposed alignment. While the newly recorded concrete drainage (CBR-S001) is a historic feature associated with the construction of I-10, it is constructed in a generic manner and can provide no historic or cultural data and is likewise not eligible for the CRHR or NRHP. Thus, the project would have no effects to historical resources per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

However, the project is located in an area of high cultural resource sensitivity, and the Sacred Lands File search was positive, indicating the cultural significance of the area to the Serrano, Cahuilla, and Luiseño people. In addition, recent discoveries during monitoring at the Oak Valley Town Center project have identified sensitive cultural resources, including Tribal Cultural Resources. Much of the realignment project area has been disturbed by nineteenth- and twentieth-century agricultural activities and infrastructure. This has likely destroyed or impacted any surficial cultural materials that may have been present. Given the alluvial setting, however, there is a potential for buried cultural resources that are not apparent on the surface. Based on these factors, while significant effects to cultural resources have not been identified for the project, it is recommended that an archaeological and Native American monitoring program be implemented for the realignment project. The monitoring program would include development and implementation of a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) by the archaeological consultant in consultation with the Consulting Tribes for the Oak Valley Town Center Project, City staff, and the applicant/developer. An archaeologist and Native American monitor(s) from one or more of the Consulting Tribes would attend a pre-grade meeting with the contractor to explain the cultural sensitivity of the area and the requirements of the CRMP; archaeological and Native American monitors would be present for all ground-disturbing activity within potentially cultural soils, Memorandum to John Ohanian Page 7 of 7
April 6, 2023
including brushing/grubbing, grading, excavation, etc. If cultural material is encountered, both archaeological and Native American monitors would have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities while the find is assessed and appropriate avoidance, treatment, or mitigation measures are developed and implemented.

If you have any questions, please contact Mary Robbins-Wade at (619) 462-1515 extension 276 or [email protected].

Attachments:

Figure 1-Regional Location
Figure 2-USGS Topography
Figure 3-Aerial Photograph
Figure 4-Locations of Cultural Resources (Confidential, bound separately) A DPR Forms
B Resumes of Key Personnel

REFERENCES
National Park Service (NPS)
1995 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

Washington D.C.

NETR Online
2023 Historic Aerials. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. Electronic document available at: http://www.historicaerials.com. Accessed February 14, 2023.

Tibbet, Casey
2005 Department of Parks and Recreation Form for P-33-14868 / CA-RIV-7923. Completed by LSA Associates, Inc. On file at Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!!
!!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!!!
! !! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!"^$
!"`$
!"`$
!"`$
!"`$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
å?
ø?
?a
?z
?z ?¡
?¡
?¥
?± ?±
?±
?±
?±
?³
?¹
?¹
?¹
?¹
?¿
?¿
?Æ
?Æ
AÙ
AÙ
Añ
A¨
%&h(
%&h(
%&h(
AÎ
AÐ
AÔ
Añ

SAN BERNARDINO

RIVERSIDE

IMPERIAL

RIVERSIDE

SAN DIEGO

RIVERSIDE ORANGE

IMPERIAL
SAN
DIEGO

SAN DIEG
OR
O
ANGE

SAN JACINTO RIVER

WHITEWATER RIVER
Big Bear Lake
Mesquite Lake
Coyote
Lake
Perris
Reservoir
Lake Mathews
Lake Elsinore
Skinner
Reservoir
Salton Sea
Clark Lake
Diamond
Valley Lake
Project
Location Project
Location
Laguna Niguel
Rancho Santa
Margarita
Mission Viejo
Lake Forest
Irvine
Anaheim
Yorba Linda
Temecula
Murrieta
Coachella
Lake
Elsinore
Menifee
Hemet Palm Desert
Indio
San
Jacinto Perris
Corona
Cathedral
City
Chino
Hills
Palm Springs
Moreno Valley
Riverside
Ontario
Eastvale
Yucaipa
Colton Redlands
Upland Fontana Rialto
Chino
Rancho
Cucamonga
San
Bernardino
Highland
Jurupa Valley
San Clemente
San
Jacinto
Reservoir
Lake Gregory
Lee Lake
Poorman
Reservoir
Canyon Lake
Lake Hemet
Lake Cahuilla
Vail Lake
O'Neill Lake
Yucaipa Lake
Prado
Park
Lake
0 10 Miles
Figure 1
Regional Location
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\CRLetter\CRLetter.aprx Fig1_Regional : 02939.8.1 : 11/30/2022 - SAB Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013)
K
Calimesa Blvd Realignment
Project
Location
0 2,000 Feet
K
Figure 2
USGS Topography
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\CRLetter\CRLetter.aprx Fig2_USGS : 02939.8.1 : 11/30/2022 - SAB Source: EL CASCO 7.5' Quad (USGS)
Calimesa Blvd Realignment

SINGLETON RD

CALIMESA BLVD
§¨¦10
K
0 400 Feet
I:\PROJECTS\T\TerraVerdeGrp_02939\00008_CalimesaBlvd\Map\CRLetter\CRLetter.aprx Fig3_Aerial : 02939.8.1 : 11/30/2022 - SAB Figure 3
Aerial Photograph of Project Location
Source: Aerial (County of Riverside, 2020)
Calimesa Blvd Realignment
Project Site
Attachment A
DPR Forms
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #:

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial:

NRHP Status Code: 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 4 ends

Calimesa City CouncilAugust 7, 2023

Calimesa City Council
August 7, 2023