Agenda — Temecula City Council, May 24, 2022 (part 1 of 12)

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II].

AGENDA

TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET

TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
MAY 24, 2022 - 6:00 PM
CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 PM
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - PENDING LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) with respect to one matter of pending litigation: Capone v. City of Temecula, Riverside County Superior Court Case No. CVSW 2000825.

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — POTENTIAL LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Attorney, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City. Based on existing facts and circumstances, the City Council will decide whether to initiate litigation.

CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Matt Rahn
INVOCATION: Deacon John Gabriele of St. Catherine of Alexandria Church FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Matt Rahn
ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart

PRESENTATIONS
Proclamation for Water Safety Month

BOARD / COMMISSION REPORTS
Community Services Commission, Planning Commission and Race, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Commission

PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)

Page 1 ends

City Council Agenda May 24, 2022

PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS
A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to [email protected]. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten minutes will be devoted to these reports.

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to [email protected]. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.

1. Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions Recommendation: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code.

Attachments: Agenda Report

2. Approve Action Minutes of May 10, 2022
Recommendation:

Attachments:

That the City Council approve the action minutes of May 10, 2022.

Action Minutes

3. Approve List of Demands
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:

Page 2 ends

City Council Agenda May 24, 2022

4. 5.

6. 7.

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS

SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
Attachments: Agenda Report
Resolution
List of Demands
Approve City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2021 Recommendation: That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2021.

Attachments: Agenda Report
Treasurer's Report
Approve Cooperative Agreement with Non-profit Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley in Support of Various Senior Services Activities
Recommendation: That the City Council approve a cooperative agreement with non-profit Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley in support of various senior services activities.

Attachments: Agenda Report
Agreement
Approve Agreement with Temecula Valley Unified School District for Interim Use of Temecula Valley High School Pool Facilities
Recommendation: That the City Council approve an agreement with Temecula Valley Unified School District for interim use of Temecula Valley High School pool facilities.

Attachments: Agenda Report
Agreement
Adopt List of Projects to be Funded by Senate Bill One (SB 1) for Fiscal Year 2022-23 Recommendation
That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

TEMECULA ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2022-23 FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017

Page 3 ends

City Council Agenda May 24, 2022
Attachments: Agenda Report
RPcnlntinn

8. Approve the Initial Study and Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Diaz Road Expansion Project, PW17-25
Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Approve the Initial Study (IS) and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Diaz Road Expansion Project, PW 17-25; and

2. Direct the Public Works Director to file the Notice of Determination (NOD).

Attachments: Agenda Report
Final Initial Study
Notice of Determination
Project Description

9. Approve Purchase and Sale Agreement for Acquisition of Certain Property Interests on Assessor's Parcel Number 910-100-018 in Connection with I-15/French Valley ParkwaX Improvements - Phase II, PW 16-01
Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Adopt a resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN PURCHASE AND SALE

AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BETWEEN
CITY OF TEMECULA AND LINDA D. HUDDLESTON, TRUSTEE,
ROXANNA M. HODGES, TRUSTEE, SUSAN D. RENNO, TRUSTEE,
FOURSQUARE FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., AND STEVEN

WILLIAMS AND BRENDA JORDAN, SUCCESSOR CO -TRUSTEES
IN CONNECTION WITH THE I-15/FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY
IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II (PORTIONS OF APN 910-100-018)

2. Authorize the City Manager to approve and execute all necessary documents, including those in substantially the form attached to the agenda report, and take all necessary actions to effectuate the purchase of the approximate 11,516 square foot partial fee acquisition, the approximate 6,741 square foot temporary construction easement, and the approximate 6,901 square foot temporary construction easement on the real property located at the northwest corner of Elm Street and Jackson

Page 4 ends

City Council Agenda May 24, 2022
Avenue in Murrieta, California and identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 910-100-018.

Attachments: Agenda Report
Resolution
Purchase and Sale Agreement
Property Depiction
Project Description
Project Location

10. Approve Agreement for Consultant Services with Dudek for the Citywide Drainage Master Plan, PW19-16
Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Approve the agreement for consultant services with Dudek in the amount of $535,740.50, for professional engineering services on the Citywide Drainage Master Plan, PW 19-16; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to approve extra work authorizations not to exceed the contingency amount of $53,574.00, which is approximately 10% of the agreement amount.

Attachments: Agenda Report
Agreement
Project Description

11. Approve First Amendments to Annual Professional Services Agreements for Geotechnical and Materials Testing Services for the Department of Public Works/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Division for Fiscal Years 2020-2024
Recommendation
Attnehmvntc
That the City Council approve the first amendments to annual professional services agreements for geotechnical and materials testing services for the Department of Public Works/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Division for Fiscal Years 2020-2024, as follows:
- Geocon West, Inc., $1,000,000 total term
- Leighton Consulting, Inc., $1,000,000 total term
- MTGL, Inc., First Amendment, $1,000,000 total term
Agenda Report
Geocon - Amendment
Leighton - Amendment
MTGL - Amendment

Page 5 ends

City Council Agenda May 24, 2022

12. Approve First Amendments to Annual Professional Services Agreements for Property Acquisition Services for the Department of Public Works/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Division for Fiscal Years 2020-2024
Recommendation
Attachments
That the City Council approve the first amendments to annual professional services agreements for property acquisition services for the Department of Public Works/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Division for Fiscal Years 2020-2024, as follows:
- Overland, Pacific & Cutler, LLC, $300,000 total term
- Paragon Partners Consultants, Inc., $300,000 total term Agenda Report
OPC - Amendment
Paragon - Amendment

13. Approve Second Amendment to the Minor Maintenance Agreement for Landscape Maintenance Services with Nieves Landscape, Inc.

Recommendation: That the City Council approve the second amendment to the minor maintenance agreement for landscape maintenance services with Nieves Landscape, Inc., in the amount of $2,748,693.48 for Fiscal Year 2022-23, and approve contingency for extra work in the amount of $549,737, which is approximately 20% of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 amount.

Attachments: Agenda Report
Amendment

14. Annrove Third Amendment to Agreement with David Evans and Associates. Inc. for the Diaz Road Expansion Project, PW 17-25
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the third amendment to the agreement with David Evans and Associates, Inc., in the amount of $59,279.80, for additional contingency in support of the professional design and environmental services of the Diaz Road Expansion Project, PW 17-25 and increase the City Manager's authority to approve extra work authorizations by the same amount.

Attachments: Agenda Report
Amendment
Project Description

15. Approve the Plans and Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Sidewalks - Citywide - Ynez Road Between Rancho Highland and Tierra Vista Drive, PW 17-28
Recommendation
That the City Council:

Page 6 ends

City Council Agenda May 24, 2022

16. 17.

1. Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Sidewalks - Citywide - Ynez Road between Rancho Highland and Tierra Vista Road, PW 17-28; and

2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines.

Attachments: Agenda Report
Project Description
Project Location
Approve the Plans and Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Fire Station 84 Renovation, PW 19-14
Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Fire Station 84 Renovation, PW19-14; and

2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines.

Attachments: Agenda Report
Project Description
Project Location
Approve the Plans and Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Traffic Signal Installation - Citywide, Rancho California Road and Tee Drive, PW 19-19 Recommendation:

That the City Council:

1. Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Traffic Signal Installation - Citywide, Rancho California Road and Tee Drive, PW19-19; and

2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines.

Page 7 ends

City Council Agenda May 24, 2022

18. 19.

Attachments: Agenda Report
Project Description
Project Location Map
Approve the Plans and Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Citywide Concrete Repairs Fiscal Year 2021-22 Project, PW22-01 Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Citywide Concrete Repairs Fiscal Year 2021-22 Project, PW22-01; and

2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines.

Attachments: Agenda Report
List of Concrete Repairs
School Ramps and Striping Locations
Approve the Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Meadowview/Paloma Del Sol Project, PW21-06 Recommendation:

Attachments:

That the City Council:

1. Approve the specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Meadowview/Paloma Del Sol Project, PW21-06; and

2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from the CEQA requirements pursuant to Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines.

Agenda Report
Project Description
Project Location Map - Meadowview
Project Location Map - Paloma Del Sol

20. Set Public Hearing to Approve Solid Waste and Recycling and SB 1383 Compliance Fee on Commercial Collection Rates for Commercial Customers for Fiscal Year 2022-23 Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

Page 8 ends

City Council Agenda May 24, 2022

TEMECULA SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC

HEARING IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOLID WASTE AND
RECYCLING AND SB1383 COMPLIANCE FEE ON

COMMERCIAL COLLECTION RATES FOR COMMERCIAL
CUSTOMERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
Attachments: Agenda Report
Resolution
CR & R Rate Schedule

RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA

COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND/OR THE

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

Page 9 ends

City Council Agenda May 24, 2022

TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: President James Stewart
ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart

CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS
A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to [email protected]. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.

CSD CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Community Services District request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to [email protected]. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.

21. Approve Action Minutes of May 10, 2022
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the action minutes of May 10, 2022.

Attachments: Action Minutes

22. Set Public Hearin_. to o Approve TCSD Proposed Rates and Charges for Fiscal Year 2022-23 Recommendation: That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. CSD

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF

TEMECULA ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A REPORT WITH

Page 10 ends

City Council Agenda May 24, 2022

RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A

PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
Attachments: Agenda Report
Resolution
Exhibit A

CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT

CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT

CSD BOARD OF DIRECTOR REPORTS

CSD ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District will be held on Tuesday, June 14, 2022, at 4:30 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.

Page 11 ends

City Council Agenda May 24, 2022

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - NO

MEETING

TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY - NO MEETING

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY - NO MEETING

RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL

PUBLIC HEARING
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of a project at the time of the hearing. If you challenge a project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to the public hearing. For public hearings each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to [email protected]. Email comments on all matters, including those not on the agenda, must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. At public hearings involving land use matters, the property owner and/or applicant has the burden of proof and, therefore, shall be allowed 15 minutes for an initial presentation, and an additional 10 minutes for rebuttal by its development team following other comments on the matter. An appellant, other than the property owner and/or applicant, and the spokesperson for an organized group of residents residing within the noticed area of the property, which is the subject of the public hearing, shall be allowed 15 minutes to present the appellant's position to the Council. The Mayor may allow more time if required to provide due process for the property owner, applicant or appellant. All other members of the public may speak during the public hearing for a maximum period of 5 minutes each. Deferral of one speaker's time to another is not permitted. In the event of a large number of speakers, the Mayor may reduce the maximum time limit for members of the public to speak. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.

23. Adopt an Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Title 6 of the Temecula Municipal Code and Make Modifications to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code Regarding the Keeping,.

Maintenance, and Possession of Dogs, Cats, Fowl and Other Animals (Long Range Project Number LR21-0130)
Recommendation
That the City Council introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA REPEALING AND REPLACING TITLE 6 OF THE

TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE KEEPING,

MAINTENANCE, AND POSSESSION OF DOGS, CATS, FOWL, AND

OTHER ANIMALS AND PROVIDING FOR THE CONTROL,

Page 12 ends

City Council Agenda May 24, 2022
LICENSING, AND WELFARE THEREOF, MODIFYING TITLE 17 OF

THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ANIMAL

KEEPING AND MAKING A FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) OURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061
(13)(3) (LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT NO. LR21-0130)
Attachments: Agenda Report
Ordinance
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-13
Notice of Public Hearing

BUSINESS
Any member of the public may address the City Council on items that appear on the Business portion of the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to [email protected].

Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.

24. Consider Update Regarding Proposed Memorial and Monument Policy At the Request of Subcommittee Members Alexander and Stewart)
Recommendation: That the City Council consider an update for the proposed memorial and monument policy and provide general direction regarding the same.

Attachments: Agenda Report

25. Consider Development of an Aquatics Center (At the Request of Council Member Stewart) Recommendation: That the City Council consider opportunities for the development of an aquatics center and provide general direction regarding the same.

Attachments: Agenda Report
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS (Receive and File)

26. City Council Travel/Conference Report
Attachments: Agenda Report
Itinerary

27. Community Development Department Monthly Report
Attachments: Agenda Report
Planning Activity Report

Page 13 ends

City Council Agenda May 24, 2022

28. Fire Department Monthly Report
Attachments: Agenda Report
Fire Department Report

29. Public Works Department Monthly Report
Attachments: Agenda Report
Project Status Report

ITEMS FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Any Council Member, including the Mayor, may request an item be placed on a future agenda. Any such request will be discussed under this section. In making the request, a Council Member may briefly describe the topic of the proposed agenda item and any timing associated with the placement of the item on the agenda. This description shall not exceed 3 minutes unless extended by a majority vote of the City Council. No substantive discussion on the subject of the motion may occur. General discussion amongst the City Council on items listed under this section of the agenda shall be limited to 15 minutes.

Items may only be placed on the agenda by Council Members pursuant to policy or by the City Manager based on administrative or operational needs of the City. Public comments on the placement of these agenda items shall be limited to a maximum of 30 minutes. Individual comments shall not exceed 3 minutes. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings and Agenda Placements by Council Members adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.

CITY MANAGER REPORT

CITY ATTORNEY REPORT

ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, June 14, 2022, at 4:30 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
The full agenda packet (including staff reports, public closed session information, and any supplemental material available after the original posting of the agenda), distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the main reception area of the Temecula Civic Center during normal business hours at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. The material will also be available on the City's website at TemeculaCa.gov. and available for review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda, please contact the City Clerk's Department at (951) 694-6444.

Page 14 ends

Item No. 1

CITY OF TEMECULA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk DATE: May 24, 2022
SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code.

BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. Unless otherwise required, the full reading of the text of standard ordinances and resolutions is waived.

FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS: None

Item No. 2

ACTION MINUTES

TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET

TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
MAY 10, 2022 - 6:00 PM
CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 PM
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — POTENTIAL LITIGATION. The City Council convened in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. A point has been reached where in the opinion of the City Attorney, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City. Based on existing facts and circumstances, the City Council will decide whether to initiate litigation.

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. The City Council convened in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding the acquisition of certain property interests, including certain permanent maintenance and access easements, temporary construction easements with a term of twelve months, covenants for construction of certain permanent improvements, and a conservation easement on four properties described below in connection with the proposed extension of Nicolas Road from its current termination at Calle Girasol easterly to Butterfield Stage Road, Project Number LD20-1114 ("Project"). Negotiators for the City are Patrick Thomas and Ron Moreno. The negotiators for the respective real property interests are set forth below. (i) The acquisition of certain property interests from the real property located at 31249 Indian Summer Road in the City of Temecula (APN 957-090-022). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 83,324 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of 12 months, covenant authorizing the construction of certain permanent improvements in portions of that 83,234 square foot area, and an approximate 51,003 square foot conservation easement. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owners Lam Ngo and Huyen Lam Tran. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests.
(ii) The acquisition of certain property interests from the real property located at 39622 Liefer Road in the City of Temecula (APN 957-090-023). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 31,168 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of 12 months, covenant authorizing the construction of certain permanent improvements in portions of that 31,168 square foot area. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owners Isaac G. Navejar and Isabel L.

Navejar, as Co -Trustees of the Navejar Living Trust, U/A dated July 18, 2019. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests. (iii) The acquisition of certain property interests from the real property located at 31270 Tommy Lane in the City of Temecula (APN 957-150-005). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 31,520 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of 12 months and an approximate 26,957 square foot permanent maintenance and access easement. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owners Jose Leonardo Garcia and Mayerling Alida Monteros-Garcia. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests.

(iv) The acquisition of certain property interests from the real property located at 39280 Deputy Road in the City of Temecula (APN 957-090-019). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 29,630 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of 12 months, covenant authorizing the construction of certain permanent improvements in portions of that 29,630 square foot area, an approximate 16,956 square foot permanent maintenance and access easement, and a public utility asement. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owners Sohan Singh and Kuldip Kaur Singh. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests.

CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 PM: Mayor Matt Rahn
INVOCATION: Chaplain Rich Insalaco of Rancho Community Church FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Maryann Edwards
ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart

PRESENTATIONS
Proclamation for National Asian American and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Heritage Month Proclamation for National Fentanyl Awareness Day
Proclamation for National Bike Month
Proclamation for National Public Works Week
Certificate of Recognition for Salvation Army's Service to Temecula for 25 years

BOARD / COMMISSION REPORTS
Planning Commission and Public/Traffic Safety Commission

PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT
Riverside County Sheriffs Department

PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS
The following individual(s) addressed the City Council:
• Denise Lanier
• Magda Stewart
• Slim Killens
• Dario Bianchi
The following individual(s) submitted an electronic comment:
• Gia Rueda • Leah Deltye
• Laurel LaMont

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar.

Approved the Staff Recommendation (5-0): Motion by Edwards, Second by Stewart. The vote reflected unanimous approval.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions Recommendation: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code.

Approve Action Minutes of April 26, 2022
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the action minutes of April 26, 2022.

Approve List of Demands
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-36

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS

SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
Adopt Ordinance 2022-08 Amending Section 10.28.010(D) of the Temecula Municipal Code Regarding Prima Facie Speed Limits on Certain Streets (Second Reading) Recommendation: That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled:

ORDINANCE NO.2022-08

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTION 10.28.010(D) OF THE

TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE

SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREETS
Approve Increase to the Contingency for the Fiber Optic Communication System Upgrade, PW 18-05
Recommendation:

That the City Council:

1. Approve an increase to the contingency for construction support services for the Fiber Optic Communication System Upgrade project in the amount of $10,013; and

2. Increase the City Manager's authority by the same amount of $10,013.

6. Approve Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for Citywide Slurry Seal Program - Fiscal Year 2021-2022, PW22-02
Recommendation: That the City Council:
3 1. Approve the specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Citywide Slurry Seal Program - Fiscal Year 2021-2022, PW22-02; and

2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines.

7. Receive and File Temporary Street Closures for 2022 Summerfest Events Recommendation:

RECESS:

That the City Council receive and file the temporary closure of certain streets for the following 2022 Summerfest Events:

JUNETEENTH

TACO FESTIVAL
4TH OF JULY PARADE
4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS SHOW
At 7:25 PM, the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting and the Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting. At 7:31 PM the City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda.

RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL

BUSINESS

11. Approve Fourth Amendment to City Manager Aaron Adams' Employment Agreement Recommendation: That the City Council approve the Fourth Amendment to City Manager Aaron Adams' Employment Agreement.

Approved the Staff Recommendation (5-0): Motion by Edwards, Second by Schwank. The vote reflected unanimous approval.

12. Approve Creation of a Regional Cancer Task Force, Appoint City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee, and Provide General Direction Regarding the Same (At the Request of Maw Rahn
Recommendation:

That the City Council approve the creation of a Regional Cancer Task Force, appoint a City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee, and provide general direction regarding the same.

Approved the Staff Recommendation and appointed Mayor Rahn and Council Member Edwards to the Subcommittee (5-0): Motion by Schwank, Second by Edwards. The vote reflected unanimous approval.

ITEMS FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS

1. Discussion on Development of an Aquatics Center (At the Request of Council Member Stewart) Council Approved (5-0): Motion Edwards, Second by Alexander. The vote reflected unanimous approval.

CITY MANAGER REPORT

CITY ATTORNEY REPORT

ADJOURNMENT
At 7:48 PM, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, May 24, 2022, at 4:30 PM for Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.

Matt Rahn, Mayor
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]

Item No. 3

CITY OF TEMECULA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance
DATE: May 24, 2022
SUBJECT: Approve the List of Demands
PREPARED BY: Pam Espinoza, Accounting Technician I
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS

AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City's policies and procedures.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution

2. List of Demands

RESOLUTION NO.2022-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND

DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the office of the City Clerk, has been reviewed by the City Manager's Office and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $ 5,581,158.90.

Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 24th day of May 2022.

Matt Rahn, Mayor
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss

CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 24th day of May 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Randi Johl, City Clerk

CITY OF TEMECULA

LIST OF DEMANDS
04/27/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
$ 427,219.99
04/28/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
3,902,072.07
05/03/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
233,282.41
05/05/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
376,455.69
05/12/2022 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN:
642,128.74
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 5/24/2022 COUNCIL MEETING:
$ 5,581,158.90
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:

CHECKS:
001

GENERAL FUND
$ 3,633,039.29
125

PEG PUBLIC EDUCATION & GOVERNMENT
392.47
140

COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT
17,962.56
165

RDA DEV- LOW/MOD SET ASIDE
756.56
190

TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
85,498.42
192
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREET LIGHTS
23,473.58
194
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "D" REFUSE/RECYCLING

29.02 196
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT.
20,803.35
197

TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND
4,185.49
210

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND
785,082.86
300

INSURANCE FUND
3,294.55
305

WORKERS' COMPENSATION
2,280.34
320

INFORMATION SYSTEMS
255,035.51
330

CENTRAL SERVICES
8,302.51
340

FACILITIES
21,165.39
501
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD
2,100.05
502
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK
1,450.40
503
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLAND
1,650.40
504
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS
292.07
505
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES
1,500.40
506
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY
750.40
507
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW
500.05
508
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE
6,027.27
509
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA

75.05 510
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE
250.40
511
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW

62.55 512
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS
3,583.03
513
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP
1,293.17
514
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES
450.05
515
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATE
400.05
516
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS
958.38
517
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA

70.88 518
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS
3,849.83
519
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR
2,663.76
520
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL
5,732.58
521
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH
10,880.28
522
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE
162.55
523
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN
225.59
524
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON
5,632.79
525
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS
1,766.66
526
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION

62.55 527
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE
250.40
528
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK
12,470.46
529
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT
100.21
700
CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45
12,516.00
$ 4,939,030.16

CITY OF TEMECULA

LIST OF DEMANDS
001

GENERAL FUND
$ 338,544.74
140

COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT
533.44
165

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
3,493.23
190

TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
168,302.14
194

TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING
1,394.90
196
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT.
558.02
197

TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND
3,511.26
300

INSURANCE FUND
2,156.19
305

WORKERS' COMPENSATION
2,156.22
320

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
36,466.08
330

SUPPORT SERVICES
4,298.62
340

FACILITIES
8,431.02
501
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD

0.03 502
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK

0.49 503
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS

0.49 504
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS

0.49 505
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES

0.49 506
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY

0.49 507
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW

0.03 508
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE
273.30
509
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA

0.03 510
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE

0.49 511
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW

0.03 512
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS
136.62
513
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP.

13.60 514
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES

0.03 515
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES

0.03 516
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS

13.60 517
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA

0.03 518
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS

81.94 519
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR
114.73
520
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL
273.45
521
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH
519.37
522
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE

0.03 523
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN

1.30 524
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON
218.64
525
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS

27.27 526
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION

0.03 527
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE

0.49 528
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK
546.65
529
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT
(0.04)
700
CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45
70,058.75
642,128.74
TOTAL BY FUND: $ 5,581,158.90

apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1
04/27/2022 3:01:32PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK
Check # Date
Vendor
Description
502177 4/28/2022
004240

AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES
DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM
AFN

SHERIFF
502178 4/28/2022
000936

AMERICAN RED CROSS,
STAFF/LIFEGUARDS CERTS:

HEALTH AND SAFETY SVCS

AQUATICS
502179 4/28/2022
002187

ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE
DEC 21 & JAN-FEB 22 ANIMAL CNTRL

VALLEYS
SVCS:T
502180 4/28/2022
013950

AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO
APR DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT:

THEATER
APR DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: JRC
APR DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: PW
APR DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: TPL
APR DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: FOC
APR DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: TVM
APR DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: MPSC
APR DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: TCC
502181 4/28/2022
018941

AZTEC LANDSCAPING INC
MAR MAINT SVCS: PARKS/SCHOOLS:

PW
FEB MAINT SVCS: PARKS/SCHOOLS: PVC
502182 4/28/2022
018408

BOB CALLAHAN'S POOL
APR POOL MAINT SVC: CRC & TES

SERVICE
APR POOL MAINT SVC: OLD TOWN & CI\
502183 4/28/2022
021588

BRAUN PETER, DBA
APR PLANTSCAPE SVCS: LIBRARY

TEMECULA PLANTSCAPE
PLANTSCAPE SVCS: CIVIC CENTER
502184 4/28/2022
022518

BRIGHTON HILL ACADEMY SLC

TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS

DBA, THE FIRST TEE OF THE
I.E.
502185 4/28/2022
022596

CITYGATE ASSOCIATES LLC
PROF SVC AGREEMENT: PD
502186 4/28/2022 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING &

HVAC INC

ASSESSMENT
PLUMBING SVCS: PARKS: PW
PLUMBING SVCS: PARKS: PW
PLUMBING SVCS: PARKS: PW
PLUMBING SVCS: PARKS: PW
502187 4/28/2022 001393 DATA TICKET INC, DBA
FEB CITATION PROCESSING: POLICE

REVENUE EXPERTS
502188 4/28/2022 020648 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2
MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYS:

INC, CONVERGINT

INFO TEC

TECHNOLOGIES
MAINT & REPAIR SECURITY SYS: INFO T
Amount Paid
1,379.17
875.75
30,000.00

28.28 28.28

34.75 28.28
9,098.22
7,740.16
1,100.00
950.00
200.00
500.00
997.50
8,145.99
1,012.50
845.00
889.46
675.00
990.92
2,393.88
7,525.05
Check Total
1,379.17
875.75
30,000.00
232.71
16,838.38
2,050.00
700.00
997.50
8,145.99
3,421.96
990.92
9,918.93
Page:1

apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2
04/27/2022 3:01:32PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank:
eunion EFT UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
502189
4/28/2022
003945

DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL
TEMP FENCING: MINI PUMP TRACK:

SRVCS
PW21-05
TEMPORARY FENCING: JRC
502190
4/28/2022
019720

DIVERSIFIED WATERSCAPES
APR WTR QUALITY MAINT: DUCK
INC

POND/HARVEST
502191
4/28/2022
004192

DOWNS ENERGY FUEL
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PARK
MAINT: PW
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: STREET MAI
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC: PV6
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: FIRE DEPT
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: LAND DEV: P
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CIP: PW
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: LAND DEV
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PW-CIP
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: STREET MAI
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PARK MAINT
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC: PV6
502192
4/28/2022
004068

ECALDRE MANALILI-DE VILLA,

TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
AILEEN
502193
4/28/2022
020904

ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVES INC
APR CONDENSER WTR SYS PM: CIVIC
CTR
502194
4/28/2022
018098

ELITE CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
FEB'22 3RD PARTY CLAIM ADMIN:

INC

WRKRS COM
502195
4/28/2022
022726

FORENSIC NURSING OF
SART EXAM: TEM SHERIFF

SOCAL INC
502196
4/28/2022
017135
EMPLOYEE #00472
REIMB: ISAARBOR CERT/AUTO
SUPPLIES: PAR
502197
4/28/2022
013076

GAUDET YVONNE M, DBA YES

TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS

YOU CAN DRAW
502198
4/28/2022
021365

GEORGE HILLS COMPANY INC
MAR CLAIM ADJUSTER SVCS: HR
502199
4/28/2022
021308
GILLIS + PANICHAPAN

EXTERIOR ADA IMPROV'T

ARCHITECTS, INC

ARCHITECTURAL SVCS
ARCHITECTURAL SVCS: CRC PW19-07
502200
4/28/2022
000177

GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: TCC: FIRE
INC
502201
4/28/2022
003792

GRAINGER
MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: FACILITIES:

PW
Amount Paid Check Total
1,246.08

95.00 1,341.08
7,213.00 7,213.00
2,363.37
1,549.00
720.53
485.99
241.92
155.38
172.26
157.90
190.87
836.35
1,526.17
469.03 8,868.77
1,683.00 1,683.00
538.67 538.67
1,250.00 1,250.00
1,200.00 1,200.00
145.19 145.19
385.00 385.00
3,022.02 3,022.02
17,600.00
987.51 18,587.51
124.15 124.15

78.11 78.11
Paget

apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3
04/27/2022 3:01:32PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check # Date
Vendor
Description
502202 4/28/2022
020628 HASA INC
POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS:

VARIOUS POOLS
502203 4/28/2022
022530 HINER, DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS
ADULT SOFTBALL OFFICIATING SVCS:

HINER UMPIRING
SPORTS
502204 4/28/2022
022056 IDETAIL SUPPLY CO
ENGINE MAINT SUPPLIES: FIRE STA 73
ENGINE MAINT SUPPLIES: FIRE STA 95
ENGINE MAINT SUPPLIES: FIRE STA 12
502205 4/28/2022
006914 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT
PLOTTER & COPIER SUPPLIES:

SOLUTIONS

CENTRAL SVCS
502206 4/28/2022
022664 MARIPOSATREE
TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY

MANAGEMENT INC
TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY
TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY
TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY
TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY
TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY
TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY
TREE TRIMMING: PARKS & MEDIANS
TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY
TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY
TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY
502207 4/28/2022
004951 MIKE'S PRECISION WELDING
WELDING: PARKING GARAGE: PW
INC
502208 4/28/2022
013827 MIKO MOUNTAINLION INC
PUMP TRACK CONSTRUCTION:

PW21-05
502209 4/28/2022
004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: FIRE DEPT
INC
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: FOC
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: STATIONS: FIRE
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: LIGHTING CON)
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: THEATER
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR
502210 4/28/2022
004040 MORAMARCO ANTHONY J,

TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS

DBA BIGFOOT GRAPHICS
Amount Paid Check Total
1,418.66
1,418.66
2,982.00
2,982.00

37.48 257.62
375.55
670.65
1,152.75
1,152.75
1,428.00
272.00
1,768.00
1,768.00
1,360.00
340.00
952.00
1,044.00
1,360.00
884.00
2,856.00
14,032.00
2,838.00
2,838.00
13,935.00
13,935.00
192.96
388.89
204.01
1,172.12
549.46
213.18
2,720.62

56.00 56.00
Page:3

apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4
04/27/2022 3:01:32PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK
Check # Date Vendor
502211 4/28/2022 022599 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC
502212 4/28/2022 021998 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE
INC
502213 4/28/2022 010338 POOLAND ELECTRICAL,

PRODUCTS INC
502214 4/28/2022 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL
SUPPLY
502215 4/28/2022 022537 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES,

DISTRIBUTOR
502216 4/28/2022 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL

MANAGEMENT
(Continued)
Description
MAR LDSCP MAINT: PARKS/MEDIANS:

PW
MAR LDSCP MAINT: CITY FACS
MAR LDSCP MAINT: PARKS/MEDIANS PV
MAR LDSCP MAINT: PARKS/MEDIANS PV
MAR LDSCP MAINT: PW SLOPES
MAR LDSCP MAINT: 1-15/79 LOOP
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VAIL RANCH SLOI
VEHICLE REPAIR/MAINT: PARK
RANGERS:TCSD
VEH MAINT & REPAIR: STREET MAINT: P
VEH MAINT & REPAIR: PARKS/FACILITIE!
VEHICLE REPAIR/MAINTE: PARKS: PW
VEHICLE REPAIRS: BLDG & SAFETY
SPLASH PAD CHEMICALS & PARTS:

PARKS
y�•z•� a•r�ryrr•�r�r�a� �a�rlr��rz.

FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: FOC
FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: FOC
FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: FOC
FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: SENIOR
3/22 UNIFORM RENTALS: STREETS: PW
4/5 UNIFORM RENTALS: STREETS: PW
FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CRC
FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CHILDR
FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CRC
FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CIVIC C
FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CRC
FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: MPSC
UNIFORM SVCS: STREET MAINT: PW
FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: SENIOR
4/12 UNIFORM RENTALS: STREETS: PW
3/29 UNIFORM RENTALS: STREETS: PW
FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: FOC
FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: FOC
FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: FOC
FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CIVIC C
MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: THEATER
HVAC SUPPLIES: CIVC CENTER
MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: THEATER
MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: THEATER
SHOPPING CART CLEAN-UP: STREET
MAINT
Amount Paid Check Total
20,230.00
10,150.00
54,150.00
74,954.54
58,553.00
6,977.00
1,111.99

40.59 62.56
100.91
248.80

82.61 403.68

9.70 9.70

14.05 48.37

48.37 29.51

21.37 29.51

95.70 29.51

23.15 48.15

14.05 48.37

48.37 9.70

9.70 9.70

95.70 269.28
345.09

30.29 110.51
1,774.00
226,126.53
535.47
403.68
662.08
755.17
1,774.00
Page:4

apChkLst
04/27/2022
3:01:32PM
Final Check List

CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 5
Bank:
eunion EFT UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
502217
4/28/2022
002412

RICHARDS WATSON AND
MAR 2022 LEGAL SERVICES
551.00

GERSHON
MAR 2022 LEGAL SERVICES
477.00
MAR 2022 LEGAL SERVICES
270.00
1,298.00
502218
4/28/2022
004274

SAFE AND SECURE
LOCKSMITH SERVICES: SOMMERS
2,656.25

LOCKSMITH SRVC
BEND
LOCKSMITH SERVICES: PARKS: PW
157.50
LOCKSMITH SVCS: THEATER
145.00
LOCKSMITH SVCS: TCSD VEHICLE
484.44
LOCKSMITH SVCC: CIVIC CENTER
130.59
3,573.78
502219
4/28/2022
009213

SHERRY BERRY MUSIC
JAZZ @ THE MERC 04/14/22
655.00
655.00
502220
4/28/2022
006145

STENO SOLUTIONS
MAR TRANSCRIPTION SVCS: TEM

83.52 83.52

TRANSCRIPTION, SRVCS INC

SHERIFF
502221
4/28/2022
001546

STRAIGHT LINE GLASS AND
WINDOW TINTING: WEST WING
546.85

MIRROR, COMPANY INC
WINDOW TINTING: FIRE STA 73
5,276.25
5,823.10
502222
4/28/2022
003840

STRONG'S PAINTING
REPAIRS & PAINT SVC: FIRE STA 73
4,000.00
PAINT MEN'S RESTROOM: FOC: PW
600.00
PAINT SHELTER: HARVESTON LAKE
7,250.00
11,850.00
502223
4/28/2022
004209

TEMECULA SUNRISE ROTARY,

JAN-MAR BUS BENCH
2,030.63
2,030.63

FOUNDATION
PLACEMENT-MAINT: PW
502224
4/28/2022
000668

TIMMY D PRODUCTIONS INC
DJ/MC/SOUND SET-UP: SPEC EVENTS:
800.00
800.00
TCSD
502225
4/28/2022
021580

TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

APR STATE LEGISLATIVE CONSULTING
6,000.00
6,000.00
INC

AND GRA
502226
4/28/2022
008977

VALLEY EVENTS INC
RENTALS/FACE PAINTING: SPEC
225.00
225.00
EVENTS:TCSD
502227
4/28/2022
009101

VISION ONE INC, DBA
MAR SHOWARE TICKETING SVCS:
2,472.94

ACCESSO

THEATER
MAR SHOWARE TICKETING SVCS: THEA
2,357.60
4,830.54
Grand total for EFT UNION BANK:
427,219.99
Page:5

apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6
04/27/2022 3:01:32PM CITY OF TEMECULA
checks in this report.

Grand Total All Checks: 427,219.99
Page6

apChkLst
04/28/2022
3:47:27PM
Final Check List

CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 1
Bank:
union UNION BANK
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
13242
4/4/2022
000245

PERS - HEALTH INSUR

PERS HEALTH PAYMENT
150,812.44

PREMIUM

PERS HEALTH PAYMENT

0.00 150,812.44
13300
3/31/2022
020062

MEDLINE INDUSTRIES INC
QE DEC 2021 SALES TAX PHS
362,374.00
362,374.00
208762
4/28/2022
010904

AFECO INC DBA FIRE ETC
ENGINE EQUIP: FIRE STA92
8,183.44
TIC REPAIR: FIRE STA73
545.25
8,728.69
208763
4/28/2022
003951

ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT

WCP PUMP TRACK - CMB BASE
10,717.33
MAT'LS

WCP PUMP TRACK - CMB BASE MAT'LS

55.00 ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PVA
247.00
ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PVA
920.07
11,939.40
208764
4/28/2022
007282

AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES
STAFF UNIFORMS: FIRE
163.05
INC
SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: MPSC: TCSD
747.45
MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD
176.83
MISC SUPPLIES: SPECIAL EVENTS: TCS
284.45
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CITY CNCL
467.30
MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD
306.74
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PREVENTION: FIR
110.88
MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD
165.82
MISC SUPPLIES TVM: TCSD

95.85 MISC EQUIPMENT: BC/CHIEF: FIRE DEPI

23.67 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: HR/EOC/RISK
248.21
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CITY COUNCIL
136.32
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PREVENTION: FIR

50.01 MISC SUPPLIES: ACE: TCSD

66.34 TOOLS & EQUIPMENT: CRC: TCSD
260.87
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PREVENTION: FIR

97.82 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PREVENTION: FIR

67.48 TOOLS & EQUIPMENT: CRC: TCSD
674.25
4,143.34
208765
4/28/2022
004623

AQUA SOURCE INC
VARIOUS SUPPLIES: AQUATICS
2,544.75
2,544.75
208766
4/28/2022
022703

ATOM ENGINEERING
CONST. CONTRACT SVCS: FLOOD
109,725.00
109,725.00

CONSTRUCTION

CONTROL REPA
208767
4/28/2022
007065

B&H PHOTO & ELECTRONICS
MISC AV EQUIPMENT: PEG SUPPLIES
392.47
392.47
CORP
208768
4/28/2022
015592

BAMM PROMOTIONAL

APPAREL FOR P/TS COMMISSION
205.30

PRODUCTS INC
STAFF
EMBROIDERY: SPORTS APPAREL: TCSD
518.35
STAFF UNIFORMS: INFO TECH
152.16
875.81
Page:1

apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2
04/28/2022 3:47:27PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank:
union UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
208769
4/28/2022
015765

BEISTLE COMPANY THE, DBA
FIRE HATS: SPECIAL EVENTS: FIRE

FIRE SMART PROMOTIONS
DEPT
208770
4/28/2022
001323

BLUETRITON BRANDS INC,
03/11-04/10 WTR DLVRY SVC: FOC

DBA READYREFRESH
208771
4/28/2022
000319

BSN SPORTS LLC
FIELD SUPPLIES/EQUIPMENT:

SOMMERSBEND
208772
4/28/2022
020202

CAL FIRE STATE FIRE
REGISTRATION: STAFF TRAINING:

MARSHAL
FIRE
208773
4/28/2022
003138

CAL MAT, DBA VULCAN
ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT:

MATERIALS CO
PW
208774
4/28/2022
001054

CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS,
REGIST: WEBINAR
(CALBO)
208775
4/28/2022
001267

CALIF DEPT OF MOTOR
VEHICLE REGISTRATION: ATV: FIRE

VEHICLES
DEPT
VEHICLE REGISTRATION: ATV: FIRE DEPT
208776
4/28/2022
018828

CASC ENGINEERING AND,
MISC ENG SVS: MRC IMPROV REVIEW

CONSULTING INC
17-21
208777
4/28/2022
004462

CDW LLC, DBA CDW
MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO

GOVERNMENT LLC
TECH
MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH
MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH
KEYBOARD & MOUSE REPLACEMENT: IT
MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH
MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH
MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH
MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH
MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH
208778
4/28/2022
013379

COSSOU, CELINE

TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
208779
4/28/2022
001264
COSTCO TEMECULA 491
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: INFO TECH
SPECIAL EVENT SUPPLIES: FIRE DEPT
MISC SUPPLIES: PREVENTION: FIRE DEPT
208780
4/28/2022
004329
COSTCO TEMECULA491
MISC SUPPLIES:SPECIAL
EVENTS:TCSD
SUPPLIES: RECREATION: TCSD
MISC SUPPLIES: TVM/ACE: TCSD
208781
4/28/2022
001233

DANS FEED AND SEED INC
MISC SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PW
Amount Paid Check Total
1,522.50
1,522.50
172.19
172.19
2,172.69
2,172.69
410.00
410.00
289.14
289.14

70.00 70.00

54.00 54.00
108.00
741.25
741.25
152.03

44.37 620.80
650.49
-153.77
204.35
620.80
144.53

46.06 2,329.66
147.00
147.00
209.52
245.30
217.34
672.16
341.49
259.91
157.94
759.34

19.60 19.60
Paget

apChkLst
04/28/2022
3:47:27PM
Final Check List

CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 3
Bank:
union UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
208782
4/28/2022
012600

DAVID EVANS AND
MAR DSGN SVCS: RONALD REAGAN
715.00

ASSOCIATES INC

SPORTS PK
MAR DSGN SVCS: DIAZ RD EXP: PW17-2
36,231.55
SURVEY & ENVIRO: TRAFFIC SIGNAL PA
1,618.05
MAR CONST BID SUPPT: SANTA GERTRI
450.00
39,014.60
208783
4/28/2022
002990

DAVID TURCH AND
MAR FEDERAL LOBBYING SVCS: CITY
5,500.00
5,500.00

ASSOCIATES
MGR
208784
4/28/2022
022798

DS SERVICES OF AMERICA
WATER DELIVERY: CMO

59.59 59.59

INC, SPARKLETTS
208785
4/28/2022
000164

ESGIL LLC
NOV PLAN CK SVCS: COMDEV DEPT
30,483.06
30,483.06
208786
4/28/2022
015330

FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, OF
MAR CDBG SUB -RECIPIENT: FAIR
1,740.93
1,740.93

RIVERSIDE COUNTY INC

HOUSING SVC
208787
4/28/2022
019469

FALCON ENGINEERING
CNSTRCTN MGMT SVCS: SANTA
28,645.32
28,645.32

SERVICES

GERTRUDIS CRK
208788
4/28/2022
000165

FEDERAL EXPRESS INC
EXP MAIL SVCS: CIP: PW

9.11 EXP MAIL SVCS: CLASSES: TCSD

71.67 80.78
208789
4/28/2022
003747

FINE ARTS NETWORK AKA
STTLMNT: BARD GOES TO BROADWAY
3,913.27
3,913.27

THEATRE, CO AND BALLET
4/23

THEATER
208790
4/28/2022
002982

FRANCHISE TAX BOARD

SUPPORT PAYMENT

50.00 50.00
208791
4/28/2022
014865

FREIZE UHLER KIMBERLY DBA,
PROMOTIONAL ITEMS: CITY MGR
2,653.96
2,653.96

CLEAR BLUE PROMOTIONS
208792
4/28/2022
022578

GALBRAITH, PAUL
RFRSHMNTS: PERFORMANCE:

20.00 20.00
04/30/22
208793
4/28/2022
014100

GODS FAN CLUB, DBA
HOMELESS PREV PRGM: MCGEE
885.00
885.00

PROJECT TOUCH
208794
4/28/2022
009608

GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC
STTLMNT: CLASSICS AT THE MERC:
717.50
717.50

SOCIETY, DBA CA CHAMBER
4/10 & 4/

ORCHESTRA
208795
4/28/2022
000186

HANKS HARDWARE INC
MISC EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES:
210.38
SPORTS:TCSD
MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT:
1,307.49
1,517.87
208796
4/28/2022
013749

HELIXSTORM INC
IT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT: INFO
2,325.00
2,325.00
TECH
Page:3

apChkLst
04/28/2022
3:47:27PM
Final Check List

CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 4
Bank:
union UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
208797
4/28/2022
020698

HICKS AND HARTWICK INC
ENG PLAN CK SVCS: LAND DEV:
540.00
540.00

SOLANA WAY
208798
4/28/2022
003198

HOME DEPOT
SMALL TOOLS: FIRE STA 73
761.41
MISC HRWDR SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR
237.08
MISC HRWDR SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR
270.79
MISC HRWDR SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR

58.59 1,327.87
208799
4/28/2022
014062

ID CARD GROUP
PROXIMITY CARD SUPPLIES: HELP
1,560.73
DESK
PROXIMITY CARD SUPPLIES: HELP DES
1,053.79
2,614.52
208800
4/28/2022
022148

IMMORMINO, CHARLES
REFUND: ROD RUN 4/29-4/30

35.00 35.00
208801
4/28/2022
020849

IN THE MIX SOUND LLC
MISC STAGE SUPPLIES: THEATER
6,315.20
6,315.20
208802
4/28/2022
001091

KEYSER MARSTON
Rendezvous Apts PA20-1325 Fiscal
2,760.00

ASSOCIATES INC
Impact

MAR FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS REVIEW,
3,106.25
5,866.25
208803
4/28/2022
019884

LEONIDA BUILDERS INC

SANTA GERTRUDIS CRK PEDESTRIAN
349,079.98
EXT
PARTIAL REL STP NTC: SOCAL STORM\A
1,537.50
350,617.48
208804
4/28/2022
022797

LONG RANGE SOLUTIONS LLC
PAGING SYSTEM: LIBRARY
1,200.78
1,200.78
208805
4/28/2022
004813

M AND J PAUL ENTERPRISES
FACE PAINTING: SPEC EVENTS: TCSD
875.00
875.00

INC, DBA JOLLY JUMPS
208806
4/28/2022
003782

MAIN STREET SIGNS, DBA
MISC SIGNAGE: PARKS: PW
534.55

ATHACO INC
CITY STREET SIGNAGE: STREET MAINT:
107.64
CITY STREET SIGNAGE: STREET MAINT:
1,184.06
CITY STREET SIGNAGE: STREET MAINT:
237.05
CITY STREET SIGNAGE: STREET MAINT:
3,222.64
5,285.94
208807
4/28/2022
013443

MIDWEST TAPE LLC
BOOKS ON TAPE: LIBRARY

34.79 34.79
208808
4/28/2022
017861

MYTHOS TECHNOLOGY INC
APR-JUN MONITORING SVCS: TVE2
450.00
450.00
208809
4/28/2022
012818

PLANETBIDS INC
ONLINE BID SYSTEM RENEWAL: INFO
28,674.00
28,674.00
TECH
208810
4/28/2022
000907

RANCHO TEMECULA CAR
VEHICLE WASHING SVCS: INFO TECH
210.00
210.00
WASH
208811
4/28/2022
022494

REVZILLA MOTORSPORTS LLC,
MOTOR BOOTS/GLOVES: TRAFFIC:
671.90
671.90
DBA REVZILLA.COM

TEM SHERIFF
Page:4

apChkLst
04/28/2022
3:47:27PM
Final Check List

CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 5
Bank:
union UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
208812
4/28/2022
000406

RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS
2/10-3/4 LAW ENFORCEMENT
2,596,327.52
2,596,327.52
DEPT
208813
4/28/2022
009980

SANBORN GWYNETH A, CO
COUNTRY LIVE! @ THE MERC 4/16
686.25
686.25

TEMECULA MUSIC ACADEMY
208814
4/28/2022
017699

SARNOWSKI SHAWNA M
PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: HUMAN SVCS:
170.00

PRESTON
TCSD
PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: SPECIAL EVENT!
170.00
PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: SPECIAL EVENT!
170.00
PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: HUMAN SVCS: Ti
220.00
PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: CITY CNCL
170.00
900.00
208815
4/28/2022
002503

SOUTH COASTAIR QUALITY,
FY21/22 ANN'L OPS FEES: MPSC
440.15

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
G67238
FY21/22 ANN'L OPS FEES: MPSC G67238
142.59
582.74
208816
4/28/2022
000519

SOUTH COUNTY PEST
PEST CONTROL SVC: FIRE STA 92
104.00

CONTROL INC
PEST CONTROL SVCS: PARKS: PW

49.00 PEST CONTROL: FIRE STA 92

42.00 PEST CONTROL: OVERLAND: FIRE

48.00 PEST CONTROL SVCS: CAMINO CAMPO

94.00 PEST CONTROL SVC: FIRE STA 12
133.00
PEST CONTROL SVC: FIRE STA 12

74.00 PEST CONTROL SVCS: PARKS: PW

94.00 638.00
208817
4/28/2022
019250

ST FRANCIS ELECTRIC LLC
REPLACE TRAFFIC CABINET: PW
2,556.60
2,556.60
208818
4/28/2022
008337

STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: TRAFFIC: PW

52.15 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: MALL STOREFROl'

24.54 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: MALL STOREFROl'

11.61 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: MALL STOREFROr

20.45 108.75
208819
4/28/2022
003000

STATE WATER RESOURCE
STORM WATER PERMIT: PW18-11: CIP
548.00
548.00

CONTROL, BOARD
208820
4/28/2022
003599

TY LIN INTERNATIONAL
2/26-4/1 CONSULT: FV PKWY/1-15 PH II
99,138.39
99,138.39
208821
4/28/2022
021609

TEMECULA CREEK VILLAS LP
RENTAL ASSISTANCE: CDBG: MACKEY
571.70
571.70
208822
4/28/2022
005970

TEMECULAVALLEY
STTLMNT: ENCHANTED EVENINGS
4,921.25
4,921.25

PLAYHOUSE, DBATEMECULA
4/8-4/17

VLY PLAYERS
208823
4/28/2022
003941

TEMECULA WINNELSON
PLUMBING SUPPLIES: THEATER: PW
346.41
346.41

COMPANY
Page:5

apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6
04/28/2022 3:47:27PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank:
union UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
208824
4/28/2022
020911
T-MOBILE USA, INC.

GPS LOCATE SVCS 4/5-4/9/22
208825
4/28/2022
000161

TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC
TIME & ATTENDANCE SW RENEWAL:

FINANCE
208826
4/28/2022
022692

VERSA PRODUCTS INC
Standing Desk and Mat
208827
4/28/2022
007987

WALMART
REC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD
MISC SUPPLIES: ADMIN: TCSD
REC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD
MISC SUPPLIES: AQUATICS: TCSD
REC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD
208828
4/28/2022
001342

WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC
CLEANING SUPPLIES: VARI
FACILITIES: PW
CLEANING SUPPLIES: PARKS: PW
208829
4/28/2022
000339

WEST PUBLISHING
CLEAR SUBSCRIPTION: TEM SHERIFF

CORPORATION,
DBA:THOMSON REUTERS
208830 4/28/2022 020193 WHITE CAP LP
Amount Paid Check Total
150.00
150.00
3,999.60
3,999.60
482.00
482.00
120.50
252.75
239.71

33.20 133.53
779.69
4,073.39
334.08
4,407.47
984.53
984.53
MISC SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PW 313.20
MISC SUPPLIES: PARKS: PW 354.93 668.13
Grand total for UNION BANK: 3,902,072.07
Page6

apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7
04/28/2022 3:47:27PM CITY OF TEMECULA
checks in this report.

Grand Total All Checks: 3,902,072.07
Page:?

apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1
05/03/2022 3:54:24PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK
Check # Date
Vendor
Description
502228 5/5/2022
004802 ADLERHORST INTERNATIONAL
MAR K-9 TRAINING:

LLC
KING/MUSHINSKIE: POLIC
502229 5/5/2022
004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES
DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM
AFN

SHERIFF
DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM SHERIF
502230 5/5/2022
021670 ANLIND OF TEMECULA INC,
MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT: TEM

TEMECULA HARLEY-DAVIDSON

SHERIFF
MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT: TEM SHE
VEH REPAIR/MAINT: TRAFFIC: POLICE
MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT: TEM SHE
MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT: TEM SHE
MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT: TEM SHE
MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT: TEM SHE
502231 5/5/2022
021400 AYERS ELECTRIC INC

ELECTRICAL LABOR- METER

PEDESTAL
ELECTRIC LABOR SVCS: RRSP RESTRO
502232 5/5/2022
022790 CLEARSTAR INC
PRE -EMPLOYMENT SCREENINGS: HR
502233 5/5/2022
003272 DAISYECO INC
PRINTER & PLOTTER SUPPLIES:

GIS/CIVIC CT
502234 5/5/2022
020648 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2
MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYS:

INC, CONVERGINT

INFO TEC

TECHNOLOGIES
502235 5/5/2022
022726 FORENSIC NURSING OF
SART EXAM: TEM SHERIFF

SOCAL INC
502236 5/5/2022
014865 FREIZE UHLER KIMBERLY DBA,
UNIFORM: PREVENTION STAFF: FIRE

CLEAR BLUE PROMOTIONS
DEPT
502237 5/5/2022
000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD
INC
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: INFO TECH
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: TCC: FIRE DEPT
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: P1
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: FIRE STA 84
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: FINANCE DEPT
502238 5/5/2022
001135 HEALTHPOINTE MEDICAL
MEDICAL SCREENINGS: HR
GROUP INC, DBA: FIRST CARE

INDUSTRIA
502239 5/5/2022
006914 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT
MAR COPIER MAINT/USAGE/REPAIR:

SOLUTIONS

CITYWIDE
MAR COPIER MAINT/USAGE/REPAIR: Cll
Amount Paid Check Total
350.00 350.00
240.80
180.60
421.40
1,541.37
761.02
496.50
380.70
363.55
149.00

94.49 3,786.63
2,500.00
300.00
2,800.00
254.25
254.25
5,433.89 5,433.89
710.00 710.00
1,200.00 1,200.00

93.66 93.66
269.96
237.68
152.24
134.83

47.53 19.56
-392.95 468.85
100.00 100.00
3,450.95
479.80 3,930.75
Page:1

apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2
O5/03/2022 3:54:24PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK
Check # Date Vendor
502240 5/5/2022 000482 LEIGHTON CONSULTING INC
502241 5/5/2022 018675 MDG ASSOCIATES INC
502242 5/5/2022 004951 MIKE'S PRECISION WELDING
INC
502243 5/5/2022 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY
INC
502244 5/5/2022 002925 NAPAAUTO PARTS
502245 5/5/2022 022599 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC
(Continued)
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
GEOTECH PEER REVIEW: ROICK
3,831.00
DENTAL
GEOTECH SVCS: ARRIVE RANCHO HIGF
2,800.00
6,631.00
MAR CDBG PRGM ADMIN: PLANNING
4,217.50

MAR CDBG-CV ADMIN EMERGNCY RENT
610.50
MAR CDBG-CV EMERGENCY RENTAL A:
571.00

MAR CDBG-CV EMERGENCY MORTGAG
521.00
MAR ADA LABOR COMPLIANCE: PW20-G
386.63
MAR LABOR COMPLIANCE SVCS: PW18-

95.00 6,401.63
WELDING: SPLASH PAD DRAIN
8,764.00
8,764.00

COVER/INSTALL
FACILITY REHABILITIATION PROJECT:
9,169.13
PW
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: LIBRARY
162.43
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: LIGHTING CON)
121.53
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR

31.96 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: LIGHTING CON'
-13.78
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: LIGHTING CON)
-67.36
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: LIGHTING CON)
-74.00
9,329.91
AUTO PARTS & MISC SUPPLIES: FIRE
119.60
119.60
STA 95
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW
1,921.05
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW
572.64
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW
519.03
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: RONALD REAGA(
355.13
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: P28 REDHAWK PE
345.12
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW
313.61
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: RONALD REAGA�
312.74
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW
309.42
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: SLOPES
261.30
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: RONALD REAGA�
250.15
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW
237.09
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: RONALD REAGA(
233.18
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: P-17 VAIL RANCH
233.17
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW
233.17
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: RONALD REAGA�
194.48
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: MPSC
191.28
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: MEDIANS
180.02
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW
173.20
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: SLOPES
134.79
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PAT BIRDSALL PA
118.11
IRRIGATION REPAIRS: SLOPES

66.61 IRRIGATION REPAIR: M-9 MEADOWS

66.60 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW

66.60 7,288.49
Paget

apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3
O5/03/2022 3:54:24PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank:
eunion EFT UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
502246
5/5/2022
021998

OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE
VEH MAINT & REPAIR: STREET MAINT:

INC
PW
VEHICLE REPAIR/MAINT: CITY MGR OFC
VEHICLE REPAIRS: LAND DEV: PW
502247
5/5/2022
010338

POOLAND ELECTRICAL,
VARIOUS SUPPLIES: SPLASH PAD

PRODUCTS INC
502248
5/5/2022
020429

REMOTE SATELLITE SYSTEMS
MAR'22 SAT PH AIRTIME/APR FEE:

INTL
EOC
502249
5/5/2022
002412

RICHARDS WATSON AND
MAR 2022 LEGAL SERVICES

GERSHON
MAR 2022 LEGAL SERVICES
MAR 2022 LEGAL SERVICES
502250
5/5/2022
004274

SAFE AND SECURE
LOCKSMITH SVCS: PARKS: PW

LOCKSMITH SRVC
LOCKSMITH SVCS: TEM SHERIFF
LOCKSMITH SVCS: PARKS: PW
502251
5/5/2022
009213

SHERRY BERRY MUSIC
TIX: JAZZ @ THE MERC
502252
5/5/2022
011351

TRITECH SOFTWARE
ASSET MGMT OF SFTWRE: INFO TECH

SYSTEMS
Amount Paid Check Total
205.81

40.59 26.75
592.28
280.00
6,107.50
241.00
174.00
199.67
193.75

90.00 287.00
166,760.00
Grand total for EFT UNION BANK:
273.15
592.28
280.00
6,522.50
483.42
287.00
166,760.00
233,282.41
Page:3

apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4
O5/03/2022 3:54:24PM CITY OF TEMECULA
25 checks in this report.

Grand Total All Checks: 233,282.41
Page:4

apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1
05/05/2022 3:38:46PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 13018 3/9/2022 014486 VERIZON WIRELESS 1/16-2/15 11,616.56 11,616.56 CELLULAR/BROADBAN D:CITYW I DE
13229 4/11/2022 006887

UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
000418

RIVERSIDE CO CLERK AND,
NOE PAVEMENT REHAB: PW21-01

50.00 RECORDER
003000

STATE WATER RESOURCE
STORM WATER PERMIT: MRC PW17-21

12.60 CONTROL, BOARD
000418

RIVERSIDE CO CLERK AND,
NOE WOLF CREEK PARK: LR22-0183

1.14 RECORDER
000418

RIVERSIDE CO CLERK AND,
NOE PAVEMENT REHAB: PW21-01

1.14 RECORDER
000161

TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION: LAND
1,099.00
DEV
000161

TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION: LAND
1,099.00
DEV
003000

STATE WATER RESOURCE
STORM WATER PERMIT: MRC PW17-21
548.00

CONTROL, BOARD
000418

RIVERSIDE CO CLERK AND,
NOE WOLF CREEK PARK: LR22-0183

50.00 2,860.88

RECORDER
13231 4/11/2022 006887

UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
022516

CALIF EMERGENCY SERVICES
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION: RISK
1,198.00
ASSOC
MGMT
006937

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES
AIRFARE: TYLER CONFERENCE: HR
618.78
006937

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES
AIRFARE: TYLER CONFERENCE: LAND
564.90
DEV
005244

SOCIETY FOR HUMAN
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: HR
229.00

RESOURCE MGM, THE S H R M
STORE
010724

TOWN & COUNTRY RESORT
LODGING: CA EMERGENCY CONF:
213.19
HOTEL, DBA: ATLAS HOTELS
EOC
022877

INT'LASSOC OF EMERGENCY,
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: EOC
195.00

MANAGERS
000747

AMERICAN PLANNING
JOB ADVERTISEMENT: ASSOC
180.00

ASSOCIATION

PLANNER
000747

AMERICAN PLANNING
JOB ADVERTISEMENT: ASSOC
150.00

ASSOCIATION

PLANNER
020812
INSTACART.COM
RFRSHMNTS: RECRUITMENTS: HR
114.39
010570

PLANETIZEN'S
JOB ADVERTISEMENT: ASSOC

99.95 PLANNER: HR
004905

LIEBERT, CASSIDY AND
REGISTRATION: COVID WEBINAR:

75.00 WHITMORE
RISK
006937

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES
AIRFARE: TYLER CONFERENCE: HR
436.82
006937

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES
AIRFARE: TYLER CONFERENCE: HR
436.82
Page:1

apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2
05/05/2022 3:38:46PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK
Check # Date Vendor
(Continued)
Description
006937

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES
AIRFARE: TYLER CONFERENCE: HR
022878

WESTERN MEDICAL

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

PUBLISHING
JOURNAL: EOC
009833

DISNEYLAND RESORTS
LODGING: PARMA CONF: HR
009833

DISNEYLAND RESORTS
LODGING: PARMA CONF: HR
13232 4/11/2022
006887

UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
000175

GOVERNMENT FINANCE
WEBINAR REGIST: PUBLIC

OFFICERS, ASSOCIATION,

PROCUREMENT
GFOA
010724

TOWN & COUNTRY RESORT
LODGING: CSMFO CONF: FINANCE
HOTEL, DBA: ATLAS HOTELS
000413

CALIF DEPT OF FISH &
PERMIT APPLICATION: I-15/FVP

WILDLIFE

IMPRVMNT
OVER THE CREDIT LIMIT FEE: FINAP
006952
PAYPAL
VERISIGN PAYFLOW PRO TRANS:

FINANCE
102118 4/12/2022
020965

ADVANCED PERMIT SERVICES
REFUND: CANCELLED PERMIT
B22-1417
208831 5/5/2022
007282

AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES
SMALL TOOLS & EQUIPMENT: CRC:

INC
TCSD
MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD
MISC SUPPLIES: AQUATICS: TCSD
MISC SUPPLIES: ACE: TCSD
MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD
MISC SUPPLIES: ACE: TCSD
MISC EQUIP: BC/CHIEF: FIRE DEPT
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: STREET MAIN
TOOLS/EQPMNT: RISK MGMT
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PREVENTION:

MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD
208832 5/5/2022
015592

BAMM PROMOTIONAL
APPAREL: TRAFFIC DEPT: PW

PRODUCTS INC
208833 5/5/2022 004262 BIO TOX LABORATORIES
208834 5/5/2022 001323 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC,

DBA READYREFRESH
208835 5/5/2022 011421 BRODART CO
PHLEBOTOMY SVCS: TEM SHERIFF
PHLEBOTOMY SVCS: TEM SHERIFF
PHLEBOTOMY SVCS: TEM SHERIFF
03/23-04/22 WTR DLVRY SVC: PBSP
03/23-04/22 WTR DLVRY SVC: TESC
03/23-04/22 WTR DLVRY SVC: SKATE
BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL: TCSD
BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL: TCS
Amount Paid
382.94
377.00
838.89
649.26
630.00
262.94
13, 509.10

39.00 25.00

68.80 501.63
465.50
438.89
406.74
354.71

73.92 64.70

61.06 58.22

44.15 -14.67
165.37
1,993.00
999.00
531.00

46.67 17.39

9.15 51.24

13.58 Check Total
6,759.94
14,466.04

68.80 2,454.85
165.37

3.523.00

73.21 64.82
Paget

apChkLst
05/05/2022
3:38:46PM
Final Check List

CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 3
Bank: union UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
208836
5/5/2022
003138

CAL MAT, DBA VULCAN
ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT:
576.65

MATERIALS CO
PW
ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT
573.80
ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT
195.21
1,345.66
208837
5/5/2022
004971

CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
APR COPIER LEASE: LIBRARY
671.56
671.56
INC
208838
5/5/2022
018828

CASC ENGINEERING AND,

MAR COMMERCIAL/IND'L
2,740.00
2,740.00

CONSULTING INC
INSPECTIONS: NPDES
208839
5/5/2022
021363

CELLEBRITE INC
MOBILE PHONE TECHNOLOGY: TEM
2,453.76
2,453.76

SHERIFF
208840
5/5/2022
016446

CHRISTIAN STITCHERY INC,
SPORTS AWARDS: SPORTS: TCSD

89.72 89.72

DBA SO CAL IMPRESSIONS
208841
5/5/2022
004329
COSTCO TEMECULA491
KITCHEN SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR
135.91
135.91
208842
5/5/2022
012600

DAVID EVANS AND
DSGN CONSULT SVCS: PICKLEBALL
23,985.00
23,985.00

ASSOCIATES INC
COURTS 21-
208843
5/5/2022
010461

DEMCO INC
MISC SUPPLIES: RHRTPL: TCSD
176.45
176.45
208844
5/5/2022
000164

ESGIL LLC
JAN PLAN CK SVCS: BUILDING &
25,049.58
25,049.58
SAFETY
208845
5/5/2022
022898

FUSION CHRISTIAN CHURCH
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 4/24/22
200.00
200.00
208846
5/5/2022
000186

HANKS HARDWARE INC
MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR
7,975.89
MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: VARI FACILI
1,604.72
MISC HRDWR SUPPLIES: FIRE STA

12.55 9,593.16
208847
5/5/2022
019835

JDS CREATIVE ACADEMY
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT CC
200.00
200.00
4/24/22
208848
5/5/2022
022901

JHC TEMECULA REFLECTIONS
MRAP RENTAL ASSIST. GRANT
2,049.00
2,049.00

LLC, TEMECULA REFLECTIONS

RECIPIENT
208849
5/5/2022
016257

KELLY SPICERS INC, DBA
MISC PAPER SUPPLIES: CENTRAL
1,856.45
1,856.45

KELLY SPICERS STORES
SVCS
208850
5/5/2022
022716
KOEPFLI, TRISTAN H.

Custom helmet paint: tem sheriff
350.00
350.00
208851
5/5/2022
013982

M C I COMM SERVICE
APR 7DK89878 XXX-0714 GEN USAGE

37.00 MALL PD
APR 7DK90589 XXX-0346 GEN USAC

35.19 72.19
Page:3

apChkLst
05/05/2022
3:38:46PM
Final Check List

CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 4
Bank: union UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
208852
5/5/2022
010204

M T G L INC
MATUS TESTING SVCS: SLURRY SEAL
20,547.45
20,547.45
PRGM
208853
5/5/2022
013443

MIDWEST TAPE LLC
BOOKS ON TAPE: LIBRARY

83.82 BOOKS ON TAPE: LIBRARY

22.94 106.76
208854
5/5/2022
021662

MIG RE INVESTORS I LLC,
MRAP RENTAL ASSIST. GRANT
6,651.00
6,651.00

CAPE MAY TEMECULA APTS

RECIPIENT
208855
5/5/2022
014490

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC
SOFTWARE & MAINT RENEWAL:VESTA
4,500.00
SFTWR & MAINT RENEWAL: INFO TE
2,567.08
7,067.08
208856
5/5/2022
022880
NAVIGATE360 LLC, DBAALICE
REGISTRATION: ALICE TRAINING: TEM
749.00
749.00

TRAINING
SHERIF
208857
5/5/2022
022494
REVZILLA MOTORSPORTS LLC, MOTOR GLOVES: TRAFFIC: TEM
2,181.91
2,181.91
DBA REVZILLA.COM

SHERIFF
208858
5/5/2022
000406

RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS
01/01-03/31/22 TOWING SRVCS:
2,048.30
2,048.30
DEPT
POLICE
208859
5/5/2022
000406

RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS
REIMB: JAN SART EXAM: POLICE
1,200.00
1,200.00
DEPT
208860
5/5/2022
004822

RIVERSIDE TRANSITAGENCY
MAR TROLLEY SVC: RIDERSHIP
1,736.22
1,736.22
208861
5/5/2022
001365

RIVERSIDE, COUNTY OF,
RENEW PERMIT: CIVIC CENTER
900.00
900.00

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DEPT
208862
5/5/2022
008404

SAFE CHECKS
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECKS:
1,662.67
1,662.67

FINANCE
208863
5/5/2022
017699

SARNOWSKI SHAWNA M
PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: HUMAN SVCS:
170.00
170.00

PRESTON
TCSD
208864
5/5/2022
011511

SCUBA CENTER TEMECULA

TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
1,008.00
1,008.00
208865
5/5/2022
000537

SO CALIF EDISON
APR 700116137841 VARIOUS
33,094.96

LOCATIONS
APR 700039423268 VARIOUS LOCAT
1,499.48
APR 700276704365 VARIOUS LOCAT
524.17
35,118.61
208866
5/5/2022
012652

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
MAY GEN USAGE: 0141,0839,0978,0979
739.72
739.72

TELEPHONE COMPANY
Page:4

apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5
05/05/2022 3:38:46PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK
(Continued)
Check #
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
208867
5/5/2022
008337

STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: TVM/ACE: TCSD
115.09
MISC OFC SUPPLIES: LAND DEV: PV
110.81
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW - TRA

60.48 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW - CIP

39.74 326.12
208868
5/5/2022
003677

TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS
VEHICLE REPAIR/MAINT: TRAFFIC: PD

10.00 10.00
LLC
208869
5/5/2022
006529

TEMECULA VALLEY GARDEN
REFUNDS: SECURITY DEPOSIT CRC
200.00
200.00
CLUB
4/23/22
208870
5/5/2022
010046

TV CONVENTION &VISITORS
FEB'22 BUS. IMPRV DISTRICT
155,098.52
155,098.52

BUREAU, DBA VISIT TEMECULA
ASMNTS
VALLEY
208871
5/5/2022
020963

UPTOWN TEMECULAAUTO SPA
FEB & MAR VEHICLE DETAILING SVCS:

16.00 LLC
PW
FEB & MAR VEHICLE DETAILING SVf

12.00 FEB VEHICLE DETAILING SVCS: PW

4.00 MAR VEHICLE DETAILING SVCS: PVC

4.00 36.00
208872
5/5/2022
022899

VILLASENOR, CONNIE
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT CRC
200.00
200.00
4/19/22
208873
5/5/2022
020275

WALLACE & ASSOC
CONSTRUCTION MGMT SVCS:
22,675.60

CONSULTING LLC, ANSER
PW18-05

ADVISORY MNGMT LLC
CONSTRUCTION MGMT SVS: PW19-
2,098.00
24,773.60
208874
5/5/2022
007987

WALMART
MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD
202.82
202.82
208875 5/5/2022 000341 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES INC FEB TRAFFIC ENG SVCS: PW TRAF/55 700.00 700.00

SEGMENT
Grand total for UNION BANK: 376,455.69
Page:5

apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6
05/05/2022 3:38:46PM CITY OF TEMECULA
50 checks in this report.

Grand Total All Checks: 376,455.69
Page.-6

Item No. 4

CITY OF TEMECULA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance
DATE: May 24, 2022
SUBJECT: Approve the City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2021 PREPARED BY: Jordan Snider, Senior Accountant
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2021.

BACKGROUND: Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 require reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio, receipts, and disbursements respectively.

Adequate funds will be available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures of the City for the next six months. Current market values are derived from the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) reports, Union Bank of California trust and custody statements, and from US Bank trust statements.

Attached is the City Treasurer's Report that provides this information.

The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the statement of investment policy and Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635 as of November 30, 2021.

FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS: City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2021

City of Temecula
Portfolio Managment Treasury Report
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Portfolio Manat
Management
g
(951)694-6430
tyHq
Portfolio Summary
November 30, 2021
Par
Market Book
% of
Days to

YTM YTM
Investments
Value
Value Value Portfolio
Term
Maturity
360 Equiv. 365 Equiv.

Managed Pool Accounts
36,207,510.97
36,207,510.97 36,207,510.97

20.08 1
1 0.024 0.025
Retention Escrow Account
667,226.74
667,226.74 667,226.74

0.37 1
1 0.062 0.063
Letter of Credit

2.00 2.00 2.00

0.00 1
1 0.000 0.000
Trust Accounts
17,367,630.72
17,367,630.72 17,367,630.72

9.63 1
1 19.844 20.120
Local Agency Investment Funds
104,066,679.38
104,053,531.70 104,066,679.38

57.72 1
1 0.334 0.339
Federal Agency Callable Securities
18,000,000.00
17,785,420.00 17,997,500.00

9.98 1,598
1,339

0.792 0.803
Federal Agency Bullet Securities
4,000,000.00
4,020,310.00 4,000,000.00

2.22 1,233
638

1.397 1.416
180,309,049.81
180,101,632.13 180,306,549.81
100.00%
188
149

2.220 2.250
Investments
Cash
Passbook/Checking
2,004,436.51
2,004,436.51 2,004,436.51
1 1

0.000 0.000
(not included in yield calculations)
Total Cash and Investments
182,313,486.32
182,106,068.64 182,310,986.32
188
149

2.220 2.250
Total Earnings
November 30 Month Ending
Fiscal Year To Date
Current Year
333,242.60
1,658,892.35
Average Daily Balance
182,777,652.99
181,743,687.24
Effective Rate of Return

2.22%

2.18%
Reporting period 11/01/2021-11/30/2021 Portfolio TEME
Data Updated: SET_MTH: 05/05/2022 10:06 NL! CP
Run Date: 05/05/2022 - 10:06 PM (PRF_PM1) 7.3.0
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1

Portfolio Managment Treasury Report
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Investments
November 30, 2021

Page 1 ends

Average
Purchase
Stated
YTM
YTM
Days to Maturity
CUSIP
Investment #
Issuer Balance
Date
Par Value
Market Value
Book Value
Rate
360
365 Maturity Date
Managed Pool Accounts
233358001-6
01-2 BOND F
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
5,667.28
5,667.28
5,667.28

0.020

0.020
1 233358006-6
01-2 REF RES
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
503,181.47
503,181.47
503,181.47

0.020

0.020
1 233358000-6
01-2 REF ST
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
120,048.90
120,048.90
120,048.90

0.020

0.020
1 276213009-6
03-02 COI
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
07/01/2021

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 276213008-6
03-02 IMPR
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
517.29
517.29
517.29

0.020

0.020
1 276213006-6
03-02 RES
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
740,993.63
740,993.63
740,993.63

0.020

0.020
1 164741002-6
03-03 BOND F
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
122,485.49
122,485.49
122,485.49

0.020

0.020
1 164741008-6
03-03IMP
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
194,123.35
194,123.35
194,123.35

0.020

0.020
1 164741006-6
03-03RES
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
07/01/2021
296.88
296.88
296.88

0.020

0.020
1 164741000-6
03-03SPEC
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
213,536.65
213,536.65
213,536.65

0.020

0.020
1 164742002-6
03-06 BOND F
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
25,651.89
25,651.89
25,651.89

0.020

0.020
1 164742000-6
03-06SPEC
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
18,068.36
18,068.36
18,068.36

0.020

0.020
1 229462007-6
03-1 2012 RF
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 229462002--6
03-1 BOND FD
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
2,587.34
2,587.34
2,587.34

0.020

0.020
1 229462009-6
03-1 COI
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 229462006-6
03-1 RESERV
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
17,219.47
17,219.47
17,219.47

0.020

0.020
1 229462000-6
03-1SPECF
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
121,640.43
121,640.43
121,640.43

0.020

0.020
1 94669921-6
03-1ACQ11
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.870

0.858

0.870
1 94669911-6
03-1ACQA11
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
07/01/2021

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 94669917-6
03-1 RES
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
07/01/2021

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 94669916-6
03-1 RESB11
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 94669000-6
03-1 SPTAX11
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 276213002-6
03-2 REFU
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
227.04
227.04
227.04

0.020

0.020
1 276213000-6
03-2 SPEC
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
91,515.00
91,515.00
91,515.00

0.020

0.020
1 94686001-6
03-4ADMIN11
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.060

0.059

0.060
1 94686005-6
034PREP11
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.070

0.069

0.070
1 94686000-6
034RED11
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.050

0.049

0.050
1 94686006-6
034RES11
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.060

0.059

0.060
1 276213022-6
16-01 BOND F
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
07/01/2021
965.91
965.91
965.91

0.020

0.020
1 276213023-6
16-01 CAPINT
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.870

0.858

0.870
1 276213029-6
16-01 COI
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
07/01/2021

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 276213028-6
16-01 IMP
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
6,723,887.19
6,723,887.19
6,723,887.19

0.020

0.020
1 276213026-6
16-01 RESERV
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
3,153,202.77
3,153,202.77
3,153,202.77

0.020

0.020
1 276213020-6
16-01 SPECF
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
311,636.25
311,636.25
311,636.25

0.020

0.020
1 218848001-6
2017A&B INT
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

10.77 10.77

10.77 0.000

0.000
1 218848008-6
2017ABPRIORP
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
17,958.91
17,958.91
17,958.91

0.020

0.020
1 Data Updated: SET_MTH: 05/05/2022 10:06
Run Date: 05/05/2022 - 10:06
Portfolio TEME
NL! CP
PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1

Portfolio Managment Treasury Report
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Investments
November 30, 2021

Page 2 ends

Average
Purchase
Stated
YTM
YTM
Days to Maturity
CUSIP
Investment #
Issuer Balance
Date
Par Value
Market Value
Book Value
Rate
360
365 Maturity Date
Managed Pool Accounts
218848013-2
2017B COI
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 218848000-6
2017B DS
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

76.62 76.62

76.62 0.030

0.030

0.030
1 218848002-6
2017B PRIN
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
989.41
989.41
989.41

0.020

0.020
1 218848009-6
2017B_PROJ
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
13,123,033.50
13,123,033.50
13,123,033.50

0.020

0.020
1 233358009-6
233358009-6
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
07/01/2021

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 94434160-6
RDA-021NT
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 94434161-6
RDA-02PRIN
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 107886000-6
RDA-06AINT
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 107886001-6
RDA06APRIN
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 107886010-6
RDA06BINT
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 107886011-6
RDA06BPRIN
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.680

0.671

0.680
1 107886016-6
RDA06BRES
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.940

0.927

0.940
1 107886020-6
RDA071NT
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 107886021-6
RDA07PRIN
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.930

0.917

0.930
1 107886028-6
RDA07PROJ
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.940

0.927

0.940
1 107886026-6
RDA07RES
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.940

0.927

0.940
1 136343008-6
RDA10APROJ
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 136343018-6
RDA10BPROJ
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 136343000-6
RDA10INT
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 136343001-6
RDA10PRIN
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
07/01/2021

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 136343006-6
RDA10RSRV
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl
07/01/2021

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 146161000-6
RDA11AINT
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 146161001-6
RDA11APRIN
First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 94669902-3
03-1 BOND3
First American Treasury
07/01/2021

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 94434160-1
RDA 02 INT1
First American Treasury

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.010

0.010

0.010
1 94434161-2
RDA 02 PRIN2
First American Treasury

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.010

0.010

0.010
1 136343018-2
RDA 10B CIP2
First American Treasury

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.010

0.010

0.010
1 146161008-3
RDA11APROJ
Federated Institutional Tax Fr

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.800

0.789

0.800
1 146161006-3
RDA11ARSRV
Federated Institutional Tax Fr
07/01/2021

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 94669921-5
03-01 ACQ11
Federated Tax Free Obligations

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.250

0.247

0.250
1 94669911-5
03-01 ACQA11
Federated Tax Free Obligations

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.250

0.247

0.250
1 94669917-5
03-01 RES
Federated Tax Free Obligations
07/01/2021

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 94669906-5
03-01 RESA11
Federated Tax Free Obligations

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.001

0.001

0.001
1 94669916-5
03-01 RESB11
Federated Tax Free Obligations

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.250

0.247

0.250
1 94669000-5
03-01SPTAX11
Federated Tax Free Obligations

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.250

0.247

0.250
1 164742006-5
03-06 RES
Federated Tax Free Obligations
07/01/2021

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 Data Updated: SET_MTH: 05/05/2022 10:06
Run Date: 05/05/2022 - 10:06
Portfolio TEME
NL! CP
PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0

Portfolio Managment Treasury Report
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Investments
November 30, 2021

Page 3 ends

Average
Purchase
Stated
YTM
YTM
Days to Maturity
CUSIP
Investment #
Issuer Balance
Date
Par Value
Market Value
Book Value
Rate
360
365
Maturity Date
Managed Pool
Accounts
164742000-5
03-06 SPEC
Federated Tax Free Obligations

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.250

0.247

0.250
1 94669902-5
03-1 bond fd
Federated Tax Free Obligations
07/01/2021

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 94686001-5
034 ADMIN11
Federated Tax Free Obligations

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.250

0.247

0.250
1 94686005-5
034 PREP11
Federated Tax Free Obligations
07/01/2021

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 94686006-5
034 RES11
Federated Tax Free Obligations

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.250

0.247

0.250
1 94669917-1
03-01-1 RES
CA Local Agency Investment Fun

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.339

0.334

0.339
1 276213008-1
03-02 IMP
CA Local Agency Investment Fun
8,155,633.22
8,155,633.22
8,155,633.22

0.020

0.020
1 164742006-1
03-06 RES-1
CA Local Agency Investment Fun
306,943.21
306,943.21
306,943.21

0.020

0.020
1 229462007-1
03-1 2012 RE
CA Local Agency Investment Fun
816,021.53
816,021.53
816,021.53

0.221

0.218

0.221
1 94669911-1
03-1 ACQ A2
CA Local Agency Investment Fun

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.339

0.334

0.339
1 94669921-1
03-1 ACQ B2
CA Local Agency Investment Fun

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.339

0.334

0.339
1 744727011-1
03-3 ACQ 2
CA Local Agency Investment Fun

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.339

0.334

0.339
1 164741006-1
0303-1 RES
CA Local Agency Investment Fun
1,418,865.30
1,418,865.30
1,418,865.30

0.020

0.020
1 107886028-1
RDA 07 PRO-1
CA Local Agency Investment Fun

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.339

0.334

0.339
1 107886026-1
RDA 07 RES-1
CA Local Agency Investment Fun

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.339

0.334

0.339
1 136343018-1
RDA 10B CIP1
CA Local Agency Investment Fun

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.339

0.334

0.339
1 229462020-0
03-01 CASH
USBANK
525.91
525.91
525.91

0.000

0.000
1 164742006-0
03-06 Cash
USBANK
07/01/2021

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000

0.000
1 233358050-1
01-2 SPECESC
U.S. Treasury

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.360

0.355

0.360
1 Subtotal
and Average 36,207,510.97
36,207,510.97
36,207,510.97
36,207,510.97

0.024

0.025
1 Retention Escrow Account

NOBEL COMPANY
3354
Banner Bank
218848050-0
2002 ESCROW
USBANK
218848060-0
2006AESCRO
USBANK
218848070-0
2006BESCRO
USBANK
218848080-0
2007ESCROW
USBANK
229462020-2
03-01 ESCROW
U.S. Treasury
Subtotal
and Average
667,226.74
07/01/2021
07/01/2021
07/01/2021
07/01/2021
Letter of Credit
218848006-1 2017B RESER ASSURED GUARANTY MUNICIPAL COR 07/01/2021 233358006-1 01-2 REFRESI ASSURANCE CO BOND INSURANCE 07/01/2021 Subtotal and Average 2.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 667,226.74
667,226.74

1.00 1.00

2.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
667,226.74
667,226.74

1.00 1.00

2.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
667,226.74
667,226.74

1.00 1.00

2.00 0.150 0.148

0.150 1

0.000

0.000 1

0.000

0.000 1

0.000

0.000 1

0.000

0.000 1

0.063 0.062

0.063 1

0.062

0.063 1

0.000 0.000 1

0.000 0.000 1
Portfolio TEME
Data Updated: SET_MTH: 05/05/2022 10:06 NL! CP
Run Date: 05/05/2022 - 10:06
PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0

Portfolio Managment Treasury Report
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Investments
November 30, 2021

Page 4 ends

Average
Purchase
Stated
YTM
YTM
Days to Maturity
CUSIP
Investment #
Issuer Balance
Date
Par Value
Market Value
Book Value
Rate
360
365
Maturity Date
Trust Accounts
6746058700
PARS Pension
US Bank Trust
17,367,630.72
17,367,630.72
17,367,630.72

20.120

19.844

20.120
1 Subtotal and Average 17,367,630.72
17,367,630.72
17,367,630.72
17,367,630.72

19.844

20.120
1 Local Agency Investment Funds

SYSCITY
CITY
CA Local Agency Investment Fun
48,163,748.58
48,157,663.62
48,163,748.58

0.339

0.334

0.339
1 SYSRDA
RDA
CA Local Agency Investment Fun
1,892.17
1,891.93
1,892.17

0.339

0.334

0.339
1 SYSTCSD
TCSD
CA Local Agency Investment Fun
55,901,038.63
55,893,976.15
55,901,038.63

0.339

0.334

0.339
1 Subtotal and Average 104,066,679.38
104,066,679.38
104,053,531.70
104,066,679.38

0.334

0.339
1 Federal Agency Callable Securities
3133EMQGO
01259
Federal Farm Credit Bank
02/10/2021
1,000,000.00
978,560.00
1,000,000.00

0.320

0.316

0.320
1,167 02/10/2025
3133EMK92
01265
Federal Farm Credit Bank
06/23/2021
1,000,000.00
980,260.00
1,000,000.00

0.580

0.572

0.580
1,300 06/23/2025
3133EMN57
01266
Federal Farm Credit Bank
06/28/2021
1,000,000.00
994,200.00
1,000,000.00

0.440

0.434

0.440
940 06/28/2024
3133EMP22
01267
Federal Farm Credit Bank
06/30/2021
1,000,000.00
988,170.00
1,000,000.00

0.910

0.898

0.910
1,672 06/30/2026
3133ENAP5
01273
Federal Farm Credit Bank
10/14/2021
1,000,000.00
984,970.00
1,000,000.00

0.800

0.789

0.800
1,413 10/14/2025
313OAKQ41
01258
Federal Home Loan Bank
01/28/2021
1,000,000.00
982,730.00
1,000,000.00

0.520

0.513

0.520
1,519 01/28/2026
3130ALEU4
01260
Federal Home Loan Bank
02/25/2021
1,000,000.00
984,080.00
1,000,000.00

0.350

0.345

0.350
1,090 11/25/2024
3130ALWV2
01261
Federal Home Loan Bank
04/21/2021
1,000,000.00
993,670.00
1,000,000.00

0.550

1.011

1.025
1,602 04/21/2026
3130AM2V3
01262
Federal Home Loan Bank
04/29/2021
1,000,000.00
994,610.00
1,000,000.00

0.700

0.690

0.700
1,245 04/29/2025
3130AMNMO
01263
Federal Home Loan Bank
05/27/2021
1,000,000.00
992,960.00
1,000,000.00

0.500

0.493

0.500
1,638 05/27/2026
3130AMM90
01264
Federal Home Loan Bank
06/10/2021
1,000,000.00
991,890.00
1,000,000.00

0.500

1.973

2.000
1,652 06/10/2026
3130AN4N7
01268
Federal Home Loan Bank
07/14/2021
1,000,000.00
984,840.00
1,000,000.00

0.720

0.710

0.720
1,321 07/14/2025
3130ANAZ3
01269
Federal Home Loan Bank
07/28/2021
1,000,000.00
988,940.00
1,000,000.00

0.600

0.592

0.600
1,244 04/28/2025
3130AP3M5
01270
Federal Home Loan Bank
09/28/2021
1,000,000.00
991,930.00
1,000,000.00

0.550

0.542

0.550
1,213 03/28/2025
3134GBGZ9
01232
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
04/27/2017
1,000,000.00
1,002,970.00
1,000,000.00

2.000

1.964

1.991
57 01/27/2022
3134GXJL9
01257
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
12/30/2020
1,000,000.00
980,000.00
1,000,000.00

0.500

0.493

0.500
1,490 12/30/2025
3130APBV6
01271
Union Bank
10/07/2021
1,000,000.00
988,990.00
999,000.00

1.000

1.007

1.021
1,771 10/07/2026
3130APAM7
01272
Union Bank
10/14/2021
1,000,000.00
981,650.00
998,500.00

0.900

0.918

0.931
1,778 10/14/2026
Subtotal and Average 17,997,500.00
18,000,000.00
17,785,420.00
17,997,500.00

0.792

0.803
1,339
Federal Agency Bullet Securities
3133EJT74
01249
Federal Farm Credit Bank
11/15/2018

0.00 0.00

0.00 3.050

3.008

3.050
15 11/15/2021
3133ELMA9
01254
Federal Farm Credit Bank
02/07/2020
1,000,000.00
1,015,040.00
1,000,000.00

1.420

1.401

1.420
614 08/07/2023
3133ELTU8
01256
Federal Farm Credit Bank
03/18/2020
1,000,000.00
1,005,610.00
1,000,000.00

0.920

0.907

0.920
838 03/18/2024
3133ENCA6
01274
Federal Farm Credit Bank
10/25/2021
1,000,000.00
996,750.00
1,000,000.00

0.700

0.690

0.700
1,059 10/25/2024
Portfolio TEME
Data Updated: SET_MTH: 05/05/2022 10:06 NL! CP
Run Date: 05/05/2022 - 10:06
PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0

Portfolio Managment Treasury Report
Portfolio Management
Page
Portfolio Details - Investments
November 30, 2021
Average
Purchase
Stated YTM
YTM Days to
Maturity
CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance
Date Par Value Market Value
Book Value Rate 360
365 Maturity
Date
Federal Agency Bullet Securities
3135GOU92 01250 Federal National Mtg Assn
01/11/2019 1,000,000.00 1,002,910.00
1,000,000.00 2.625 2.589

2.625 41
01/11/2022
Subtotal and Average 4,466,666.67
4,000,000.00 4,020,310.00
4,000,000.00 1.397

1.416 638
Total and Average 182,777,652.99
Data Updated: SET_MTH: 05/05/2022 10:06
Run Date: 05/05/2022 - 10:06
180,309,049.81 180,101,632.13 180,306,549.81 2.220 2.250 149 Portfolio TEME
NL! CP
PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0

Portfolio Managment Treasury Report
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Cash
November 30, 2021

Page 6 ends

Average
Purchase
Stated
YTM
YTM
Days to
CUSIP
Investment #
Issuer Balance
Date
Par Value
Market Value
Book Value Rate
360
365 Maturity
Passbook/Checking
Accounts
1453718479

WORKERS

BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNC
07/01/2021
20,924.68
20,924.68
20,924.68

0.000

0.000
1 SYSPetty Cash
Petty Cash
City of Temecula
07/01/2021
3,911.00
3,911.00
3,911.00

0.000

0.000
1 SYSGenCkAcct
Gen CkAcct
Union Bank of California
1,961,931.69
1,961,931.69
1,961,931.69

0.000

0.000
1 SYSParking Ck

PARKING CITA
Union Bank of California
07/01/2021
17,669.14
17,669.14
17,669.14

0.000

0.000
1 Average Balance 0.00
Total Cash and Investments
182,777,652.99
III
182,313,486.32 182,106,068.64 182,310,986.32 2.220 2.250 149 Portfolio TEME
Data Updated: SET_MTH: 05/05/2022 10:06 NL! CP
Run Date: 05/05/2022 - 10:06
PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0

Cash and Investments Report

CITY OF TEMECULA
Through November 2021
Fund # Fund Name Beginning Balance Receipts Disbursements Fund Total 001

GENERAL FUND
$
42,902,236.12 $
8,005,270.07
$ 5,450,207.36
$ 45,457,298.83
002

MEASURE S FUND
25,720,548.84
3,122,661.08
28,843,209.92
100

STATE GAS TAX FUND
875,551.78
430,475.06
1,306,026.84
102

RMRA-ROAD MAINTENANCE REHABILITATION ACT
2,165,035.54
186,963.79
2,351,999.33
103

STREETS MAINTENANCE FUND
3,962,392.89

7.55 3,962,400.44
106

UPTOWN TEMECULA NEW STREETS IN LIEU FEES
895,653.80

1.71 895,655.51
108
ARPA
7,039,753.50
-
7,039,753.50
120

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND
4,462,113.04
86,392.99
-
4,548,506.03
125

PEG PUBLIC EDUCATION & GOVERNMENT
609,171.97
35,219.12
705.28
643,685.81
145

TEMECULA ENERGY EFFICIENCY ASSET TEAM
839,934.74

1.60 -
839,936.34
150
AB 2766 FUND
172,002.96

0.31 10,000.00
162,003.27
160

SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
199,269.83
8,333.33
-
207,603.16
161

TEMECULA MAJOR CRIMES REWARD FUND
27,208.09

0.05 -
27,208.14
165

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
2,009,205.11

3.79 20,343.65
1,988,865.25
170

MEASURE A FUND
8,714,764.87
277,703.68
32,538.05
8,959,930.50
190

TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
959,756.59
240,936.22
802,942.50
397,850.31
192
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREET LIGHTS
699,959.68

1.29 23,293.21
676,667.76
194
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "D" REFUSE/RECYCLING
223,116.82

0.40 13,130.48
209,986.74
195
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "R" STREET/ROAD MAINT
27,479.16

0.05 -
27,479.21
196
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT.
380,044.15
2,207.06
17,004.46
365,246.75
197

TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND
566,384.14
2,943.33
66,863.34
502,464.13
198

PUBLIC ART
103,587.74
1,826.50
-
105,414.24
210

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND
11,019,324.06
371,751.54
1,517,215.25
9,873,860.35
275
CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK IMPROVEMENT FUND
211,411.02

3.33 211,414.35
277

CFD-RORIPAUGH
8,300,332.75

0.28 8,300,333.03
278

CFD-RORIPAUGH II
6,723,772.97
114.22
-
6,723,887.19
300

INSURANCE FUND
1,191,803.46

2.20 39,115.31
1,152,690.35
305

WORKER'S COMPENSATION
1,873,522.74

3.54 15,051.37
1,858,474.91
310

VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT FUND
2,236,395.95

4.26 -
2,236,400.21
320

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
1,305,385.24
486.90
666,312.88
639,559.26
325

TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT FUND
1,744,941.41

3.33 -
1,744,944.74
330

CENTRAL SERVICES
4,209.15
-
27,637.17
(23,428.02)
335

CENTRAL SERVICES
327,745.60

0.58 -
327,746.18
340

FACILITIES
606,746.14
2,364.10
101,279.65
507,830.59
350

FACILITY REPLACEMENT FUND
128,320.97

0.24 -
128,321.21
380

SARDA DEBT SERVICE FUND
13,141,847.95
223.26
295,000.00
12,847,071.21
381

REDEVELOPMEN PROPERTY TAX TRUST
2,733,380.58

4.65 -
2,733,385.23
460
CFD 88-12 DEBT SERVICE FUND
95,422.01

0.18 -
95,422.19
472
CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE
660,262.09

10.75 106.55
660,166.29
473
CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND
1,652,555.91
311.37
106.55
1,652,760.73
474
AD 03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE
4,997.48

0.01 -
4,997.49
475
CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND
1,805,552.18

5.82 319.51
1,805,238.49
476
CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND
386,706.57

0.83 106.55
386,600.85
477
CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND
857,444.49

14.19 319.59
857,139.09
478

CFD-RORIPAUGH II
3,490,908.43

58.93 213.08
3,490,754.28
501
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD
5,568.97

0.01 2,452.43
3,116.55
502
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK
105,104.89

0.20 1,719.18
103,385.91
503
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS
37,300.05

0.07 2,393.96
34,906.16
504
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS
3,468.28

0.01 381.45
3,086.84
505
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES
21,533.99

0.04 2,198.38
19,335.65
506
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY
33,204.00

0.06 995.42
32,208.64
507
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW
6,697.95

0.01 826.71
5,871.25
508
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE
77,329.77

0.13 8,683.54
68,646.36
509
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA
30,515.55

0.06 167.70
30,347.91
510
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE
11,906.39

0.02 466.66
11,439.75
511
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW
3,464.97

0.01 129.61
3,335.37
512
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS
95,485.84

0.17 6,866.27
88,619.74
513
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP
23,372.58

0.04 2,094.94
21,277.68
514
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES
9,023.31

0.02 848.61
8,174.72
515
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES
10,385.60

0.02 530.82
9,854.80
516
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS
62,284.23

0.12 1,172.39
61,111.96
517
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA
1,868.84
-
125.78
1,743.06
518
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS
44,604.86

0.08 4,692.90
39,912.04
519
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR
74,494.66

0.14 3,641.08
70,853.72
520
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL
198,554.85

0.36 8,719.45
189,835.76
521
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH
144,384.28

0.25 14,567.99
129,816.54
522
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE
9,733.38

0.02 281.91
9,451.49
523
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN
22,532.02

0.06 332.19
22,199.89
524
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON
21,624.94

0.02 9,000.35
12,624.61
525
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS
60,708.62

0.11 2,418.78
58,289.95
526
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION
1,523.52
-
122.08
1,401.44
527
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE
6,984.99

0.01 500.35
6,484.65
528
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK
585,328.15

1.08 17,110.87
568,218.36
529
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT
4,599.54
1,758.59
167.76
6,190.37
530
SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 30 FUTURE ZONES
36,306.09

0.07 -
36,306.16
701

PENSION RATE STABILIZATION FUND
$
17,367,630.72
4,000,000.00
2,247,454.87
$ 19,120,175.85
Grand Total:
$
183,175,686.34 $
16,778,075.27
$ 11,440,776.22
$ 188,512,985.39
Journal Entries completed after October's Treasurer's Report was issued are reflected In the Receipts / Disbursements columns.

Item No. 5

CITY OF TEMECULA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Erica Russo, Director of Community Services
DATE: May 24, 2022
SUBJECT: Approve Cooperative Agreement with Non-profit Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley in Support of Various Senior Services Activities PREPARED BY: Yvette Martinez, Community Services Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a cooperative agreement with non- profit Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley in support of various senior services activities.

BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula incorporated in 1989 with a population of less than 30,000 residents and a senior population of less than 10%. Since then, the City's population has grown over three times that amount to an estimated 110,000 with a senior population of approximately 25%. The City of Temecula recognizes the need to assist in providing services and amenities to enrich quality of life, provide information and education, and support the emotional and physical needs of aging adults within our community.

For the past 29 years, the Mary Phillips Senior Center (MPSC) has grown along with the community by providing hundreds of programs, activities, and services for aging adults and those with special needs. It is the City's goal to provide the commitment and leadership to identify residents' needs, increase access to existing programs, develop tangible solutions, and plan for the future. The facility has become a place to socialize and participate, earning a reputation as "The Place Where Friends Meet".

The Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley (SGY) is a non-profit organization dedicated to the improvement of the lives of Temecula Valley Seniors through social, educational, and nutritional activities. SGY has played an integral part in the City's senior services since the formation of the MPSC in 1989.

The Partnership between the City of Temecula and Senior Golden Years exists to leverage resource opportunities; create, expand, and improve activities and services; and promote senior support.

The City of Temecula and Senior Golden Years have worked cooperatively to host various activities for residents of Temecula and surrounding cities. The City will sponsor the use of space at the Mary Phillips Senior Center in order for the non-profit to conduct their services. This partnership will continue through the following:

• Board Meetings: The City will sponsor the use of space at the Mary Phillip's Senior Center to conduct the non -profit's monthly board meetings. The Board Meetings are closed to the public and are for members of the board to conduct business. • Member Meetings: The City will sponsor the use of space at the Mary Phillips Senior Center to conduct the non -profit's bi-monthly member meetings. The Member Meetings are open to members of the club or anyone interested in joining. Meetings serve on average 50-60 seniors.
• Bingo Activity: The City will sponsor the use of space at the Mary Phillips Senior Center to conduct a Bingo Activity. The activity is open to all seniors ages 55 and over. The non- profit is required to obtain a Charitable Organization Bingo License in order to perform this activity. This activity serves on average 50-75 seniors. • Social Activities: The City will sponsor the use of space at the Mary Phillips Senior Center to hold various social events like Saturday Socials. These activities will be open to all seniors ages 55 and over. These activities serve on average 25-100, people depending on the event.

In order to fulfill the desired outcomes of the Human Services Division to serve seniors and active adults, the City seeks to formalize the cooperative partnership between the City of Temecula and Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley, which is essential in continuing to provide these types of activities to the senior population. This two-year agreement entails the use of in -kind Community Services facility and staff support valued at $3,000 and $1,000 respectively. The non- profit Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley shall provide the following benefits and in -kind services for the citizens of Temecula which include City of Temecula logo/name on advertisements, press releases, and all other promotional materials, and coordinate various Senior Social Activities as described above.

FISCAL IMPACT: In -kind Community Services facility and staff support valued at $3,000 and $1,000 respectively. Current funding has been allocated in the FY 2021-22 TCSD Budget. Funding for the balance of the term will be requested as part of the Annual Operating Budget process.

ATTACHMENTS: Cooperative Agreement

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN

CITY OF TEMECULA AND SENIOR GOLDEN YEARS
THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of this 24th day of May, 2022, by and between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Nonprofit'). In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and undertakings set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:

RECITALS
This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes which each of the parties acknowledge and agree are true and correct:
a.) The Nonprofit shall operate their Board Meetings (hereinafter referred to as the "Event") on 2"d Wednesday of each month from 12:00 — 12:30 pm at the Mary Phillips Senior Center (room based on availability).
i. The Board Meetings are closed to the general public for members of the board to conduct business.
ii. City Staff will setup and breakdown meetings.
iii. The Nonprofit is responsible for clean up.
b.) The Nonprofit shall operate their Member Meetings on the 4th Wednesday of each month from 12:30 — 1:00 pm at the Mary Phillips Senior Center (room based on availability).
i. The Member Meetings are open to members of the Senior Golden Years.
ii. The City will sponsor coffee and condiments.
iii. City Staff will setup and breakdown meetings.
iv. The Nonprofit is responsible for clean up.
c.) The Nonprofit shall operate their Bingo Activity on the 4th Wednesday of each month from 1:00 — 3:00 pm at the Mary Phillips Senior Center. i. This activity is open to the general public for seniors ages 55 and over.
ii. City Staff will setup and breakdown event.
iii. The Nonprofit is responsible for clean up.
iv. The Nonprofit may store their Bingo machine in the Multipurpose Room closet.
v. The Nonprofit is required to obtain a Charitable Organization Bingo License from the City of Temecula.
d.) Alcohol will not be served at any of the above mentioned events/programs. e.) The City desires to be a Co -Sponsor of all the above mentioned activities/events, providing in -kind support including facilities, staff support, refreshments, storage use, and advertising as described in Exhibit B.

2. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on May 24, 2022, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than May 23, 2024 unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.

3. CONSIDERATION
a. As a Co -Sponsor the City shall receive sponsor benefits as listed in Exhbit A
b. WRITTEN REPORT
Within ninety (90) days after the conclusion of the Event, the Nonprofit shall prepare and submit to the Director of Community Services a written report evaluating the Event, its attendance, media coverage, and description of the materials in which the City has listed as a Co -Sponsor.

4. PERMITS
The Nonprofit shall file applications for a Charitable Organization Bingo License with the City no later than thirty (30) days prior to the first day of the Event. The City retains its governmental jurisdiction to determine whether to issue the permits and the nature and scope of Conditions of Approval. The Nonprofit shall comply with all conditions of approval for the Charitable Organization Bingo License, or any other City -issued permits. Failure to comply with the Conditions of Approval of such permits shall constitute a default of this Agreement and is grounds for termination of this Agreement.

5. MEETING ATTENDANCE
The Nonprofit shall attend all City pre -event planning meetings and event recap meetings if warranted.

6. INDEMNIFICATION
The Nonprofit shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and representatives from any and all suits, claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, actions, liability or damages of whatsoever kind and nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of the Nonprofit's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non- performance of this Agreement.

7. INSURANCE
The Nonprofit shall secure and maintain from a State of California admitted insurance company, pay for and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement an insurance policy of comprehensive general liability against claims for injuries to persons or

damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by May 24, 2022, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No.

CG 00 01 11 85 or 88.
2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Recipient owns no automobiles, a non -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Recipient has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees.

Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
1) General Liability: One million ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2) Worker's Compensation insurance is required only if Consultant employs any employees. Consultant warrants and represents to the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agencythat it has no employees and that it will obtain the required Worker's Compensation Insurance upon the hiring of any employees.

C. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the NonProfit; products and completed operations of the Recipient; premises owned, occupied or used by the Nonprofit; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Nonprofit. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
2) For any claims related to this project, the Nonprofit's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self -insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.

3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Nonprofit's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state: should the policy be canceled before the expiration date the issuing insurer will endeavor to mail thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Nonprofit shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy.
e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A-:Vl I or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Nonproft shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Nonprofit's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications.

8. GOVERNING LAW
The City and the Nonprofit understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted.

9. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Nonprofit shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Nonprofit shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Nonprofit to comply with this section.

10. ASSIGNMENT
The Nonprofit shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City.

11. NOTICES
Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice:

Mailing Address: City of Temecula
Attn: City Manager
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
To Recipient: Senior Golden Years
Attn: Caroline Hoelzle
PO BOX 69
Wildomar, CA 92595

15. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
a. The Nonprofit shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit shall at all times be under the Nonprofit's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Recipient or any of the Nonprofit's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. The Nonprofit shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. The Nonprofit shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.

No employee benefits shall be available to the Nonprofit in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to the Nonprofit as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to the Nonprofit for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to the Nonprofit for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.

16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.

17. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT

The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit and has the authority to bind the Nonprofit to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non -substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non -monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination.

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

CITY OF TEMECULA
By:

Matt Rahn, Mayor
ATTEST:

By:

Randi Johl, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney

SENIORS' GOLDEN YEARS OF TEMECULA
VALLEY, INC.
(Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless
corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.)
By!
Caroline Hoelzle, President
y
Ron Hoelzle , Treas rer

NONPROFIT
Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley,
Inc.

Caroline Hoelzle
PO Box 69
VAIdomar, CA 92696
(961 ) 244-6409
Sweetcc41(a)-yahoo.com
PM Initials:

Date: � J

EXHIBIT "A"

CITY OF TEMECULA SPONSORSHIP BENEFITS

CO-SPONSOR
Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley Inc. shall provide the following benefits and services for the citizens of the City of Temecula:
■ City of Temecula logo/name on advertisements, press releases, and other promotional materials
ID Bingo Activity for City of Temecula and patrons of the senior community 0 Social events for City of Temecula and patrons of the senior community

EXHIBIT "B"

IN -KIND SERVICES

ESTIMATED VALUE OF CITY SUPPORT SERVICES AND COSTS
Based on the input from City departments we received estimated cost projections for the Board Meetings, Member Meetings, Bingo Activity, Saturday Socials, and Craft Boutique event.

The following expenses can be anticipated for the event:

Mary Phillips Senior Center Facility Rental: $ 3,000.00 Community Services Staff Hours: $ 1,000.00
TOTAL: $ 4,000.00

Item No. 6

CITY OF TEMECULA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Erica Russo, Director of Community Services
DATE: May 24, 2022
SUBJECT: Approve Agreement with Temecula Valley Unified School District for Interim Use of Temecula Valley High School Pool Facilities
PREPARED BY: Gwen Willcox, Community Services Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an agreement with Temecula Valley Unified School District for interim use of Temecula Valley High School pool facilities.

BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula has a robust Aquatics program which provides year-round instructional, recreational, water safety, and competitive programming to the community. This award -winning Aquatics programming is a cornerstone of the City's efforts to improve the health, wellbeing, and safety of its residents. In addition to the City -owned pool at the Community Recreation Center, the City enters into Joint Use Agreements with Temecula Valley Unified School District to share facilities in the interest of better serving the community.

For summer swim programs, the City typically utilizes the pools at Temecula Elementary School and Chaparral High School. This summer, the CHS pool will be going under renovation, so in lieu of that facility, the District is permitting the City to utilize the pool at Temecula Valley High School to minimize impacts to busy summer aquatics programming. This agreement will provide for interim use of that facility for the summer of 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT: All costs associated with using the pool through the end of this fiscal year are included in the current annual operating budget. Costs associated with next fiscal year have been included in the FY 2022-23 Annual Operating Budget process.

ATTACHMENTS: Agreement

AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR INTERIM USE OF TEMECULA

VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL POOL FACILITIES
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of May 24, 2022, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City"), and the Temecula Valley Unified School District ("District"). In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby agree as follows:

1. Recitals. This Agreement is entered into with respect to the following facts and for the following purposes, each of which is acknowledged as true and correct by the parties:
a. Title I, Division 1, Part 7, Chapter 10, commencing with Section 10900 of the Education Code, authorizes public school districts and cities to cooperate with one another for the purpose of authorizing, promoting and conducting programs of community recreation which will contribute to the attainment of general recreational and educational objectives for children and adults of the State. In this regard, school districts and cities may enter into agreements with each other to aid and cooperate in carrying out these objectives. The governing body of any school district is authorized by these provisions to use the buildings, grounds, and equipment of the district, or any of them, to carry out the recreational and educational objectives, or may grant the use of any building, grounds, or equipment of the district to any other public authority for such purposes, whenever the use of the buildings, grounds, or equipment for community recreational purposes will not interfere with use of the buildings, grounds, and equipment for any other purpose of the public school system. Accordingly, the District and City are authorized to enter into this Agreement.
b. The City and District entered into a "Joint Use Agreement between the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley Unified School District for the Joint Use of a Portion of Temecula Elementary School," which as amended, currently allows the City to use the pool facilities located at Temecula Elementary School and Chaparral High School.

C. The District is currently renovating the pool facilities at Chaparral High School and such pool facilities will not be available for the City to use during the 2022 summer season.
d. The District has agreed to allow the City to use the pool facilities at Temecula Valley High School on an interim basis while the Chaparral High School pool facilities are unavailable. The pool facilities ("Pool Facilities") are located on the Temecula Valley High School property, 31555 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, CA 92592, and are described and depicted on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ("Property").

2. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall begin on June 1, 2022 and shall terminate on August 31, 2022 ("Term"), unless sooner terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
-1-
11086-0007\a6sn 18vLdoc

3. Use of Pool Facilities. District hereby grants the City a license for use of the Pool Facilities during the Term of the Agreement. City shall have exclusive access to the pool Facilities pursuant to the schedule set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Use of the Pool Facilities includes the pool and surrounding fenced -in pool area, the storage room on the west side, and the equipment room on the east side, the parking lot adjacent to the fenced -in pool area and the restrooms located outside the fenced -in pool area. The City will use its own pool equipment, except that the City may use the lifeguard towers located in the fenced -in pool area. City may store its pool equipment in the storage room and equipment room at any time during the Term of this Agreement. City shall be responsible for the safe storage and maintenance of its pool equipment during the term of this Agreement.

With the exception of lifeguard towers, the District shall not leave any District pool equipment at the Pool Facilities during the City's hours of use. Notwithstanding the above, all safety equipment, including but not limited to items such as life rings, throw ropes, rescue poles, first aid kits, backboards, operating phone, and AED units, shall remain at the Pool Facilities and be available for use by the City during the City's use. City shall be responsible for staffing life guards, attendants and other staff necessary for the City's use of the Pool Facilities at its sole cost and expense. City agrees to provide lifeguard staff while the Pool Facilities are used by the District's Temecula Valley High School students during the hours outside of City use listed in Exhibit B at its sole cost and expense.

4. Maintenance and Cleanup of Pool Facilities.
a. During the term of this Agreement, the District shall, at its sole cost and expense, perform all routine and major maintenance at the Pool Facilities. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to: (1) the maintenance and repairs of the deck and pool, pump room equipment, filtration and chlorination systems, restrooms and locker rooms, and other structures and facilities on the Property; and (2) payment of all utility costs for operation of the pool and (3) emptying trash receptacles. b. During the term of this Agreement, the City shall, at its sole cost and expense, perform daily cleanup of the Pool Facilities after each use. Such clean up shall include picking up and throwing away trash and cleaning any spills.

5. Fees. Fees paid by the City to the District pursuant to the "Joint Use Agreement between the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley Unified School District for the Joint Use of a Portion of Temecula Elementary School" shall cover City's use of the pool Facilities and no additional fees shall be due under this Agreement.

6. Indemnification.
a. District agrees to defend, indemnify, protect, and hold harmless, City, its officers, agents, and employees, against all actions, claims, or demands for injury, death, loss, or damages, regardless of fault or cause, by anyone whomsoever, whenever such injury, death, loss, or damage is a consequence of, or arises out of, or incidental to, the use or maintenance of the Property by District or any other persons or parties (other than City) authorized to so use the Property by District pursuant to this Agreement, except to the extent said damage is caused by the misconduct or active negligence of the City, its officers, agents and employees. b. City agrees to defend, indemnify, protect, and hold harmless, District, its officers, agents, and employees, against all actions, claims, or demands for injury, -2-
I I086-0007\26571I8vLdoc

death, loss or damages, regardless of fault or cause, by anyone whomsoever, whenever such injury, death, loss or damage is a consequence of, or arises out of, or is incidental to, the use or maintenance of the Property by City or any other persons or parties (other than District) authorized to so use or maintain the Property by City pursuant to this Agreement, except to the extent said damage is caused by the misconduct or active negligence of the District, its officers, agents and employees.

7. Defaults and Remedies.
a. Subject to the extensions of time approved in writing by a party, failure or delay by either party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement constitutes a default under this Agreement. A party claiming a default (claimant) shall give written notice of default to the other party, specifying the default complained of. b. The claimant shall not institute proceedings against the other party nor be entitled to damages if the other party within fourteen (14) days from receipt of such notice immediately, with due diligence, commences to cure, correct or remedy such failure or delay and shall complete such cure, correction or remedy within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of such notice. Such cure, correction and remedy shall include payment of any costs, expenses (including attorney fees) or damages incurred by the non -defaulting party resulting from the default or during the period of default.

C. Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative, and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party.
d. Any failure or delays by either party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies, or deprive either such party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies.
e. If a default is not fully cured by the defaulting party as provided in this Paragraph, the defaulting party shall be liable to the other party for any damages caused by such default, and the nondefaulting party may thereafter (but not before) commence an action for damages against the defaulting party with respect to such default. f. If a default under this Agreement is not fully cured by the defaulting party as provided in this Section, the nondefaulting party at its option may thereafter (but not before) commence an action for specific performance of terms of this Agreement. g. In the event litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses incurred in pursuing its remedies and prosecuting or defending the litigation.

8. Insurance. Each party to this Agreement shall carry public liability insurance in a reasonable amount satisfactory to the other party to protect itself and the other party, its officers, agents, servants, and employees, against claims for damage to persons and/or property, -3-
I I086-0007\26571 I8vLdoc

including death, arising from that party's use of the Property as provided in this Agreement. The form of the insurance shall be satisfactory to the other party and may include self-insurance at levels reasonably acceptable to the other party. The City will provide the District with an insurance certificate naming the District as an additional insured

9. Force Majeure. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, if the performance of any act required by this Agreement to be performed by either District or City is prevented or delayed by reason of any act of God, strike, lockout, pandemic, labor trouble, inability to secure materials, or any other cause (except financial difficulty or inability) not the fault of the party required to perform the act, the time for performance of the act will be extended for a period equivalent to the period of delay and performance of the act during the period of delay will be excused. However, nothing contained in this Section shall excuse the prompt payment by a party as required by this Agreement or the performance of any act rendered difficult or impossible solely because of the financial condition of the party required to perform the act.

10. Notices to Parties. Written notices, demands and communications among the District and City, shall be sufficiently given by either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by notice:

District:

Temecula Valley Unified School District
31350 Rancho Vista Road
Temecula, California 92592
Attention: Superintendent
City:

City of Temecula
4100 Main Street
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: City Manager
Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as either party may from time to time designate by mail as provided in this Section.

11. Agreement Binding on Successors. This Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and lawful assigns of the parties hereto.

12. Assignment. Neither Party shall assign or transfer this Agreement or any portion thereof without the prior written amendment of this Agreement by City and District.

13. Sole and Only Agreement. With the exception of the Joint Use Agreement between the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley Unified School District for the Joint Use of a Portion of Temecula Elementary School noted above, this Agreement constitutes the sole and only agreement between District and City respecting the use of the Pool Facilities. Any agreements or representations, either oral or written, respecting the matters discussed in this ME
I I086-0007\26571I8vLdoc

Agreement pertaining to the Property which are not expressly set forth in this Agreement are null and void.

14. Time of Essence. Time is expressly declared to be of the essence of this Agreement.

15. Authority to Execute. Each person executing this agreement expressly warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his or her governmental entity and warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to bind his or her entity to the performance of its obligations hereunder. -5-
11086-0007\a6sn 18vLdoc

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

CITY OF TEMECULA
By:

Matt Rahn, Mayor
ATTEST:

Temecula Valley Unified School District
By:

By: By:

Randi Johl, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

President of School Board
Secretary to School Board
By:

Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney DISTRICT
Temecula Valley Unified School District
31350 Rancho Vista Road
Temecula, CA 92592
Attn: Superintendent
PM Initials:

Date:
-6-
11 086-0007\2657118vl.doc

ea n
Jwmcgvc
Lj
01 _,T,emecula Valiey
�yU
gh Schoolno-
T t —

1.0011-
ti

F,XHIRIT R

CITY USE SCHEDULE
Summer Schedule for Temecula Valley High School for City of Temecula Use from June 1, 2022 through August 14, 2022
Monday through Thursday: 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Friday: 6:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Saturday and Sunday: 6:30 a.m. to 8:00p.m.

TVHS will have use of the facility during the following times, however, the City will provide Lifeguard staff during these times:

Monday through Thursday: 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. (Staff will arrive at 5:30 a.m.) Friday: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
11086-0007\2657118v1.doc

Item No. 7

CITY OF TEMECULA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: May 24, 2022
SUBJECT: Adopt List of Projects to be Funded by Senate Bill One (SB 1) for Fiscal Year 2022-23
PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Engineering Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

TEMECULA ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2022-23 FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
BACKGROUND: Senate Bill One (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi -modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide. The City of Temecula has been receiving SB-1 revenue from the newly created Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) since Fiscal Year 2017-18. The City is set to receive $2,335,769 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 and $2,570,577 for Fiscal Year 2022-23 based on the latest estimate. The City intends to use SB 1 revenues to supplement the City's pavement rehabilitation program.

On March 24, 2021, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) adopted the Local Streets and Roads Funding Program 2021 Reporting Guidelines. Section IV, Project List Submittal, Subsection 9, Content and Format of Project List, of the guidelines states:
"Prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the Controller in a fiscal year (funds collected from July I to June 30 and apportioned September I to August 31), a city or county must submit to the Commission a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds pursuant to an adopted resolution by the city council or county board of supervisors at a regular public meeting. Each year, a city or county must adopt and submit to the Commission a project list resolution for the upcoming fiscal year's funds to comply with the eligibility requirements for that fiscal year's apportionment. "
For Fiscal Year 2018-19 and subsequent years, in order for an agency to receive SB 1 funds, a list of proposed projects must be submitted to the CTC by May 1, 2018 and every year thereafter

pursuant to an annually adopted resolution. In 2021, the CTC extended the deadlines for the submittal of the list of projects to July 1 st. The City does have the ability to change projects from the ones on the list submitted to the CTC. Having this flexibility would enable the City to designate projects that are ready for construction to receive SB 1 RMRA funds.

The City have completed the update to the Pavement Management Program (PMP) in 2018.

Utilizing the PMP, staff have developed a list of project that will rehabilitate a number of streets in the next few years. This list will be included in the upcoming Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Years 2023-27. As projects are ready for construction, staff will designate sufficient number of projects to exhaust the SB 1 RMRA funds the City is set to receive annually.

FISCAL IMPACT: According to the Local Streets and Roads Funding Program 2021 Reporting Guidelines adopted by the CTC on March 24, 2021, in order to receive SB 1 funds, the City must submit a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 to the CTC by July 1, 2022. By submitting the list of projects to the CTC by the specified deadline, the City is set to receive approximately $2,570,577 for Fiscal Year 2022-23 from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) funded by SB 1.

ATTACHMENTS: Resolution

RESOLUTION NO.2022-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD
REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that:

A. Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi -modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and B. SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of the City of Temecula are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and C. The City of Temecula must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project's completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and D. The City of Temecula will receive an estimated $2,570,577 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2022-23 from SB 1; and
E. This is the sixth year in which the City of Temecula is receiving SB 1 funding and will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and
F. The City of Temecula used a Pavement Management Program (PMP) to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high -priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the communities priorities for transportation investment; and G. The funding from SB 1 will help the City of Temecula maintain and rehabilitate three major streets/roads in the City this year and a number of similar projects into the future; and H. The 2020 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City of Temecula streets and roads are in an "good" condition and this revenue will help the City increase the overall quality of our road system and bring "at risk" streets/roads into "good" condition over the next decade; and
I. The SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets

infrastructure, and using cutting -edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co -benefits statewide.

Section 2. Adoption of the SB 1 Project List for Fiscal Year 2022-23 A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

B. The following list of newly proposed projects will be funded in -part or solely with Fiscal Year 2022-23 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:

1. Project Title: Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide, PW21-10 Project Description: The roadway rehabilitation shall generally consist of 2 to 4 inches of cold milling and placement of 2 to 4 inches of asphalt concrete.

The project also includes the removal and replacement of existing roadway striping, pavement markings, and traffic signal loops, the removal and reconstruction of existing pedestrian ramps in order to comply with current ADA standards, and adjustment of existing utilities to grade.

Project Location: Roadway rehabilitation of the full width of Winchester Road from Jefferson Avenue to Enterprise Circle West
Estimated Project Schedule: Start (08/2022) — Completion (03/2023) based on the component being funded with RMRA funds
Estimated Project Useful Life: 10-20 years

2. Project Title: Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide, PW21-10 Project Description: The roadway rehabilitation shall generally consist of 2 to 4 inches of cold milling and placement of 2 to 4 inches of asphalt concrete.

Project Location: Roadway rehabilitation of the full width of Ynez Road from approximately 860 feet north of county Center Drive to the Northern Citylimits
Estimated Project Schedule: Start (08/2022) — Completion (03/2023) based on the component being funded with RMRA funds
Estimated Project Useful Life: 10-20 years

3. Project Title: Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide, PW21-10 Project Description: The roadway rehabilitation shall generally consist of 2 to 4 inches of cold milling and placement of 2 to 4 inches of asphalt concrete.

Project Location: Roadway rehabilitation of the full width of Solana Way between Ynez Road and Margarita Road

Estimated Project Schedule: Start (08/2022) — Completion (03/2023) based on the component being funded with RMRA funds
Estimated Project Useful Life: 10-20 years

4. Project Title: Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide, PW21-10 Project Description: The roadway rehabilitation shall generally consist of 2 to 4 inches of cold milling and placement of 2 to 4 inches of asphalt concrete.

Project Location: Roadway rehabilitation of the full width of Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and North General Kearny Road
Estimated Project Schedule: Start (08/2022) — Completion (03/2023) based on the component being funded with RMRA funds
Estimated Project Useful Life: 10-20 years
Section 3. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 24th day of May, 2022.

Matt Rahn, Mayor
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Randi Johl, City Clerk

Item No. 8

CITY OF TEMECULA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works / City Engineer DATE: May 24, 2022
SUBJECT: Approve the Initial Study and Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Diaz Road Expansion Project, PW17-25
PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Engineering Manager
Avlin R. Odviar, Senior Civil Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Approve the Initial Study (IS) and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Diaz Road Expansion Project, PW17-25; and

2. Direct the Public Works Director to file the Notice of Determination (NOD) BACKGROUND: The Diaz Road Expansion project (Project), includes development and construction of improvements along Diaz Road, between Rancho California Road and Cherry Street, bringing it to its ultimate Major Arterial classification. Design and construction will take place in two phases with Phase 1 covering Diaz Road from Rancho California Road to Winchester Road and Phase 2 covering Diaz Road from Winchester Road to Cherry Street. The subject environmental document encompasses both phases.

A project Initial Study (IS) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The IS characterizes the following environmental factors as being subject to "No Impact" and/or "Less Than Significant Impact" by the Project:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Energy
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards & Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology / Water Quality
• Land Use / Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population / Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Utilities / Service Systems
• Wildfire

The IS identifies the following environmental factors as being subject to "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" by the Project:
• Biological Resources: Potential impacts to Burrowing Owls, Least Bell's Vireo, nesting birds, riparian habitat, and other sensitive natural communities will be mitigated through a combination of measures including pre -construction surveys, avoidance of active burrows/nests, delineation of work limits, avoidance of certain construction activities during nesting season(s), biological monitoring, acoustical monitoring, worker education, restricted work hours, sound attenuation for heavy equipment, implementation of BMPs, pre -construction tree surveys, restriction of plant species, payment of impact fees, compensatory mitigation, on- or off -site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation. • Cultural Resources (incl. Tribal): Potential impacts to archaeological resources and human remains will be mitigated through a combination of measures including development of a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Program, monitoring of ground -disturbing activities by a qualified archaeological monitor and Pechanga tribal monitor, and coordination with the Riverside County Coroner and the Native American most likely descendant(s).
• Geology/Soils: Potential impacts related to ground shaking, liquefaction, soil stability, and paleontological feature(s) will be mitigated through a combination of measures including performing a site -specific geotechnical investigation, preparation of a paleontological resource monitoring and mitigation plan, and monitoring of excavations by a qualified paleontologist.

Under CEQA guidelines, the Initial Study determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) be completed for the Project. The MND includes mitigations measures to reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant. Details of the proposed mitigation measures are included in the attached Final IS-MND.

The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted on January 31, 2022.

The corresponding public review comment period commenced on January 31, 2022 and concluded on March 1, 2022. Signs were placed on the project site and a notice was placed in the local newspaper. The City received written comments from Eastern Municipal Water District, Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, and Riverside Transit Agency. The Final IS-MND was provided to commenting agencies in compliance with State Law.

FISCAL IMPACT: The Diaz Road Expansion Project is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for Fiscal Years 2022-26, and is funded with DIF (Street Improvements), Measure S, and TUMF (WRCOG). There are sufficient funds in the project account to cover the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Mitigated Negative Declaration fee of $2,598.00 (includes $50.00 County filing fee).

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Final Initial Study — Mitigated Negative Declaration

2. Notice of Determination

3. Project Description

Diaz Road Extension Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2022 | 00207.00012.001
Submitted to:

City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Prepared for:

David Evans and Associates, Inc.
41951 Remington Ave., Suite 220
Temecula, CA 92590
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
16485 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92618

This page intentionally left blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 Project Information .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Initial Study Information Sheet ........................................................................................... 1

1.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ....................................................................... 4

1.3 Determination ..................................................................................................................... 5

2.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 6

3.0 Environmental Checklist .................................................................................................................. 8 I. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................ 8 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................. 10 III. Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 12 IV. Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 17 V. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 32 VI. Energy ............................................................................................................................... 35 VII. Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 37 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 41 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 44 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 47 XI. Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 50 XII. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 51 XIII. Noise ................................................................................................................................. 52 XIV. Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 54 XV. Public Services................................................................................................................... 55 XVI. Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 56 XVII. Transportation .................................................................................................................. 57 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 62 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................ 63 XX. Wildfire ............................................................................................................................. 65 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. 67

4.0 References ..................................................................................................................................... 70

5.0 Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND .................................................................................... 72

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

LIST OF APPENDICES

A Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Impact Assessment B General Biological Resources Assessment
C Cultural Resources Study
D Geotechnical Exploration
E Paleontological Technical Study
F Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
G Acoustical Analysis Report
H Traffic Impact Analysis
I Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
J Native American Consultation Correspondence
K Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title Follows Page

1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................................... 2 2 USGS Topography ......................................................................................................................... 2 3 Aerial Photograph ......................................................................................................................... 2

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Page

1 SCAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Thresholds ..................................................................... 14 2 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ........................................................................................ 15 3 Maximum Localized Daily Construction Emissions ........................................................................ 16 4 Impacts to Vegetation and Land Uses ........................................................................................... 24 5 Impacts to CDFW Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................ 24 6 Impacts to USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction ......................................................................................... 26 7 Impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas .................................................................................. 29 8 Construction Energy Consumption ................................................................................................ 36 9 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................... 42 10 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................ 43 11 Existing Intersection Operations .................................................................................................... 58 12 Existing Roadway Segment Operations ......................................................................................... 58 13 Long-Term Year 2040 Intersection Operations.............................................................................. 59 14 Long-Term Year 2040 Roadway Segment Operations ................................................................... 60

iii

ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
Agreement Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement APE Area of Potential Effect
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan

BMPs Best Management Practices
Btu British thermal unit
BUOW Burrowing Owl

CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CAS Climate Action Strategies
CASSA Criteria Area Species Survey Area
CBC California Building Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CMP Congestion Management Plan
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CWA Clean Water Act

dBA A-weighted decibels
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential

HFCs hydrofluorocarbons

IBC International Building Code

LBVI Least Bell’s Vireo
LEQ one-hour equivalent
LOS level of service

iv
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LST Localized Significance Threshold

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MBtu million Btu
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
MT metric tons

N2O nitrous oxide
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NEPSSA Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area
NOX oxides of nitrogen
NSLU noise-sensitive land use
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PFCs perfluorocarbons
PM particulate matter
PPV peak particle velocity
PRMMP paleontological resource monitoring and mitigation plan

RCA Regional Conservation Authority
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SB Senate Bill
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SLF Sacred Lands File
SOX oxides of sulfur
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SSC Species of Special Concern
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWFL Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

TAC toxic air contaminant
TCA traditionally culturally affiliated
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

v
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOCs volatile organic compounds

WQMP Water Quality Management Plan

This page intentionally left blank

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
1 1.0 Project Information

1.1 Initial Study Information Sheet

1. Project Title: Diaz Road Expansion Project

2. Lead agency name and address: City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590

3. Contact person and phone number: Avlin Odviar, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer (951) 693-3969

4. Project location: The approximately 2.2-linear mile project site is bordered by Rancho California Road to the south,
Cherry Street to the north, and Murrieta Creek to the
east (see Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2,
USGS Topography).

5. Project sponsor’s name and address: City of Temecula

6. General plan designation: N/A

7. Zoning: N/A

8. Description of project:

The Diaz Road Expansion Project (project) is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Temecula (City) in Riverside County, California (refer to Figure 1, Regional Location). The project proposes to improve Diaz Road to meet the roadway classification requirements of a major arterial with four divided lanes, as specified by City Standard No. 101, between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road. The standards call for a 100-foot minimum right-of-way, 76-foot roadway with a 14-foot raised median, and 12-foot parkways on each side of the road. The approximately 2.2-mile segment would be improved on its current horizontal alignment and as depicted in the City’s General Plan, Circulation Element, Figure C-2 Roadway Plan. As such, the proposed project would widen the existing Diaz Road segment and extend the northwestern end of Cherry Street. The project would complete the City’s only existing north-south corridor west of Murrieta Creek. North of Cherry Street, this north-south corridor is planned to continue as Washington Avenue within the City of Murrieta.

The project site encompasses the existing Diaz Road segment between Rancho California Road and Cherry Street and the adjacent areas into which the roadways would be widened (refer to Figure 2, USGS Topography, and Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). At the northernmost end of the project site (north of Dendy Parkway), Diaz Road transitions to an unimproved dirt road. All widening activities would occur on the northeast side of Diaz Road, which would infringe upon public walking and biking pathways associated with the Murrieta Creek Regional Trail, as well as several small fenced/walled enclosures containing existing utility and water infrastructure (i.e., wells, piping, tanks, and small outbuildings). With the exception of the small outbuildings in these utility enclosures, there are no existing buildings on the project site. Land uses at the project site include mostly existing public roadway, a small portion of dirt road, portions of an adjoining public walking/biking pathway, and

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
2 some undeveloped land. Land uses in the vicinity of the project site consist of industrial and commercial developments to the west and south, Murrieta Creek and public walking/biking pathways to the northeast, and mostly undeveloped land to the north. The elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 1,000 to 1,040 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and the topography is relatively flat as a graded roadway, with an overall downward slope toward the southeast, and some localized sloping toward Murrieta Creek, which is located 200 feet to the northeast.

The median and parkway improvements would be in accordance with the City’s landscape guidelines.

In addition, streetlights would be installed as appropriate according to the City’s design standards for type, location, and spacing. Storm drains would also be installed as appropriate along the expanded roadway to include catch basins and low impact development improvements.

Construction is anticipated to begin in Fall 2022 and last approximately 16 months. Construction activities would include site preparation, demolition of existing roadway, grading, installation of drainage and utilities, retaining walls, and paving. During construction, material such as vegetation, soil, old asphalt and concrete may be exported from the site and material such as soil, aggregate, asphalt and concrete may be imported to the site. Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) would include maintaining existing slope stabilization measures, stabilizing all slopes greater than three feet in height, and providing inlet protection, gravel bags, and silt fences where applicable. In addition, a Traffic Control Plan would be implemented during construction of the project to maintain traffic flow and safety during project construction activities.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The approximately 2.2 linear mile project site is bordered by Rancho California Road to the south, Cherry Street to the north, and Murrieta Creek to the east. The walking/biking pathway adjoining northeast of Diaz Road and several small walled/fenced enclosures containing utility and water company infrastructure are along the northeast side of Diaz Road at several locations between Rancho California Road and Cherry Street.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB): National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit)

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan

San

B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
s
!!!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Littl e

S
a
n

B
e
r
n
a
! ! ! O
R
A
N
G
E

C
O
San
t
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A
U
N
a
TY

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
s
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! rdi San

J
no

M
o
u
n
a t
cin
t
o

M
ains
ou
n
t
a
i
n
s
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!
?å Big Bear Lake
?ø SAN BERNARDINO
ONTARIO ?¥ ! ! !?a
Diaz Road Expansion Project
AÔ
CoyoteLake
MesquiLake te
YUCCAVALLEY ?¡

TWENTYNINEPALMS
!"`$%&h(
?RIVER zSIDE
!"a$
NORCO MORENOVALLEY !! AÆ?lvord
?z!SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
!"`$
BANNING ?¡!"`$
CORONA LakeMathews %&h(
!"a$PERRIS \PROJECTS\D\DEA\DEA-12_DiazRd\Map\NAHC\Fig1_Regional.mxd DEA-12 4/21/2020 - RK AÎ !LeeLake ?±
E LAKE CanyonLSINORE Lake
E Lakelsinore

MISSIONVIEJO
%&h(
!"a$
A MURRIETA ?±

C SANLEMENTE
Project Site
!"^$
PacificOcean

CAMPPENDLETON
PerrisReservo
?±
?¹
EMECU
?³!BEAUMONT
ir ?¹ AÐ

SAN JACINTO

SPRPAILMNGS
?¹
AÙ

HEMET PALM DESERT COACHELLA
DiamondValley Lake !"`$
HemeLake t LakeCahuill?± a
Skinner ?±Reservoir
?¿ !!A A¨ AÙñ
T LA VailLake Salton Sea
!"a$?¹ RIVERSIDE COUNTY ?¿

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
O'NeillLake Clark Lake I:0 10 Miles K Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013) Regional Location
Figure 1

\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\BUOW\Fig2_USGS.mxd DEA-12 10/13/2020 - SAB H: Diaz Road Expansion Project Project Site
Source: MURRIETA & TEMECULA 7.5' Quad (USGS)
Figure 2
USGS Topography
2,000 Feet K 0

\PROJECTS\D\DEA\DEA-12_DiazRd\Map\NAHC\Fig3_Aerial.mxdDEA-12 10/2/2020 -RK I: Diaz Road Expansion Project Project Site WINCHESTER RD WINCHESTER RD OVERLAND DR
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N

A
V
E

YN
E
Z

R
D

AVENIDA ALVARADO DENDY PKWY REMINGTON AVE ZEVO DR RIO NEDO JEFF
E
R
S
O
N

A
V
E

DE
L

R
I
O

R
D

BUSI
N
E
S
S

P
A
R
K

D
R

RANCHO CALIFORNIA

R
D

VINCENT MORAGA DR
DIA
Z
RD

ENTER
P
R
I
S
E

C
I
R

AD
A
M
S

A
V
E

CHERRY ST
!"a$

Source: Aerial (RCIT 2016)0 800 Feet K
Figure 3
Aerial Photograph

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
3 for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? The City provided formal notification for the proposed project under AB 52 on June 30, 2020 to 17 tribal contacts. Responses were received from six tribes; Pechanga and Rincon both formally requested to begin consultation. The Juaneño Band of Mission Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians both deferred to Pechanga. The Quechan Indian Tribe and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians deferred to local tribes without naming a specific tribe. During AB 52 consultation, the draft of this cultural resources study was provided to Pechanga and Rincon for review and comment, as was the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Rincon indicated they agreed with the mitigation measures and had no further comments. Pechanga provided minor comments/ revisions to the detailed mitigation measures in the IS/MND; their comments have been incorporated.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
4 1.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below (  ) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics  Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
 Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Energy
 Geology/Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions   Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water
Quality
Land Use/Planning  Mineral Resources
Noise  Population/Housing  Public Services
Recreation  Transportation  Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service
Systems
Wildfire  Mandatory Findings of
Significance

Diaz Road Expansion Project | January 2022
5 1.3 Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

Printed name For

Avlin R. Odviar, Project Manager
January 25, 2022

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
6 2.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in item 5 below, may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063©(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
7 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
8 3.0 Environmental Checklist
I. Aesthetics

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?    
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
   
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
   
d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
   

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is generally defined as a view of undisturbed natural lands exhibiting a unique or unusual feature that comprises an important or dominant portion of the viewshed for the benefit of the general public. Temecula’s natural setting offers a variety of vistas and viewsheds. The City of Temecula General Plan Community Design Element designates the southern, eastern, and western rolling hills surrounding the City, as well as Murrieta and Temecula Creeks, as significant natural features, and indicates that public views of these features should be protected and enhanced. However, no scenic vistas are listed in the city’s General Plan. Views of the hillsides are available to vehicular passengers and pedestrians traveling along Diaz Road within the project alignment. The General Plan explains that all public or private development projects are subject to City review to ensure that they will not obstruct public views of scenic resources, and projects may be subject to redesign or height limitations if it is determined that development would block public views.

The project would encroach upon portions of the adjacent Murrieta Creek Regional Use Trail northeast of Diaz Road and project development would introduce paved surfaces and related roadway improvements to some previously undeveloped land. The presence of construction equipment would be temporary and would not substantially impact the viewshed. The project, once constructed, would be consistent with the surrounding development and views to Murrieta Creek would not be significantly obstructed. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
9 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The project is not located within a designated scenic highway corridor. The project is located near Interstate 15 (I-15), which is designated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as an Eligible State Scenic Highway; however, it is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway (Caltrans 2015). Due to the distance and topography, the project would not be visible to those traveling on I-15. In addition, the proposed project would not involve damage to scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings as none occur within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located in a primarily urbanized area. The project would result in a temporary change of appearance along the project alignment during construction. Construction equipment, fencing/signage, vehicles, and soil stockpiles in the construction work and staging areas would be visible predominately to those traveling along Diaz Road. These impacts would be temporary.

Permanent changes to the existing visual character of the alignment would occur from the project’s addition of a wider roadway, lighting poles, street signals, storm drains, and sidewalks. These components would change the area’s visual character by adding development to non-developed portions of the project alignment consistent with the existing roadway and urbanized nature of the project site and adjacent commercial uses. These roadway improvement changes, however, would not drastically alter the use or general character of the existing roadway corridor, which is mostly developed, and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of quality of the area.

Landscaping and planting improvements would include decorative rock, boulders and hardscape improvements for the center median, easterly parkway, and westerly parkway where existing landscape improvements do not exist. In addition, the improved roadway would be of similar character to other roadways in the area. Therefore, impacts after construction would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. Project construction lighting would be directed to the work site to avoid unnecessary spill and would provide a level of lighting that is appropriate for work and safety for workers. Construction lighting would be shielded and/or directed away from sensitive receptors to minimize lighting impacts during construction. The proposed roadway expansion includes the addition of new streetlights along Diaz Road, which could generate additional light and glare in the area.

However, the lighting would be directed downward to confine potential glare. Project design would conform to the City’s Municipal Code and County of Riverside Palomar Light Pollution Ordinance No. 655. Therefore, impacts from lighting and glare would be less than significant.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
10 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance, as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
   
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
   
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526 (g)), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code Section
51104 (g))?
   
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
   
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
   

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized, developed area. According to the California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder, the project site is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land,” which does not contain agricultural uses or areas designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (California Department of Conservation 2016). As a result, the project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. As discussed above in Item II.a, the project site is in a developed area where there are no farmlands or agricultural resources. Land uses in the vicinity of the project site consist of industrial and

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
11 commercial developments to the west and south, Murrieta Creek and public walking/biking pathways to the northeast, and mostly undeveloped land to the north. The project site is not eligible for designation under a Williamson Act contract. The areas surrounding the project site are developed with urban or suburban uses and do not support existing Williamson Act contracts. The land does not include existing Williamson Act contracts (California Department of Conservation 2013). As a result, no impacts would occur.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section l 2220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. As discussed above in item II.b, the project site is in a developed area where there is no farmland. The project site and surrounding area does not support agricultural activities. As such, the proposed project would not involve changes that would result in the conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use. Therefore, there would be no impact.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As discussed above in item II.c, the project site is located in a developed area where there are no farmlands or forest resources. Additionally, the project would largely occur on existing paved or graded surfaces. The project site and surrounding area are classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” and are not zoned as forest land, timberlands, or timberland zoned Timberland Production (California Department of Conservation 2016). As such, the proposed project would not result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. Therefore, there would be no impact. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on agriculture and/or forestry resources. The project site is within developed areas where there are no farmlands or forest resources. The project site and surrounding areas are classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land,” which do not contain agricultural uses or areas designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (California Department of Conservation 2016). Furthermore, there are no Williamson Act contracts or forest lands in the project vicinity (California Department of Conservation 2013). There would be no changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location and nature, would result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
12 III. Air Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?    
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
   
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?    
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors adversely affecting a
substantial number of people)?
   

The following analysis is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Letter Report prepared for the proposed project by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX; 2020a; Appendix A). a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties. Air quality in the SCAB is regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), County transportation commissions, and local governments, as well as cooperates actively with all federal and state government agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary.

The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). An AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Ambient Air Quality Standards.

The regional plan applicable to the proposed project is the SCAQMD’s AQMP. The latest AQMP was adopted in March of 2017 (SCAQMD 2017).

SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties, and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, economy, community development, and environment. Regarding air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), a long-range transportation plan that uses growth forecasts to project trends over a 20-year period to identify regional transportation

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
13 strategies to address mobility needs. These growth forecasts form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. These documents are utilized in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in the AQMP. Both the RTP/SCS and AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with County and City General Plans.

The two principal criteria for conformance to the AQMP are (1) whether a project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards; and (2) whether a project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP (SCAQMD 1993).

With respect to the first criterion, the analyses described under response III.b, below, demonstrate that the project would not generate short-term or long-term emissions that could potentially cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay timely attainment of air quality standards.

With respect to the second criterion, the proposed project is improving and widening a roadway and would not result in population or employment increases and, therefore, would not exceed the growth projections assumptions in the AQMP. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the City General Plan Circulation Element roadway design guidelines. The project would support the City General Plan Policy 3.3 by providing Class II bicycle lanes along both sides of Diaz Road, and Policy 3.5 by providing space for future bus stops along Diaz Road.

Because the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and the growth assumptions used in developing the AQMP, pursuant to SCAQMD guidelines, the proposed project is considered consistent with the region’s AQMP. As such, proposed project-related emissions are accounted for in the AQMP, which is crafted to bring the basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants. Accordingly, the proposed project would be consistent with the emissions projections in the AQMP, thus resulting in a less than significant impact.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the SCAQMD’s approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and State Clean Air Acts. If a project is not consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the SCAB into attainment for all criteria pollutants, that project can be considered cumulatively considerable. Additionally, if the mass regional emissions calculated for a project exceed the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds that are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality standards, that project can be considered cumulatively considerable. The SCAQMD thresholds of significance for construction and operational air emissions are shown in Table 1, SCAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Thresholds.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
14 Table 1

SCAQMD CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION THRESHOLDS
Criteria Pollutant
Emission Threshold
(pounds per day)
Construction
Emission Threshold
(pounds per day)
Operation
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 100 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 550 55
Oxides of Sulfur (SOX) 150 150
Lead 3 3
Source: SCAQMD 2019

Construction Impacts
The project’s construction emissions were estimated using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s (SMAQMD) Roadway Construction Emissions Model (RCEM), version 9.0 (SMAQMD 2018). This model utilizes 2017 EMFAC factors and OFFROAD factors to calculate vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust emissions. Fugitive dust emissions are calculated estimating the maximum area (acres) of land disturbed daily. Roadway widening construction would disturb a total of 12 acres of currently undeveloped land over an approximately 16-month period (352 working days).

Project-specific input was based on general project information, assumptions provided by the project civil engineer, and default model settings to estimate reasonably conservative conditions.

Construction would commence as early as Fall 2022 and require approximately 16 months to complete. Construction activities would include site preparation, demolition of existing roadway, grading, installation of drainage and utilities, retaining walls, and paving. During construction, material such as vegetation, soil, old asphalt and concrete may be exported from the site and material such as soil, aggregate, asphalt and concrete may be imported to the site.

The emissions generated from construction activities would include dust (particulate matter less than 10 microns [PM10] and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns [PM2.5]), primarily from fugitive sources such as soil disturbance and vehicle travel over unpaved surfaces, and combustion emissions of air pollutants (reactive organic gas [ROG], nitrogen oxides [NOX], PM10, PM2.5, carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur oxides [SOX]), primarily from operation of heavy-duty off-road equipment. Emission estimates assume the use of water trucks, yielding a 50 percent control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures.

The results of the calculations for project construction are shown in Table 2, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with the SCAQMD thresholds. As shown in the table, construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
15 Table 2

MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Phase VOC* NOX* CO* SO2* PM10* PM2.5*
Site Preparation/Land Clearing 1.4 18.1 12.2 <0.1 10.8 2.7 Grading/Excavation 6.0 68.3 49.0 0.1 12.9 4.6
Underground Drainage/Utilities 3.5 36.9 31.7 <0.1 11.7 3.6 Paving 1.6 16.3 19.1 <0.1 0.8 0.7
Maximum Daily Emissions 6.0 68.3 49.0 0.1 12.9 4.6
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: HELIX 2020a
VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
* Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)

Operational Impacts
The project proposes widening and improving an existing roadway and would only generate emissions during construction in the near term. Because the project would result in additional lanes on Diaz Road and, therefore, increase the total available miles of roadways in the region, the TIA concluded that the project would result in a regional increase in vehicles miles traveled (VMT) of 7,277 miles in the year 2040 (DEA 2020b). The calculated maximum daily emissions as a result of the increase in VMT would be less than 0.1 pounds per day for all pollutants and would not exceed any of the SCAQMD emission thresholds. Therefore, the project’s operational criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.

Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact.

Criteria Pollutants
Impacts to sensitive receptors would have the potential to occur as a result of criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions during construction. The localized effects from the on-site portion of daily construction emissions were evaluated at sensitive receptor locations potentially impacted by the project according to the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) method (SCAQMD 2009). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; they are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each Source Receptor Area (SRA). The LST methodology is recommended to be limited to projects of five acres or less and to avoid the need for complex dispersion modeling. For projects that exceed five acres, such as the proposed project, the five-acre LST look-up values can be used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants require detailed analysis. This approach is conservative as it assumes that all on-site emissions would occur within a five-acre area and over-predicts potential localized impacts (i.e., more pollutant emissions occurring within a smaller area and within closer proximity to potential sensitive receptors). If a project exceeds the LST look up values, then the SCAQMD recommends that project- specific localized air quality modeling be performed.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
16 The project is in SRA 26, Temecula Valley, and sensitive receptors are located within 500 meters (1,640 feet) south of the 2.2-mile long project site. Therefore, the LSTs being applied to the project are based on SRA 26, receptors located within 500 meters, and a disturbed area not to exceed 5 acres to provide a conservative analysis as noted above. Consistent with the LST guidelines, when quantifying mass emissions for localized analysis, only emissions that occur on-site are considered. Emissions related to off-site delivery/haul truck activity and construction worker trips are not considered in the evaluation of construction-related localized impacts, as these do not contribute to emissions generated on a project site. As shown in Table 3, Maximum Localized Daily Construction Emissions, localized emissions for all criteria pollutants would remain below their respective SCAQMD LSTs.

Table 3

MAXIMUM LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Phase NOX* CO* PM10* PM2.5*
Site Preparation/Land Clearing 1.3 10.5 10.6 2.6
Grading/Excavation 5.8 45.7 12.7 4.5
Underground Drainage/Utilities 3.3 29.2 11.5 3.5
Paving 1.5 17.4 0.7 0.7
Maximum Daily Emissions 5.8 45.7 13.7 4.5
SCAQMD LSTs 1,072 29,265 207 105
Significant Impact? No No No No
Source: HELIX 2020a
NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; LST = Localized Significance Threshold
* Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)

Toxic Air Contaminants
The greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction would be related to diesel particulate matter associated with heavy equipment operations during earth-moving activities. SCAQMD does not consider diesel-related cancer risks from construction equipment to be an issue due to the short-term nature of construction activities. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be sporadic, transitory, and short term in nature, lasting approximately 16 months. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are multi- and single-family homes approximately 1,600 feet south of Rancho California Road (the southernmost extent of the proposed roadway improvements).

The assessment of cancer risk is typically based on a 30-year exposure period. Because exposure to diesel exhaust would be well below the 30-year exposure period, construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an elevated cancer risk to exposed persons. As such, project-emission impacts during construction would be less than significant.

As relates to long-term operations, the expanded roadway would not notably increase the number or frequency of truck trips or associated emission in the immediate area compared to existing conditions, as truck activity would not be generated by the project. Rather, some trucks may utilize the expanded right of way along Diaz Road for localized trips that would otherwise have occurred on other nearby roadways. While the truck activity in the immediate area of the project site could be incrementally increased due to the expanded traffic capacity, the increase would not result in a notable increase in the concentration of TACs that could adversely affect sensitive population. As such, operational impacts would also be less than significant.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
17 d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people)?
Less than Significant Impact. The project could produce odors during proposed construction activities resulting from heavy diesel equipment exhaust and application of asphalt; however, standard construction practices would minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. The increase of construction odors would be minimal, as vehicle exhaust is already prevalent in the area due to its proximity to I-15. Furthermore, any odors emitted during construction would be temporary, short- term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the completion of the respective phase of construction. Therefore, odor impacts from construction of the project would be less than significant due to the duration of exposure.

The project proposes widening and improvement of an existing roadway. Odors generated by traffic on the improved portion of Diaz Road would be similar to existing odors from traffic on streets and highways in the area. Therefore, long-term operation of the project would not result in a change to existing odors in the project vicinity, and there would be no impact.

IV. Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
   
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
   
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
   
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
   

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
18 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Conflict with any applicable policies
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
   
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
   

The following analysis is based on the General Biological Resources Assessment (GBRA) prepared for the proposed project by HELIX in July 2021 (Appendix B). a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The discussion presented under the subheadings below addresses the potential impacts to the various sensitive habitats or species in the project area.

Rare Plant Species
According to the database search results presented in the project GBRA (Appendix B of this Draft IS/MND), total of 17 of the 29 rare plant species recorded within the vicinity of the study area were not considered to have a potential to occur based on geographic range, elevation range, and/or lack of suitable habitat (see Appendix E of the GBRA). Of the remaining 12 species, nine of the species with a potential to occur are either fully or conditionally covered species under the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The species include Coulter’s goldfields, little mousetail, long-spined spineflower, Orcutt’s brodiaea, Parry’s spineflower, prostrate vernal pool navarretia, San Diego ambrosia, spreading navarretia, and vernal barley. Since the study area is not located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) or Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA), focused surveys were not warranted, and project impacts (if present) would be covered.

One Riparian/Riverine plant species (smooth tarplant) was observed within Drainage A2.1 in the northern portion of the study area. Smooth tarplant is a conditionally covered species under the MSHCP. Surveys for this species are required if a project occurs within a CASSA 1, 2,3, or 4. Since the study area is not located within a CASSA, impacts to this species would be covered under the MSHCP.

Two species (alkali marsh aster and San Bernardino aster) are considered to have a low potential to occur in the study area and are not covered under the MSHCP. Alkali marsh aster is a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 2B.2 species and San Bernardino aster is a CRPR 1B.2 species. Although potentially suitable habitat is present, these two species are not expected to occur since records within the vicinity of the study area are historical records from the early 1900s. There are no recent observations of alkali marsh aster in Riverside County. The most recent observation of San Bernardino aster in Riverside County was 2015 in the San Jacinto Mountains, approximately 29 miles to the northeast of the project site.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
19 Sensitive Animal Species
Of the 29 sensitive animal species recorded within the vicinity of the study area, 15 species were considered to have no potential to occur on the study area due to lack of suitable habitat (see Appendix F). Therefore, no significant impacts to these 15 sensitive wildlife species are anticipated by the project. Fourteen of the remaining 29 species (in addition to the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher [SWFL]) were determined to have a potential to occur on the study area. Potential project impacts to these species are discussed in detail below.

Low Potential Species
Four species have a low potential to occur based on the presence of low quality and isolated habitat, limited acreage of habitat, surrounding development, and lack of recent observations within the immediate vicinity of the study area. These species include coast range newt, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, Swainson’s hawk (foraging potential only), and western mastiff bat (foraging potential only). The project would have a low potential to affect these species.

Coast range newt, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, and Swainson’s hawk are fully covered species under the MSHCP. With payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF), no additional mitigation is required for potential impacts to these species.

Western mastiff bat is not an MSHCP covered species and does not carry a federal or state listing as threatened or endangered. This species is listed as a Species of Special Concern (SSC) by CDFW. The study area does not support suitable roosting habitat for this species. There is some potential for foraging habitat on the study area, although the habitat is considered low quality based on the presence of surrounding development. The nearest observation recorded on the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was made in 2001, approximately 0.25 mile to the southeast of the study area. Based on the presence of surrounding development, lack of recent observations, and absence of suitable roosting habitat, no significant impacts to western mastiff bat are anticipated by the project.

Moderate Potential Species
Six species were determined to have a moderate potential to occur based on the presence of suitable habitat and recent observations within the vicinity of the study area. These include red diamond rattlesnake, Southern California legless lizard, southwestern pond turtle, Stevens Kangaroo Rat (SKR), two-striped gartersnake, and western spadefoot.

Red diamond rattlesnake, southwestern pond turtle, and western spadefoot are fully covered species under the MSHCP. With payment of the MSHCP LDMF, no additional mitigation is required for potential impacts to these species.

SKR is a fully covered species under the MSHCP. In addition, the study area is located within the SKR HCP and is required to pay an SKR mitigation fee for incidental take authorization under the SKR HCP.

Southern California legless lizard and two-striped gartersnake are SSC and are not covered species under the MSHCP. Although the study area supports potentially suitable habitat for these species, the habitat is considered low quality due to its small extent and heavily disturbed surrounding areas. The project would impact less than 0.5 acre of potentially suitable habitat, which overlaps with CDFW jurisdictional areas. Since the study area supports low quality habitat, the study area is not expected

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
20 to support large populations of these species. If present, a loss of a few individuals would not be expected to reduce regional population numbers. Impacts to these species would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are considered required.

High Potential Species
Coastal whiptail and white-tailed kite are fully covered species under the MSHCP. With payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF), no additional mitigation is required for potential impacts to these species. Potential direct and/or indirect impacts to white-tailed kite during the nesting season (January 15 through August 31) would be avoided by implementing Measure BIO-3.

Presumed Absent
Burrowing Owl (BUOW) and SWFL are conditionally covered species under the MSHCP. Focused surveys were conducted in 2020. Survey results were negative, and these species are presumed absent from the study area (Appendices G and I of the GBRA). Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts are anticipated to these species.

Since the study area supports suitable habitat for BUOW, focused surveys were conducted in accordance with the County’s survey protocol (2006). No BUOWs or BUOW sign were observed on the study area during the focused survey; therefore, BUOW is currently presumed absent from the study area. However, consistent with the requirements of the MSCHP, a measure requiring a pre- construction survey and avoidance of active nests and/or relocation of BUOW (if BUOWs are observed) is included as Mitigation Measure BIO-1 below. With the implementation of Measure BIO-1, the project would not result in significant impacts to BUOW.

Presumed Present
Least Bell’s Vireo (LBVI) is a federally and state endangered species and an MSHCP conditionally covered species. Since the study area supports suitable habitat, focused surveys were conducted during the 2020 season in accordance with USFWS’ survey protocol (2001). Four males and one pair were observed within the study area (see Appendix H of the GBRA).

The project would not permanently or temporarily impact suitable LBVI habitat (Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland, arroyo willow thicket). However, LBVI was observed within the study area. Since project construction could have indirect impacts to LBVI that occupy habitat adjacent to Diaz Road, an avoidance/minimization measure is provided as Measure BIO-2 below, to avoid potential indirect impacts to LBVI during construction. The measure requires construction activities to be conducted outside of the LBVI nesting season (September 1 through March 14), as feasible. If construction activities are proposed within the nesting season (March 15 through August 31), weekly pre- construction surveys must be conducted ahead of project construction and a 300-foot avoidance buffer from occupied habitat must be established if LBVI are observed. If construction is proposed within the 300-foot buffer, a biological monitor would be required at all times and would have the authority to stop work. Additionally, daily noise monitoring would be required. Noise levels at the edge of occupied LBVI habitat may not exceed 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA), or an hourly average increase of 3 dBA if existing ambient noise levels already exceed 60 dBA. Please see Measure BIO-2 for more details. With the implementation of Measure BIO-2, the project would not result in significant impacts to LBVI.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
21 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would reduce potentially significant impacts to sensitive species and habitats to a less-than-significant level:

BIO-1 Burrowing Owl: In compliance with the MSHCP, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted on the study area within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to determine presence of burrowing owls. If the pre-construction survey is negative and burrowing owl is confirmed absent, then ground-disturbing activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) shall be allowed to commence and no further mitigation would be required.

If BUOW is observed during the pre-construction survey, active burrows shall be avoided by the project in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) or CDFW’s most recent guidelines. The Project Proponent shall immediately inform the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) of BUOW observations. A BUOW Protection and Relocation Plan (plan) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist, which must be sent for approval by RCA prior to initiating ground disturbance. The RCA will coordinate directly with CDFW as needed to ensure that the plan is consistent with the MSHCP and CDFW guidelines. The plan shall detail avoidance measures that shall be implemented during construction and passive or active relocation methodology. Relocation shall only occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 through January 31). The RCA may require translocation sites to be created within the MSHCP Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies. If required, the translocation sites must take into consideration unoccupied habitat areas, presence of burrowing mammals, existing colonies, and effects to other MSHCP Covered Species in order to successfully create suitable habitat for BUOW. The translocation sites must be developed in consultation with RCA. If required, translocation sites would also be described in the agency-approved plan.

BIO-2 Least Bell’s Vireo: Due to presence of LBVI in the vicinity of the study area, the following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented to avoid potential impacts:
(1) To the extent feasible, construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) shall occur outside of the nesting season for LBVI (September 1 through March 14). (2) If construction activities are proposed within the LBVI nesting season (March 15 through August 31), the following measures (a. through g.) shall be implemented to avoid potential indirect impacts.
(a) At the start of each new stretch of construction, weekly limits will be identified by the contractor, and a qualified biologist will conduct weekly pre-construction surveys to determine the presence of LBVI nest-building activities, egg incubation activities, or brood-rearing activities within 300 feet of anticipated construction activities for the coming week. Surveys will be conducted more frequently if construction could progress beyond the limits of the weekly surveyed area. (b) If nesting LBVI is observed during the weekly pre-construction surveys, a qualified biological monitor shall clearly delineate a 300-foot avoidance buffer around occupied habitat. The 300-foot avoidance buffer shall be clearly marked with flags and/or fencing prior to commencement of construction. No construction activities

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
22 shall occur within the 300-foot buffer during the nesting season without the presence of a biological monitor.
(c) If construction activities (e.g., ground disturbance and canopy trimming) must occur within 300 feet of occupied habitat, the following measures shall be implemented:
(i) A biological monitor shall be present to perform daily surveys for LBVI and monitor construction activities. The biological monitor shall have the authority to stop work and notify the construction supervisor if the biologist feels construction activities could alter the birds’ normal behavior. The activities shall cease until additional minimization measures have been determined through coordination with CDFW and/or USFWS. (ii) A qualified acoustician shall also be retained to determine ambient noise levels and construction-related noise levels at the edge of occupied habitat. Noise levels at the edge of the occupied habitat shall not exceed an hourly average of 60 dBA, or an hourly average increase of 3 dBA if existing ambient noise levels exceed 60 dBA. If project-related noise levels exceed the threshold described above, construction activities shall cease until additional minimization measures, such as visual and auditory barriers (e.g., sound wall), are taken to reduce project-related noise levels to below an hourly average of 60 dBA, or below an hourly average increase of 3 dBA if existing ambient noise levels exceed 60 dBA. If additional measures do not decrease project-related noise levels below the thresholds described above, construction activities shall cease until CDFW and/or USFWS are contacted to discuss alternative methods. (d) All project personnel shall attend a Workers Environmental Awareness Program training presented by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities. The training program will inform project personnel about the life history of LBVI and all avoidance and minimization measures.
(e) The construction contractor shall only allow construction activities to occur during daylight hours.
(f) The construction contractor shall require functional mufflers on all construction equipment (stationary or mobile) used within or immediately adjacent to any 300-foot avoidance buffers to reduce construction equipment noise. Stationary equipment shall be situated so that noise generated from the equipment is not directed towards any occupied habitat for the LBVI.
(g) The construction contractor shall place staging areas as far as possible from any suitable occupied habitat for the LBVI.
(h) The biological monitor shall prepare written documentation of all monitoring activities at the completion of construction activities, which shall be submitted to CDFW and/or USFWS.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
23 BIO-3 Nesting Birds: To the extent possible, construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) shall occur outside of the general bird nesting season for migratory birds, which is March 15 through August 31 for songbirds and January 15 to August 31 for raptors.

If construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) must occur during the general bird nesting season for migratory birds (March 15 to August 31) and raptors (January 15 to August 31), a qualified biologist shall be retained to perform a pre-construction survey of potential nesting habitat to confirm the absence of active nests belonging to migratory birds and raptors afforded protection under the MBTA and CFG Code. The pre- construction survey shall be performed no more than seven days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The results of the pre-construction survey shall be documented by a qualified biologist. If construction is inactive for more than seven days, an additional survey shall be conducted.

If the qualified biologist determines that no active migratory bird or raptor nests occur, the activities shall be allowed to proceed without any further requirements. If the qualified biologist determines that an active migratory bird or raptor nest is present, no impacts within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the active nest shall occur until the young have fledged the nest, and the nest is confirmed to no longer be active, or as determined by the qualified biologist. The biological monitor may modify the buffer as applicable for the specific bird species and type of work, or propose other recommendations to avoid indirect impacts to nesting birds.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitats The majority of permanent impacts are proposed within existing developed areas (25.28 acres; 79 percent; see Table 4, Impacts to Vegetation and Land Uses, below, and Figures 8a-h, Impacts to Vegetation, in the project GBRA). The majority of temporary impacts are proposed within areas that support upland mustards (0.16 acre; 80 percent). The project would entirely avoid permanent and temporary impacts within CDFW sensitive vegetation communities, including Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland and arroyo willow thicket. Therefore, no mitigation is warranted.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
24 Table 4

IMPACTS TO VEGETATION AND LAND USES
Vegetation Community/Land Use Temporary
Impacts (acres)1
Permanent
Impacts (acres)1
Arroyo Willow Thicket2 0.00 0.00
Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland2 0.00 0.00
Riverwash 0.00 0.00
Developed 0.01 25.28
Disturbed 0.02 2.51
Eucalyptus Grove 0.01 0.49
Upland Mustards 0.16 3.69
TOTAL 0.20 31.97
1 Acreage is rounded to the nearest hundredth
2 Sensitive habitats pursuant to CDFW’s Natural Communities List (2020)

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Riparian Habitat and Streambed The Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) survey area supports approximately 1.495 acres of jurisdictional streambeds pursuant to Section 1602 of the CFG Code as regulated by CDFW. The project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.265 acre and temporary impacts to 0.076 acre of CDFW jurisdiction on the study area (see Table 5, Impacts to CDFW Jurisdiction, below, and Figures 9a-f, Impacts to Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas, in the project GBRA). CDFW jurisdiction within Murrieta Creek would be entirely avoided.

Table 5

IMPACTS TO CDFW JURISDICTION
Drainage Temporary
Impacts (acres)1
Permanent
Impacts (acres)1
Murrieta Creek 0.000 0.000
A1 0.000 0.000
A2 0.000 0.000
A2.1 0.026 0.064
B 0.000 0.000
C 0.005 0.027
D 0.006 0.027
E 0.009 0.036
F 0.000 0.000
G 0.006 0.021
H 0.007 0.024
I 0.005 0.020
I1 0.001 0.010
J 0.006 0.016
K 0.005 0.020
TOTAL 0.076 0.265
1 Acreage is rounded to the nearest thousandth

Impacts to CDFW jurisdiction will require a Section 1602 Stream Alteration Agreement from the CDFW, as described in Measure BIO-4 included in Section 6.0 below. Compensatory mitigation for

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
25 permanent impacts to CDFW jurisdiction would be required as part of subsequent Section 1602 permitting requirements. Permanent impacts to CDFW jurisdiction shall be mitigated through on-site or off-site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation of jurisdictional streambed at a ratio of no less than 2:1 as detailed in Measure BIO-4. With the implementation of Measure BIO-4, the project would not result in significant impacts to jurisdictional resources.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community to a less-than-significant level:

BIO-4 Jurisdictional Resources: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for impacts to jurisdictional resources, the City shall obtain regulatory permits from USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW (collectively, the “Resource Agencies”). Compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts to jurisdiction shall be required as part of subsequent permitting requirements. Permanent impacts to jurisdictional resources shall be mitigated through on-site or off-site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation of jurisdictional streambed at a mitigation-to-impact ratio of no less than 2:1. The following minimization measures will be implemented during construction:
• Use of standard BMPs to minimize the impacts during construction. • Construction-related equipment will be stored in developed areas, outside of drainages. • Source control and treatment control BMPs will be implemented to minimize the potential contaminants that are generated during and after construction. Water quality BMPs will be implemented throughout the project to capture and treat potential contaminants. • To avoid attracting predators during construction, the project shall be kept clean of debris to the extent possible. All food-related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site.
• Employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction material to the proposed project footprint, staging areas, and designated routes of travel. • Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of construction activities. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) survey area supports approximately 0.096 acre of USACE/RWQCB non-wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.093 acre of wetlands pursuant to Sections 404/401 of the CWA as regulated by USACE and RWQCB, respectively. The project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.032-acre non-wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.018 acre of wetlands (see Table 6, Impacts to USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction, below, and Figure 9 in the GBRA). The project would also require temporary impacts to approximately

0.005 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.005 acre of wetlands.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
26 Table 6

IMPACTS TO USACE/RWQCB JURISDICTION
Drainage
Permanent Impacts
Non-Wetland
(acres)1
Permanent Impacts
Wetland
(acres)1
Temporary Impacts
Non-Wetland
(acres)1
Temporary Impacts
Wetland
(acres)1
A1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
A2 <0.0002 0.000 0.000 0.000
A2.1 0.001 0.000 <0.0003 0.000
B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
C 0.005 0.004 0.000 0.001
D 0.003 0.007 0.000 0.002
E 0.012 0.000 0.003 0.000
F 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
G 0.003 0.000 <0.0004 0.000
H 0.003 0.000 <0.0005 0.000
I 0.001 0.004 0.000 0.001
I1 0.002 0.000 <0.0006 0.000
J 0.002 0.000 <0.0007 0.000
K 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.001
TOTAL 0.032 0.018 0.005 0.005
1 Acreage is rounded to the nearest thousandth
2 Actual acreage is 0.0004 acre
3 Actual acreage is 0.0003 acre
4 Actual acreage is 0.0004 acre
5 Actual acreage is 0.0004 acre
6 Actual acreage is 0.00003 acre
7 Actual acreage is 0.0004 acre

Impacts to USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction will require a Section 404 permit from USACE and a Section 401 permit from RWQCB, as described in Measure BIO-4. Compensatory streambed mitigation for permanent impacts to USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction will be required as part of subsequent Section 404/401 permitting requirements. Permanent impacts to USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction shall be mitigated through on-site or off-site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation of jurisdictional streambed at a ratio of no less than 2:1 as required by Measure BIO-4. With the implementation of Measure BIO-4, the project would not result in significant impacts to jurisdictional resources. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

Wildlife Movement
The study area is located within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, which consists of Murrieta Creek.

Regional wildlife movement is expected to occur within Murrieta Creek. However, the project would avoid Murrieta Creek and most of its tributaries. The proposed impacts within the project site are mostly restricted to existing developed areas. The project will implement Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines to reduce potential indirect impacts to wildlife movement through Proposed Linkage 13,

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
27 which includes Murrieta Creek. Therefore, the project will not significantly impact movement of wildlife or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Migratory Species
Development of the proposed project could disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests, including eggs and young. Disturbance to or destruction of migratory bird eggs, young, or adults is in violation of the MBTA and is considered a potentially significant impact. Although suitable habitat for nesting birds on the study area is limited, herbaceous ground cover, shrubs, and trees located throughout the study area could provide habitat for protected nesting bird species. A mitigation measure is provided as Measure BIO-3, which would help ensure the project is in compliance with MBTA regulations. With implementation of Measure BIO-3, the project would reduce impacts to migratory bird species to less than significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project will comply with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance (Section 8.48 of the City’s Municipal Code). The study area supports trees that may be subject to tree protection measures. In accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-5, prior to impacts, a tree survey will be conducted prior to construction. If protected trees are located within the project site and must be damaged or removed, a Heritage Tree Removal or Relocation Permit must be obtained. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would reduce any direct impacts to City-protected trees to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-5 would reduce potentially significant impacts to protected trees to a less-than-significant level:

BIO-5 Protected Trees: Prior to impacting any trees within the project site, a tree survey shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Temecula’s Heritage Tree Ordinance (Section 8.48 of the City’s Municipal Code). If trees subject to this ordinance must be damaged or removed within the project site, a Heritage Tree Removal or Relocation Permit must be obtained prior to damage or removal.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated.

As above, the project site is located within the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP. The following sections demonstrate the project’s compliance with MSHCP requirements.

MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements
The study area is located within the Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) of the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP. The study area includes portions of Criteria Cells 6656, 6781, 6782, 6783, 6890, 6891, 7021, and 7078 (Figure 7 of the project GBRA). The conservation requirements for these Criteria Cells are

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
28 presented in Table 3, Conservation Requirement of the MSHCP Criteria Cells, of the project GBRA.

Although the study area is within several Criteria Cells, the project site is mostly within existing developed areas. The project site is not targeted for conservation or is an area that would contribute to the MSHCP reserve assembly.

Furthermore, Diaz Road is considered a “covered road” under the MSCHP. According to MSHCP Section 7.3.4, “safety improvements to other publicly maintained existing roadways within the Criteria Area are Covered Activities. The proposed road widening is considered a safety improvement and is, therefore, a “covered activity.” Implementation of the proposed project would avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive species and habitats adjacent to the existing roadway. To minimize and avoid impacts to sensitive species and habitats occurring adjacent to the project site, the project will comply with Best Management Practices (BMPs), as detailed in Section 7.5.3 and Appendix C of the MSHCP.

Ultimately, the project would not conflict with the MSHCP reserve assembly.

Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) The identification of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources is based on the potential for the habitat to support, or be a tributary to habitat that supports, Riparian/Riverine Covered Species.

Riparian/Riverine Covered Species are identified in MSHCP Section 6.1.2. The MSHCP defines Riparian/Riverine habitat as “lands which contain Habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year” (Dudek and Associates 2003). The MSHCP defines Vernal Pools as “seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season” (Dudek and Associates 2003). Artificially created wetlands, except for those created intentionally to provide habitat or resulting from the creation of open waters or alteration of natural stream courses, are not considered MSHCP Vernal Pools.

Riparian/Riverine Habitat
The MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas mapped on the study area are equivalent to CDFW jurisdiction.

Implementation of the proposed project would result in permanent impacts to approximately

0.256 acre of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine habitat and temporary impacts to 0.076 acre of Riparian/Riverine habitat (see Figure 9 in the GBRA and Table 7, Impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas).

Since the project proposes impacts to Riparian/Riverine Areas, the project is required to prepare a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation, which provides a detailed account of impacts and proposed mitigation to compensate for impacts. Mitigation for permanent impacts to the Riparian/Riverine Areas would be met by implementing required mitigation for impacts to CDFW jurisdiction. Mitigation would include off-site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation at a ratio of no less than 2:1, as required by Measure BIO-4. With the implementation of Measure BIO-4, the project would not result in significant impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
29 Table 7

IMPACTS TO MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AREAS
Drainage Permanent Impacts
(acres)1
Temporary Impacts
(acres)1
Murrieta Creek 0.000 0.000
A1 0.000 0.000
A2 0.000 0.000
A2.1 0.064 0.026
B 0.000 0.000
C 0.027 0.005
D 0.027 0.006
E 0.036 0.009
F 0.000 0.000
G 0.021 0.006
H 0.024 0.007
I 0.020 0.005
I1 0.010 0.001
J 0.016 0.006
K 0.020 0.005
TOTAL 0.265 0.07
1 Acreage is rounded to the nearest thousandth

Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Species
One Riparian/Riverine plant species (smooth tarplant) was observed within Drainage A2.1 in the northern portion of the study area. Smooth tarplant is a conditionally covered species under the MSHCP. Surveys for this species are required if a project occurs within a CASSA 1, 2,3, or 4. Since the study area is not located within a CASSA, impacts to this species would be covered under the MSHCP.

Four other Riparian/Riverine plant species were determined to have a low potential to occur within the study area. These species were not incidentally observed within the study area during field surveys.

Four males and one pair were observed within the study area. The project would not permanently or temporarily impact suitable LBVI habitat (Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland, arroyo willow thicket). However, project construction could have indirect impacts to LBVI that occupy habitat adjacent to Diaz Road. Indirect impacts to this species during the nesting season (March 1 through August 31) would be a significant impact. To avoid potential indirect impacts to LBVI, an avoidance/minimization measure is provided as Measure BIO-2. No other Riparian/Riverine animal species are expected to occur on the study area.

Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Section 6.1.3)
The study area is not located within a NEPSSA; therefore, no focused surveys were required, and the proposed project is consistent with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.

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

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
30 indirect effects from proposed developments that are in proximity to MSHCP Conservation Areas.

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

The eastern portion of the study area is located within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, which consists of Murrieta Creek. As discussed below, the project will comply with each applicable guideline to ensure consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.4.

Drainage
The project will incorporate measures to avoid the discharge of untreated surface runoff into downstream waters. Measures will include those required for construction pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Storm Water Permit and the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program, while post-construction water quality measures will be implemented in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Municipal Storm Drain Permit requirements, and subsequent 401 Water Quality Certification from RWQCB for the project. The project will be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes downstream from the study area. In addition, post-construction BMPs are intended to help ensure that post-project hydrologic conditions remain consistent with pre-project conditions, therefore minimizing the potential for downstream erosion and/or sedimentation that could otherwise result from implementation of the proposed project.

Toxics
Land uses that use chemicals or generate bio-products that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge into downstream waters. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues would be implemented by the proposed project to avoid the potential impacts of toxics.

Lighting
Temporary construction lighting and ambient lighting from the proposed development are required to be selectively placed, directed, and shielded away from the MSHCP Conservation Area. In addition, large spotlight-type lighting directed into conserved habitat will be prohibited.

Noise
Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards.

Temporary construction-related noise impacts will be reduced by the implementation of a number of measures, including the following:

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
31 • During all excavation and grading, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards to reduce construction equipment noise to the maximum extent possible. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the study area. • The construction contractor shall stage equipment in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the study area during all project construction.
• All construction work shall occur during the daylight hours. The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels according to the construction hours to be determined by the County.
• The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment. To the extent feasible, haul routes shall not pass through sensitive land uses or residential dwellings.

Invasives
The project shall not use invasive plants for erosion control, landscaping, wind rows, or other purposes. Mitigation Measure BIO-6 requires the project to comply with the MSHCP and avoid the use of invasive, non-native plants in accordance with MSHCP Table 6.2.

Barriers
Since the project consists of widening an existing road, barriers and signage are not necessary.

Grading/Land Development
Since the project consists of widening an existing road, manufactured slopes are not necessary.

Additional Surveys (MSHCP Section 6.3.2)
The study area is not within a CASSA or an Amphibian or Mammal Species Survey Area. No impacts to CASSA species or sensitive amphibian or mammal species are proposed.

The study area is within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area, and the study area supports suitable habitat. Focused surveys were conducted in accordance with the County’s survey protocol. No burrowing owls or sign of burrowing owls were observed within the study area. Due to the presence of suitable habitat, a pre-construction survey is required within 30 days of ground disturbance pursuant to the MSHCP. A mitigation measure requiring a pre-construction survey, avoidance or replacement of burrowing owl habitat and individuals (if three or more pairs are observed), and avoidance of active nests and/or relocation of burrowing owl (if burrowing owls are observed) is included as Measure BIO-1.

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

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
32 Fuels Management (MSHCP Section 6.4)
Because the proposed project consists of widening an existing road within a heavily developed portion of the City, a fuel modification zone is not incorporated into the proposed project. The proposed project is consistent with Section 6.4 of the MSHCP.

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

The study area is also within the SKR HCP but is not located within any of the core reserves (County 1996). Therefore, the project is required to pay an SKR mitigation fee for incidental take authorization under the SKR HCP. Mitigation Measure BIO-7 requires the project proponent to pay the MSHCP LDMF and SKR HCP fees, which would reduce SKR impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-6 and BIO-7 would reduce potentially significant impacts to adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans to a less-than-significant level:

BIO-6 MSHCP Landscaping Restrictions: In accordance with MSHCP Section 6.1.4, no species listed in Table 6-2, Plants that Should Be Avoided Adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, of the project GBRA shall be used in the project landscape plans (including hydroseed mix used for interim erosion control).

BIO-7 Habitat Conservation Plan Fees: The City is subject to the MSHCP LDMF and the SKR HCP Fee, which shall be paid prior to issuance of any grading permit.

V. Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
   
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
   
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
   

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
33 The following analysis is based on the Cultural Resources Study prepared for the proposed project by HELIX (2020b; Appendix C).
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No Impact. As part of the Cultural Resources Study (HELIX 2020b), HELIX requested a record search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) from the Eastern Information Center (EIC) on April 23, 2020. The records search results were received on September 9, 2020. The records search covered a one-mile radius around the project alignment and included the identification of previously recorded cultural resources and locations and citations for previous cultural resources studies. The records search did not identify any historic resources in proximity to the project site.

Furthermore, no historic resources that could be directly or indirectly affected by implementation of the proposed project are located within or adjacent to the proposed alignment or areas to be disturbed during construction activities. As such, because no historic resources have been identified in the area that could potentially be adversely affected by project implementation, no impacts would occur.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. HELIX contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on April 24, 2020 for a Sacred Lands File search and list of Native American contacts for the project area. The NAHC indicated in a response dated April 27, 2020 that the results were positive and that the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians should be contacted. Also provided was a list of 15 Native American tribal contacts who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. Letters were sent on May 7, 2020 to Native American representatives and interested parties identified by the NAHC. Two responses have been received to date. The Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (Rincon) stated that, while the project area is within the territory of the Luiseño people and Rincon’s “specific area of Historic interest,” they have no knowledge of any cultural resources within the project area. The Quechan Indian Tribe responded stating that they do not wish to comment on the project and defer to local Tribes. If any additional responses are received, they will be forwarded to City staff.

A pedestrian survey was conducted at the project alignment by HELIX and a Native American monitor on May 28, 2020. Most of the project alignment and surrounding area is built upon, disturbed, or paved, thus reducing the likelihood for the presence of archaeological resources. The survey covered the areas located adjacent to the northern, eastern, and southern boundaries of the alignment. The northern and southern portions of the alignment were heavily disturbed due to recent trenching for an underground pipeline. The eastern edge of Diaz Road was also disturbed; ground visibility in this area was minimal due to presence of the bike/walking path and landscaped areas. No cultural material was observed during the survey.

The project site is located within an area where alluvial soils occur. Based on the presence of young alluvial deposits, cultural resources may be present within the project site. Grading and other ground- disturbing activities would therefore have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, and impacts would be potentially significant. Therefore, the

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
34 project would implement an archaeological and Native American monitoring program, as detailed in mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-5, to reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-5 would reduce potentially significant impacts to cultural resources to a less-than-significant level:

CUL-1 At least 30 days prior to the start any ground-disturbing activities, the City shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement shall address the treatment and final disposition of any tribal cultural resources, sacred sites, human remains, or archaeological resources inadvertently discovered on the project site; project grading, ground disturbance, and development scheduling; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of tribal monitor(s) during grading, excavation, and ground disturbing activities; and compensation for the tribal monitors, including overtime, weekend rates, and mileage reimbursements.

CUL-2 A qualified archaeologist and Pechanga tribal monitor shall attend a pre-construction meeting with City staff, the contractor, and appropriate subcontractors to discuss the monitoring program, including protocols to be followed in the event that cultural material is encountered.

CUL-3 A qualified archaeological monitor and a Pechanga tribal monitor shall be present for ground- disturbing activities in areas with a potential for encountering cultural material; monitoring will not be required in areas that have been previously graded/cut to below cultural levels. At least seven business days prior to project grading, the City shall contact the tribal monitors to notify the Tribe of grading/excavation and the monitoring program/schedule, and to coordinate with the Tribe on the monitoring work schedule. Both the archaeologist and the tribal monitor shall have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in order to evaluate the nature and significance of any archaeological resources discovered within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement, which may include avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation, data recovery, and/or reburial so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity, per CUL-1. Any reburial shall occur at a location predetermined between the City and the Pechanga tribe, details of which are to be addressed in the Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement in mitigation measure CUL-1.

Treatment may also include curation of the cultural resources at a tribal curation facility, as determined in discussion among the City, the qualified archaeologist, and the tribal representatives and addressed in the Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement referenced in mitigation measure CUL-1.

CUL-4 All artifacts discovered at the development site shall be inventoried and analyzed by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor(s). A monitoring report will be prepared, detailing the methods and results of the monitoring program, as well as the disposition of any cultural material encountered.

CUL-5 The City shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts that are found within the project area, for proper treatment and disposition pursuant to the Agreement required in mitigation measure CUL-1.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
35 c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. No human remains are known to exist within the project area. However, although unlikely, it is possible that ground disturbance associated with the proposed project may encounter and damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains.

Therefore, impacts are assessed as potentially significant, and the project would implement mitigation measure CUL-6.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measure CUL-6 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to the discovery of human remains to less than significant:

CUL-6 If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the NAHC must be contacted within 24 hours. The NAHC must then immediately identify the most likely descendant(s) for purposes of receiving notification of discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours of being granted access to the site and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and the agreement described in mitigation measure CUL-1.

VI. Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
   
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
   

The following analysis is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared for the proposed project by HELIX (2020a; Appendix A).
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Energy usage is typically quantified using the British thermal unit (Btu) and large quantities of energy are often reported as million Btu (MBtu). As a point of reference, the

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
36 approximate amounts of energy contained in common energy sources are gasoline—0.124 MBTU per gallon and diesel—0.139 MBtu per gallon.

The project would involve the consumption of energy resources during construction. Construction of the project is estimated to last approximately 16 months during which time diesel and gasoline fuel is anticipated to be the primary energy consumed. It is not anticipated that the project would require significant use of natural gas or electricity (from the electrical grid) during construction. As a result, natural gas and electricity use during construction would be temporary and a negligible portion of the total construction energy. Diesel and gasoline fuel consumption would be associated with heavy-duty equipment, haul trucks involved in the transport of soil and construction materials, and workers commuting to and from the site.

The project’s estimated construction energy consumption was calculated using off-road equipment types, horsepower, count and hours from the SMAQMD Road Construction Emissions Model version

9.0 (described in the air quality analysis, above); off-road fuel consumption factors from the CARB OFFROAD2017-ORION Web Database version 1.0.1; and on-road fuel consumption factors from the CARB EMFAC2017 Web Database version 1.0.2. The estimated fuel and total energy consumed during project construction is shown in Table 8, Construction Energy Consumption.

Table 8

CONSTRUCTION ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Phase Fuel (gallons)
Diesel
Fuel (gallons)
Gasoline
Total
(MBtu)
Grubbing/Land Clearing 4,909 494 744
Grading/Excavation 43,605 5,384 6,729
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 21,364 2,765 3,312
Paving 4,676 1,100 786
Construction Total 74,554 9,741 11,571
Source: HELIX 2020a
Totals may not sum due to rounding
MBtu = million British thermal units

The total petroleum consumption would be temporary and would cease upon completion of project implementation, would be typical of similar roadway construction projects, and would not require the development of new energy resources and distribution infrastructure. Once operational, the project would not result in notably increased energy usage beyond the energy usage of the road segment without implementation of the project. Based on these considerations, the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and the impact would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. Federal and state agencies regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs. Federal and state agencies influence and regulate transportation energy consumption through the establishment and enforcement of fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks, funding of energy-related research and development projects, and funding for transportation infrastructure improvements.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
37 There are no state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency directly applicable to the construction energy consumption from a roadway improvement project. However, a project’s energy consumption is closely related to a project’s GHG emissions. A described in the GHG analysis, below, the project’s amortized GHG construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold, and the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, including the City’s CAP. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and the impact would be less than significant.

VII. Geology and Soils

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
   
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?    
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?    
iv) Landslides?    
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?    
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
   
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
   
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
   
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological feature?    

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
38 The following analysis is based on the Geotechnical Design Report prepared for the proposed project by David Evans and Associates, Inc. (2020a; Appendix D). a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
Less than Significant Impact. The City, like the rest of southern California, is located within a seismically active region as a result of being located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The most significant known active fault zones that are capable of seismic ground shaking and can impact the City are the Elsinore Fault Zone, San Jacinto Fault Zone, Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, and the San Andreas Fault Zone.

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act requires the State Geologist to identify earthquake fault zones along traces of both recently and potentially active major faults. Cities and counties that contain such zones must inform the public regarding the location of these zones, which are usually one-quarter mile or less in width. Proposed development plans within these earthquake fault zones must be accompanied by a geotechnical report prepared by a qualified geologist describing the likelihood of surface rupture. As shown on Figure PS-1 of the City General Plan (City 2005), the Elsinore Fault Zone is an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone that passes through the City to the west of Interstate 15. The fault is located approximately 0.3 miles east the project site near Jefferson Avenue. Due to this distance, it is unlikely that the project would be subjected to fault rupture at the Elsinore Fault Zone. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As described under response VI.a.i, the Elsinore Fault Zone is located approximately 0.3 miles east of the project site along Jefferson Avenue. This fault, and other faults in the region, could create seismic ground shaking at the project site. Ground- shaking could affect the integrity of the project’s components (e.g., retaining walls, roadway, etc.); therefore, the proposed project would potentially be subject to severe ground shaking hazards from earthquake events. Accordingly, ground shaking could potentially result in significant impacts to the proposed project roadway structures. This impact would be mitigated through implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Liquefaction is the phenomenon where saturated granular soils develop high-pore water pressures during seismic shaking and behave like a heavy fluid.

This phenomenon generally occurs in areas of high seismicity where groundwater is shallow and loose granular soils or hydraulic fill soils subject to liquefaction are present. For liquefaction to occur, loose granular sediments below the groundwater table must be present and shaking of sufficient magnitude and duration must occur. As shown on Figure PS-1 of the City General Plan (2005), the vast majority of the project alignment is located within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone. Therefore, the project components (e.g., retaining walls, roadway, etc.) may be at risk from liquefaction, which could affect the integrity

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
39 of the project components. Potentially significant impacts related to liquefaction would be mitigated through implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact. According to the City’s General Plan Public Safety Element, the site is not identified as being in an area where landslides have occurred (City 2005). While the Murrieta Creek runs parallel to the alignment, appropriate slope retention methods and retaining walls would be used to prevent slope instability. Therefore, no impact from landslides would occur. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Potential short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts would be addressed through a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), prepared specifically for the proposed roadway improvements, in accordance with the NPDES permit. The SWPPP would incorporate BMPs in accordance with the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook to control erosion and protect the quality of surface water runoff during project construction. Due to the proximity of Murrieta Creek, the use of sediment controls to prevent off-site sediment transport would be employed, potentially including silt fencing, fiber rolls, gravel bags, temporary sediment basins, street sweeping, sediment stockpiles, and use of properly fitted covers for sediment transport vehicles. Based upon compliance with the NPDES permit and implementation of a SWPPP, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. See responses VI.a and VI.b, above. The project alignment is not located in an area that would be exposed to landslides. The project alignment has a high potential for liquefaction and is located near earthquake faults that may generate strong seismic ground shaking (City 2005); therefore, the project components (e.g., retaining walls, roadway, etc.) may be exposed to unstable geologic conditions, and impacts would be potentially significant.

Implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are fine-grained soils (generally high-plasticity clays) that can undergo a significant increase in volume with an increase in water content and a significant decrease in volume with a decrease in water content. Changes in the water content of an expansive soil can result in severe distress to structures constructed upon the soil. Development would occur within soils with some potential for expansion. The soil underneath the project alignment is identified as a variety of sandy and silty loam soil types, which have a low clay content and are not identified as having a shrink-swell potential (United States Department of Agriculture 2017). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
40 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. As a roadway improvement project, the proposed project does not include septic tanks.

No impacts would occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Paleontological Technical Study was prepared for the proposed project (Paleo Solutions, Inc. 2020; Appendix E). The technical study involved an analysis of existing paleontological data as well as a field survey of the project site. The analysis of existing data included a geologic map review, a literature search, and a museum records search at the Western Science Center (WSC) in Hemet, California. Geologic mapping indicates that the project area is primarily underlain by Holocene- and late Pliocene-age young alluvial valley deposits (Qyva) and Pleistocene-age older alluvial flood plain deposits (Qoa). Within a half mile of the project area, Pleistocene-age Pauba Formation, Sandstone Member (Qp, Qpfs), Pleistocene-age Pauba Formation, Fanglomerate Member (Qpf, Qpff), Cretaceous-age tonalite undivided (Kt), and Cretaceous- and Jurassic-age metavolcanics and metasedimentary rocks (KJm) are present and may underlie the geologic units mapped at the surface within the project area at shallow depth. In addition, recent artificial fill (af) from previous development may be present within the bounds of the project area. Of these geologic units, two, the Pleistocene-age Pauba Formation and Fanglomerate Member (Qpf, Qpff), have high paleontological potentials. One unit, the Pleistocene-age older alluvial flood plain deposits (Qoa), has moderate paleontological potential. The remaining four units have either low or very low paleontological potentials. Due to the presence of geologic units with moderate and high paleontological potentials, grading and other ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed project would have the potential to destroy a paleontological resource, and impacts would be potentially significant. Therefore, the project would implement a paleontological monitoring program, as detailed in mitigation measures PAL-1 and PAL-2.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure GEO-1 would mitigate the potentially significant impacts associated with seismic hazards identified under this section to less than significant.

GEO-1 Site-specific Geotechnical Investigation. A site-specific geotechnical investigation shall be completed prior to final site design approval by the City to identify site-specific criteria related to considerations such as grading, excavation, fill, and structure/facility design. All applicable results and recommendations from the geotechnical investigation will be incorporated into the project design and construction documents to address identified potential geologic and soil hazards, including but not necessarily limited to: (1) seismic hazards including ground rupture, ground acceleration (ground shaking), soil liquefaction (and related issues such as dynamic settlement and lateral spreading), landslides/slope instability, and seiche effects; and (2) non-seismic hazards including manufactured slope instability, subsidence/compressible soils, expansive or corrosive soils, and trench/excavation instability. The final project design and construction documents will also encompass applicable standard design and construction practices from established regulatory/ industry sources including the California Building Code (CBC), International Building Code (IBC), California Geological Survey (CGS), Greenbook standards, as well as the results/recommendations of geotechnical review and field

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
41 observations/testing to be conducted during project excavation, grading, and construction activities (with all related requirements to be included in applicable engineering/design drawings and construction contract specifications).

Implementation of the following mitigation measures PAL-1 and PAL-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant:

PAL-1 Prior to construction, a paleontological resource monitoring and mitigation plan (PRMMP) shall be prepared. It shall provide detailed recommended monitoring locations; a description of a paleontological resources worker environmental awareness program to inform construction personnel of the potential for fossil discoveries and of the types of fossils that may be encountered; detailed procedures for monitoring, fossil recovery, laboratory analysis, and museum curation; and notification procedures in the event of a fossil discovery by a paleontological monitor or other project personnel. In the event that paleontological resources are discovered during the construction phase of the project, a curation agreement from the Western Science Center, or another accredited repository, shall also be obtained.

PAL-2 Construction excavations that disturb the Pleistocene-age Pauba Formation, Fanglomerate Member, or Pleistocene-age older alluvial flood plain deposits shall be monitored full-time by a qualified paleontologist. Additionally, artificial fill, young alluvial fan deposits, and young alluvial channel deposits shall be initially spot-checked to determine if older, more paleontologically sensitive deposits are disturbed at depth. If older sedimentary geologic units are not disturbed by construction activities in these areas, then monitoring can be reduced or ceased at the discretion of a qualified paleontologist in consultation with the City.

VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment.
   
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
   

The following analysis is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Letter Report prepared for the proposed project by HELIX (2020a; Appendix A). a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. Greenhouse gases (GHG) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

GHGs vary widely in the power of their climatic effect; therefore, climate scientists have established a

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
42 unit called global warming potential (GWP). The GWP of a gas is a measure of both potency and lifespan in the atmosphere as compared to CO2. For example, since CH4 and N2O are approximately 25 and 298 times more powerful than CO2, respectively, in their ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, they have GWPs of 25 and 298, respectively (CO2 has a GWP of 1). Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is a quantity that enables all GHG emissions to be considered as a group despite their varying GWP. The GWP of each GHG is multiplied by the prevalence of that gas to produce CO2e.

There are no established federal, state, or local quantitative thresholds applicable to the project to determine the quantity of GHG emissions that may have a significant effect on the environment. The California Air Resources Board (CARB), the SCAQMD, and various cities and agencies have proposed, or adopted on an interim basis, thresholds of significance that require the implementation of GHG emission reduction measures. For the proposed project, the most appropriate screening threshold for determining GHG emissions is the SCAQMD proposed Tier 3 screening threshold (SCAQMD 2010), as the project construction period and equipment is similar to a commercial or residential project to which Tier 3 applies. Therefore, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would exceed the SCAQMD proposed Tier 3 screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year.

Construction Impacts
Construction GHG emissions would be generated by vehicle engine exhaust from construction equipment, on-road hauling trucks, and worker commuting trips. Construction GHG emissions were calculated by using RCEM. The estimated construction GHG emissions for the project are shown in Table 9, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions. For construction emissions, SCAQMD recommends that the emissions be amortized (i.e., averaged) over 30 years and added to operational emissions.

Averaged over 30 years, the proposed construction activities would contribute approximately 37.8 MT CO2e emissions per year. Therefore, the proposed project would generate GHG emissions below the SCAQMD threshold and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 9

ESTIMATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Phase CO2e (MT)
Site Preparation/Land Clearing 35.0
Grading/Excavation 668.5
Underground Drainage/Utilities 261.4
Paving 64.6
Total Emissions 1,134.7
Amortized Emissions 37.8
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000
Significant Impact? No
Source: HELIX 2020a
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; MT = metric tons; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District

Operational Emissions
The project proposes widening and improving an existing roadway and would only generate emissions during construction in the near term. Because the project would result in additional lanes on Diaz Road and, therefore, increase the total available miles of roadways in the region, the TIA concluded

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
43 that the project would result in a regional increase in VMT of 7,277 miles in the year 2040 (DEA 2020b). The GHG emissions resulting from the increase in VMT were calculated using data from EMFAC2017. As shown in Table 10, Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the combined operational emissions from the increased VMT and the amortized construction emissions would be 40.0 MT CO2e per year and would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. The impact would be less than significant.

Table 10

OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Source Emissions (MT CO2e )
Operational Emissions from VMT Increase 2.2
Amortized Construction Emissions 37.8
Total Operational Emissions 40.0
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000
Significant Impact? No
Source: Helix 2020a
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. There are numerous state plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall state plan and policy is Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Senate Bill (SB) 32 would require further reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles (AB 1493), the low carbon fuel standard, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources are being implemented at the statewide level; as such, compliance at the project level is not addressed.

The twelve cities of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), which includes the City of Temecula, adopted a Subregional Climate Action Plan (CAP) in September 2014. The CAP provides a 2010 baseline inventory of GHG emissions for the subregion cities of 5,834,400 MT of CO2e.

Approximately 57 percent of the GHG inventory was from transportation sources, 21 percent from commercial/industrial energy use, 20 percent from residential energy use, and the remaining from wastewater and solid waste sources. The CAP established a target of reducing subregional GHG emissions 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020 and 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2035. To achieve the 2020 reduction target, the CAP identifies 14 State and regional measures, 3 local energy sector measures, 18 local transportation sector measures, and 2 solid waste sector measures. The CAP does not identify GHG reduction measures for achieving goals beyond 2020 (WRCOG 2014). The CAP does not include thresholds for determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions, nor does it include a checklist or other methodology for determining consistency of a project with the goals and measures in the CAP.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
44 • Class II bicycle lanes in both directions of Diaz Road. • Improved crossings and signal-controlled crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists using the multi-use trail paralleling the north side of Diaz Road to the north. • Conformance with the latest ADA standards throughout the corridor. • Space for future bus stops out of the traffic lanes that improve transit safety and operational efficiency.

In addition, as the project involves widening and improving an existing roadway to accommodate existing and future projected traffic volumes, and would not generate new vehicle trips itself, the proposed project would not result in an increase to population or employment and would therefore be consistent with the growth projections in the GHG emissions inventory projections. As previously discussed, the project’s increase in GHG emissions from construction activities would also not exceed the SCAQMD screening threshold, which was crafted to comply with the reduction goals of AB 32.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impacts would be less than significant.

IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
   
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
   
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
   
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
   

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
45 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project
area?
   
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
   
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
   

The following analysis is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the proposed project by Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Leighton 2020; Appendix F). a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. Project construction would require the use of materials that are typically associated with construction activities, such as diesel fuels, hydraulic liquids, oils, solvents, and paint.

Hazardous materials used during project construction would be transported, used, and stored in accordance with state and federal regulations regarding hazardous materials. The use of these materials would be temporary, and impacts during construction would be less than significant. With regard to long-term operation, the project would not increase the use or disposal of hazardous materials in the area once constructed and operational. While the project would facilitate increased traffic capacity along the affected segment of Diaz Road, it would not substantially increase the number or frequency of trucks or other vehicles transporting hazardous materials through the project area such that it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, operational impacts in this regard would be less than significant. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The Phase I ESA prepared for the project site indicated that no known or potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), including the presence of notable amounts of hazardous materials, exist within or adjacent to the proposed alignment. Further, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment. During the temporary, short-term construction period, there is the possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as spilling of hydraulic fluid or diesel fuel associated with construction equipment maintenance. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of these hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures to avoid or minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
46 environment. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project with respect to exposing the public or the environment to hazardous materials through upset and accident conditions would be less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The school nearest to the project alignment is Vail Elementary School, located approximately 1.2 miles to the east of the project alignment. Hazardous materials used during construction would not be handled within one-quarter mile of the school. Furthermore, the use of these materials would be temporary and in accordance with applicable standards and regulations.

Therefore, impacts related to the handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school would not occur.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List) requirements, and as part of the Phase I ESA records review, the SWRCB GeoTracker database (SWRCB 2020) and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database (DTSC 2020) were searched for hazardous materials sites within the project area. According to these databases, there are no listed hazardous materials sites within or adjacent to the project alignment. Therefore, no impact would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The French Valley Airport is located approximately 5 miles north of the project alignment.

The project alignment is not located within the Airport Influence Area (Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission 2004). Furthermore, the project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

Therefore, no impacts would occur.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. During construction, parts of the roadway would be closed to vehicular traffic; however, a Traffic Control Plan would be implemented to identify traffic control measures through the duration of project construction activities. The Traffic Control Plan would maintain adequate access and the project would therefore not interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Upon completion of construction, the improved roadway would include more lanes and would therefore allow for improved access to the surrounding areas. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
47 g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The project site is not located within or near an area designated as a state responsibility area (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CAL FIRE] 2007, 2011) nor is it classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) or located near a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2007, 2011).

The project site is mapped as Non-VHFHSZ per the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps prepared under the Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP). According to the VHFHSZ Maps prepared by the City in collaboration with CAL FIRE, the nearest VHFHSZ is located approximately one mile west of the project near the City’s western boundary. Furthermore, the proposed roadway improvements would not house people and would not be at risk from wildlife. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

X. Hydrology and Water Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
   
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
   
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of imperious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
   
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or offsite;    
ii. substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or offsite;    
iii. create or contribute runoff water that
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
   
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?    
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
or release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
   

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
48 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
   

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Potential water quality impacts associated with the proposed project would be generally limited to short-term construction-related erosion and sedimentation. During operation, the discharge of minor amounts of fuels or other pollutants associated with automobiles into storm drains during rain events may occur. As the roadway is widened, the project would construct catch basins and storm drains in compliance with City design standards. Furthermore, the project would prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to illustrate how low impact development BMPs have been incorporated into project construction and design. The WQMP would incorporate BMPs in accordance with the California Stormwater BMPs Handbook and the City’s BMP Design Manual to control erosion and protect the quality of surface water runoff. This would result in operational effects to water quality that are similar or improved compared to existing conditions.

Therefore, operational impacts to water quality would be less than significant.

As required under the NPDES, a SWPPP would be created specifically for construction of the proposed roadway improvements. The plan would address erosion control measures that would be implemented to avoid or minimize erosion impacts to exposed soil associated with construction activities, particularly given the project’s proximity to Murrieta Creek. The SWPPP would include a program of BMPs to provide erosion and sediment control and reduce potential impacts to water quality that may result from construction activities. BMPs would include maintaining existing slope stabilization measures and providing gravel bags and silt fences where applicable. Implementation of the SWPPP for the proposed roadway improvements and associated BMPs would reduce or eliminate the discharge of potential pollutants from stormwater runoff to the maximum extent practicable.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the use of groundwater. While the proposed project would result in additional impervious surfaces on the site, the project size would have a minimal effect on the existing groundwater infiltration. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge or Murrieta Creek such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin and impacts would be less than significant.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
49 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of imperious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less than Significant Impact. No streams or rivers are present within the project alignment; however, the Murrieta Creek channel is immediately northeast of the project alignment. While the project would not alter the course of a stream or river, it would increase the number of impervious surfaces and alter the existing drainage pattern of the area in a manner that would increase the amount of surface runoff. However, the increase in the amount of runoff would be minimal and the runoff would be accommodated by the proposed catch basins, storm drains, and low impact development improvements which would be designed in conformance with the City’s requirements and specifications. Implementation of the design standards as described in the City’s BMP Design Manual and the project-specific WQMP would ensure substantial erosion and siltation would not occur on or off site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Less than Significant Impact. Murrieta Creek is located immediately northeast of the project alignment; however, the project would not alter the course of the creek. An increase in impervious surfaces resulting from the roadway improvements would alter the existing drainage pattern of the area in a manner that would increase the amount of surface runoff. However, the increase in the amount of runoff would be minimal and accommodated by the proposed catch basins and storm drains, which would be designed in conformance with City design standards. The project would follow the City’s BMP Design Manual standards for low impact development and include the implementation of a project-specific WQMP. Therefore, flooding would not occur on or off site. Impacts would be less than significant.
iii. create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Less than Significant Impact. An increase in impervious surfaces resulting from the roadway improvements would increase the amount of surface runoff on site. This runoff may contain pollutants such as fuels and oils from automobiles; however, the increase in the amount of runoff would be minimal and the runoff would be sufficiently accommodated by the proposed catch basins, storm drains, and low impact development improvements. Therefore, the project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; impacts would be less than significant.
iv. impede or redirect flows?
Less than Significant Impact. An increase in impervious surfaces resulting from the roadway improvements would alter the existing drainage of the area in a manner that would change flows from existing conditions; however, the changes would be minimal. The project involves improvements to existing roadways, which would not substantially impede or redirect flows. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
50 d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk or release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than Significant Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Map Service Center (FEMA 2020), the majority of the project site is mapped within a special flood hazard area given its proximity to Murrieta Creek. The project alignment runs parallel to the creek boundary along the northeast side of Diaz Road. This portion is mapped as Zone A and AE, which signify a special flood hazard area and base floodplain. However, it is not anticipated that the project would result in the release of pollutants due to inundation associated with mapped flood hazard areas. While the project area would be subject to potential flooding, the project would improve conveyance of storm water due to the implementation of low impact development and catch basins.

In addition, the loading and staging area for construction equipment would be protected from flood hazards by locating them in areas with higher ground elevation and adequate drainage, reducing the likelihood of construction equipment releasing pollutants during a potential creek channel flood, and BMPs would ensure that hazardous materials equipment would not be in the area during a flood event. For these reasons, impacts associated with flooding would be less than significant.

The possibility of seiches and tsunamis impacting the City is considered remote due to the great distance to large bodies of water. Therefore, the potential for the project to result in the release of pollutants associated with inundation from tsunamis and seiches is considered remote. As such, impacts related to the release of pollutants due to project site inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, and seiche zones would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. As specified above, the project would comply with applicable City of Temecula and County of Riverside stormwater requirements and would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. In addition, the project would not adversely impact a groundwater management plan because project-related runoff would not otherwise impede groundwater replenishment in the Murrieta-Temecula Groundwater Basin. In addition, as noted above, project implementation would not have the potential to result in significant adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater quality or otherwise conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (Basin Plan).

XI. Land Use and Planning

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?     b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
   

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
51 a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The project would widen and extend an existing roadway and other elements within the right-of-way to a total width of 100 feet, which is consistent with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The project would widen and extend an existing roadway consistent with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and thus would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

XII. Mineral Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
   
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
   

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 required the State Geologist to initiate mineral land classification to help identify and protect mineral resources in areas within the state. In accordance with guidelines established by the State Mining and Geology Board, mineral deposits in western Riverside County have been classified into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ).

According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the project area has been classified by the State Division of Mines and Geology as MRZ-3a. This area contains sedimentary deposits that have the potential to supply sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, these areas are not considered to contain deposits of significant economic value. Given the limited area the project would disturb and the fact that the surrounding area is generally developed or zoned for future development, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource valuable to the region or state.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
52 XIII. Noise

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in any applicable plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
   
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?    
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
   

The following analysis is based on the Acoustical Analysis Report prepared for the proposed project by HELIX (2020c; Appendix G).
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact. All noise level or sound level values presented herein are expressed in terms of decibels (dB), with A-weighting (dBA) to approximate the hearing sensitivity of humans.

Time-averaged noise levels are expressed by the symbol LEQ, with a specified duration. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average, where noise levels during the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. have an added 5 dBA weighting, and sound levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. have an added 10 dBA weighting. This is similar to the Day Night sound level (LDN), which is a 24-hour average with an added 10 dBA weighting on the same nighttime hours but no added weighting on the evening hours. Sound levels expressed in CNEL are always based on dBA. The maximum sound level (LMAX) is the maximum level during a measurement period or noise event. These metrics are used to express noise levels for both measurement and municipal regulations, as well as for land use guidelines and enforcement of noise ordinances.

Construction Noise
The City’s Municipal Code states that construction noise limits apply to projects within one quarter mile of an occupied residence. According to the Acoustical Analysis, the hotels located along Jefferson Road, Marriott SpringHill Suites and Hampton Inn Suites, located approximately 1,000 feet and 700 feet from the nearest portion of the project alignment, were conservatively analyzed as occupied residences for the purposes of this analysis (HELIX 2020c). The most substantial noise increases from construction activities that may affect off-site uses would occur during the grading phase. The loudest

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
53 equipment used during this phase would be a grader and excavator. The equipment would be in operation for 40 percent of a typical construction hour. At a distance of 700 feet, the grading equipment would generate a noise level of 58.1 dBA LEQ. The City does not adopt noise level standards for construction noise. However, construction would not occur between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday, and all-day Sunday, as required by the Municipal Code.

Therefore, noise generated by construction equipment would be less than significant.

Traffic Noise
A significant increase in noise levels would occur if project-added traffic results in an increase of 3 CNEL or more. The project’s primary operational noise source would be vehicular traffic. According to the TIA prepared for the proposed project by David Evans and Associates, Inc., the project would not result in a doubling of average daily trips (ADT; David Evans and Associates, Inc. 2020b). A doubling of ADT would cause a doubling in noise (a 3 CNEL increase), which is often noticeable to sensitive receptors and would be perceived as a significant increase. The project would not generate nearly enough trips to result in a doubling of roadway noise. The nearest noise-sensitive land uses (NSLUs) to the project site are two hotels along Jefferson Road, Marriott SpringHill Suites and Hampton Inn Suites, located approximately 1,000 feet and 700 feet from the nearest portion of the project alignment.

According to the Acoustical Analysis, at a distance of 700 feet, the existing noise level with 9,000 daily trips is approximately 60.6 CNEL. The project would result in a long-term increase to 14,300 daily trips, which corresponds to a noise level of approximately 62.4 CNEL (HELIX 2020c). An increase of 1.8 CNEL would not exceed 3 CNEL and would not be discernable to the human ear. In addition, given the comparatively small change in distance associated with expanding the road from two lanes to four lanes, the topography and intervening distance across Murrieta Creek would contribute to the negligible change in noise levels. Since project-added trips would not increase existing noise levels by 3 CNEL, transportation noise impacts to off-site land uses would be less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the project’s Acoustical Analysis, construction activities known to generate excessive ground-borne vibration, such as pile driving or blasting, would not be conducted by the project. A possible source of vibration during general project construction activities would be a vibratory roller, which may be used for ground compaction beneath the roadway surface.

A vibratory roller would generate approximately 0.046 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at a distance of 100 feet (HELIX 2020c). At this distance, vibration generated by the project would be lower than what is considered a “severe” impact for humans of 0.4 inches per second PPV, and the structural damage impact to older residential structures of 0.5 inches per second PPV. Furthermore, the nearest vibration-sensitive land uses, the Hampton Inn Suites Hotel and Home2 Suites Temecula, would both be located approximately 700 feet from the project alignment. Therefore, given the intervening distance between where a vibratory roller may be used and the nearest vibration sensitive land uses, impacts associated with the roller (and other potential equipment) would be less than significant.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
54 c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airship or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project is subject to some distant aircraft noise, though the site is not located near an active airport. The nearest airports are the Bear Creek Airport, located approximately 4 miles to the north, and the French Valley Airport, located approximately 5 miles to the northeast. At these distances, no effects related to airport noise would occur at the project site, and impacts would be less than significant.

XIV. Population and Housing

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
   
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
   

a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is designed to meet the roadway classification requirements of a major arterial with four divided lanes, as specified by City Standard No. 101 and included in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element Figure C-2. The expanded roadway will accommodate future traffic levels projected under buildout of the General Plan. Therefore, although the project involves the expansion of infrastructure, it would accommodate planned growth rather than induce growth. The project does not include land uses, such as homes or business, that would directly induce population growth. As such, the project would not induce direct or indirect population growth, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed project would involve improvements to an existing roadway. There are no existing residences within the project alignment and no people or housing units would be displaced.

No impact would occur.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
55 XV. Public Services

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:

a) Fire protection?    
b) Police protection?    
c) Schools?    
d) Parks?    
e) Other public facilities?    

a) Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact. Operation of the roadway would not generate an increased demand for fire protection services beyond existing conditions. During construction, fire protection may be required in the case of accident conditions, but these would be short-term demands and would not require increases in the level of service offered or affect these agencies’ response times. Because of the low probability and short-term nature of potential fire protection needs during construction, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts. b) Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in an increase in demand for police protection services beyond existing conditions, and therefore, would not have operational impacts to police protection or cause a need for new or altered police protection facilities. A police protection need could occur during project construction if theft or crime associated with the construction equipment or construction site would occur; however, these types of events would not trigger an increase above provided police protection levels. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts.
c) Schools?
No Impact. The proposed project would place no demand on school services because it would not involve the construction of facilities that would generate school-aged children and would not involve the introduction of a temporary or permanent population into this area. Therefore, the project would have no impact on schools.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
56 d) Parks?
No Impact. The proposed project would place no demand on parks because it would not involve the introduction of a temporary or permanent population into the area that would use parks. Therefore, the project would have no impact on parks.
e) Other public facilities?
No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the introduction of a temporary or permanent human population into this area. Therefore, the project would have no impact on other public facilities.

XVI. Recreation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
   
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
   

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project would not generate a population that would increase demand for parks or recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect use of existing facilities. No impacts to recreation would occur.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed roadway improvements would not generate a population that would increase demand for parks or recreational facilities. The project would include the removal of portions of the adjoining public walking/biking pathway along the northeast side of Diaz Road.

However, these would be replaced in the currently undeveloped buffer area between Diaz Road and Murrieta Creek. The analysis associated with constructing these facilities is included this document.

Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Impacts to recreation would be less than significant.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
57 XVII. Transportation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
   
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
   
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
   
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?    

The following analysis is based on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed project by DEA (DEA 2020b; Appendix H) and a project‐specific Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Urban Crossroads 2021, Appendix I). a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. A TIA was prepared for the project (DEA 2020b) to describe the existing roadway and intersection functions under current conditions and to analyze future roadway and intersection functions following implementation of the proposed project, which involves improving Diaz Road from two lanes to four lanes between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road. The City’s General Plan Circulation Element classifies Diaz Road as a Major Arterial (4 Lanes Divided), per City Standard No. 101. The typical cross‐section calls for a 100‐foot minimum right‐of‐way, 76‐foot roadway with a 14‐foot raised median, and 12‐foot parkways on each side of the road. This segment of Diaz Road would complete the City’s only existing north‐south corridor west of Murrieta Creek. In addition, per the City’s Circulation Element, project intersections shall be designed to include two through lanes, two left‐turn lanes, and one right‐turn lane. The study is summarized below, and the complete TIA is included as Appendix H of this Initial Study.

Roadway segment and intersection operating conditions are typically described in terms of level of service (LOS). LOS is a scale used to indicate the quality of traffic flow on roadway segments and at intersections, with a range from LOS A (free flow, little congestion) to LOS F (forced flow, extreme congestion). The City General Plan Circulation Element (City 2005) identifies LOS E as the acceptable LOS for roadway segment operations and LOS D as the acceptable LOS for peak hour intersection operations.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
58 Existing Operations
Intersections
Intersection operations under existing conditions are shown in Table 11, Existing Intersection Operations. As shown in the table, one intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS under existing conditions, Diaz Road at Via Montezuma.

Table 11

EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection Peak Hour Existing
Delay1
Existing
LOS2
Diaz Road at Rancho California Road AM 36.2 D
PM 39.4 D
Diaz Road at Rancho Way AM 8.0 A
PM 4.3 A
Diaz Road at Via Montezuma AM 44.5 E
PM 28.4 D
Diaz Road at Avenue Alvarado AM 13.5 B
PM 13.2 B
Diaz Road at Winchester Road AM 29.4 C
PM 17.8 B
Source: David Evans and Associates, Inc. 2020b
1 Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle
2 Level of Service

Roadway Segments
Roadway segment operations under the existing conditions are shown in Table 12, Existing Roadway Segment Operations. As shown in Table 12, all five roadway segments operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS E or better) under existing conditions. In addition, the project would improve the roadway segments LOS.

Table 12

EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Intersection Classification Capacity Existing
ADT
Existing
LOS
Rancho California Road to 1,600 feet +/-
north of Rancho California Road
Major Arterial
(4 Lanes Divided)
36,000 8,800 E or better
1,600 feet +/- north of Rancho California
Road to Via Montezuma
Major Arterial
(4 Lanes Divided)
36,000 9,000 E or better
Via Montezuma to 300 feett south of
Avenue Alvarado/Overland Drive
Limited Secondary
Arterial
(2 Lanes Divided)
16,000 9,100 E or better
South of Avenue Alvarado/Overland Drive
to Dendy Parkway
Major Arterial
(4 Lanes Divided)
36,000 3,700 E or better
Dendy Parkway to Cherry Street Future Segment NA NA NA

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
59 Long-Term Year 2040 Scenario
To determine intersection and roadway segment operations under the Long-Term Year 2040 scenario, the TIA used forecasted regional growth from the Riverside County Travel Analysis Model (RIVTAM) travel demand forecasting model.

Intersections
Intersection operations under the Long-Term Year 2040 scenario are shown in Table 13, Long-Term Year 2040 Intersection Operations. As shown in the table, three intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS E) under the Long-Term Year 2040 scenario without the project:
• Diaz Road/Rancho Way intersection;
• Diaz Road/Via Montezuma intersection; and
• Diaz Road/Avenue Alvarado intersection.

Under the Long-Term Year 2040 With Project scenario, all intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS. The project would reduce delays at these intersection during the AM and PM peak hour scenarios. Therefore, no impacts would occur to the intersections under the Long-Term Year 2040 With Project scenario.

Table 13
LONG-TERM YEAR 2040 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection Peak
Hour
Long-Term
Year 2040
Delay1
Long-Term
Year 2040
LOS2
Long-Term
Year 2040
With Project
Delay
Long-Term
Year 2040
With Project
LOS
∆
Delay3
Diaz Road/ AM 40.4 D 37.8 D -2.6
Rancho California Road PM 39.6 D 36.6 D -3.0
Diaz Road/ AM 56.8 E 33.5 C -23.3
Rancho Way PM 38.4 D 31.9 C -6.5
Diaz Road/ AM 5253.5 F -- -- N/A
Via Montezuma PM 353.7 F -- -- N/A
Diaz Road/ AM 633.8 F 41.9 D -591.1
Avenue Alvarado PM 360.5 F 37.0 D -323.0
Diaz Road/ AM 36.9 D 36.0 D -0.9
Winchester Road PM 35.4 D 32.0 D -3.4
Diaz Road/ AM 9.7 A 9.2 A -0.5
Dendy Parkway PM 9.6 A 9.1 A -0.5
Source: David Evans and Associates, Inc. 2020b
1 Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle
2 Level of Service
3 Change in delay due to project
N/A = not applicable

Roadway Segments
Roadway segment operations under the Long-Term Year 2040 scenario are shown in Table 14, Long- Term Year 2040 Roadway Segment Operations. As shown in Table 14, all five roadway segments would operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS E or better) under the Long-Term Year 2040 Without Project

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
60 scenario. Under the Year 2040 With Project scenario, the same five roadway segments would operate at an acceptable LOS. This analysis concludes that intersections on Diaz Road, rather than the roadway segments themselves, are the choke points requiring expansion of Diaz Road. Despite growth in traffic volumes, all segments of Diaz Road would operate under the capacity of a major four lane arterial.

Therefore, no impacts to roadway segments would occur under the Long-Term Year 2040 scenario.

Table 14
LONG-TERM YEAR 2040 ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Intersection Classification Capacity Existing
ADT
Existing
LOS
Rancho California Road to 1,600 feet
+/- north of Rancho California Road
Major Arterial
(4 Lanes Divided)
36,000 8,900 E or better
1,600 feet +/- north of Rancho
California Road to Via Montezuma
Major Arterial
(4 Lanes Divided)
36,000 14,300 E or better
Via Montezuma to 300 feet south of
Avenue Alvarado / Overland Drive
Major Arterial
(4 Lanes Divided)
36,000 13,400 E or better
South of Avenue Alvarado /
Overland Drive to Dendy Parkway
Major Arterial
(4 Lanes Divided)
36,000 7,000 E or better
Dendy Parkway to Cherry Street Major Arterial
(4 Lanes Divided)
36,000 4,500 E or better

With regard to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and alternative transportation, the project would maintain public access during construction to allow for continued use of the right-of-way by pedestrians and cyclists. With regard to the Murrieta Creek Regional Trail, the construction specifications will require that the contractor maintain access to the trail at all times to the extent feasible. Any temporary closures to portions of the trail would require approval by the City Engineer and would only be allowed when necessary to perform work in the immediate area or for public safety purposes. The duration of any temporary closures would be minimized. Use of alternative transportation such as transit and ridesharing services would not be notably affected, as traffic access would also be maintained throughout construction activities. Once constructed, the new relocated regional trail and new parkway facilities would provide enhanced access for pedestrian and bicycle users, while the expanded roadway would facilitate transportation via transit and ridesharing services, to the extent these are already available in the project area.

Overall, the widening of Diaz Road would result in improved traffic operations in both the near-term and long-term timeframes. The volume-to-capacity ratios would be improved, allowing for a more efficient and effective circulation system, including improvements to alternative transportation facilities. As such, the project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact. The analysis of VMT in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 provides that transportation impacts of projects are, in general, best measured by evaluating the project's VMT.

VMT reflects both the number and the distance of the trips taken. Construction activities would require the delivery of construction equipment and materials to the project site, in addition to the

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
61 removal of construction waste from the site; however, such trips would be both brief and infrequent; as such, construction-related VMT impact would be less than significant.

As relates to long-term operational VMT impacts, according to the VMT analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads (2020, Appendix I of this Draft IS/MND), the City’s guidelines state that the threshold of significance for VMT impacts related to a transportation project is a net increase in total existing VMT for the area. Temecula is located in western Riverside County, which is also known as the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Region. Consistent with Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018) recommendations, it is appropriate to measure the total net change in VMT related to the implementation of a transportation project like the proposed project. To determine whether or not there is a significant impact, the WRCOG Region’s total VMT with the project’s proposed additional lanes is compared to without project conditions. The WRCOG Region without Project lanes is estimated at 45,506,338, whereas with the Project’s additional lanes, the WRCOG Region VMT is estimated at 45,503,455. Because the project results in a cumulative sub-region VMT decrease under the project condition compared to the no project condition, the project’s effect on VMT is not considered significant. As such, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 and impacts would be less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. During construction, a Traffic Control Plan would be implemented to maintain safe roadway conditions for travelers along Diaz Road. Upon completion of construction, the proposed median, streetlights, bike lanes, and sidewalks would minimize hazards to vehicular travelers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. During construction, certain lanes and/or parts of the roadway may be closed to vehicular traffic; however, a Traffic Control Plan would be implemented and would maintain adequate access to areas along portions of Diaz Road. Upon completion of construction, the improved roadway would include more lanes and would therefore allow for improved access to the surrounding areas. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
62 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to
a California Native American tribe, and that
is:

i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
   
ii. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
   

The following analysis is based on the Cultural Resources Study prepared for the proposed project by HELIX (2020b; Appendix C). City correspondence with affected tribal groups as part of the AB 52 consultation process are provided in Appendix J of this Draft IS/MND. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
63 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subdivision (k) of Public Resources Code Section 5020.1, or determined to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. As discussed in response V.b, cultural resources (including tribal cultural resources) may be present within the project alignment based on the presence of young alluvial deposits, the NAHC’s indication of the area’s cultural sensitivity, and tribal importance of the project area. Grading and other ground-disturbing activities would therefore have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, and impacts would be potentially significant. Therefore, the project would implement an archaeological and Native American monitoring program, as detailed in mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-5, which would reduce potentially significant impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less-than-significant level.

XIX. Utilities and Service Systems

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
   
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
   
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
   
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
   
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
   

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
64 a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not generate wastewater, require wastewater service, or result in the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities. The project would use a minimal amount of water required for dust control during the temporary construction period and landscaping during project operation; the project would not require a substantial water supply that would require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. However, the proposed project would include the construction of storm drains within the project alignment. In addition, the project would infringe upon several small fenced/walled enclosures containing existing utility and water infrastructure (i.e., wells, piping, tanks, and small outbuildings) on the northeast side of Diaz Road. These facilities would be entirely reconstructed in the existing buffer zone adjacent to the roadway. Since the project would return the utility infrastructure to preconstruction conditions, impacts would be less than significant. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant Impact. The project would use a minimal amount of water required for dust control during the temporary construction period and landscaping during project operation. The project would not require a substantial water supply, and sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project in the reasonably foreseeable future during normal, dry and multiple dry years.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact. The proposed project would not require wastewater service. Therefore, the project would not exceed the wastewater capacity of the local wastewater treatment provider. No impact would occur.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No Impact. The proposed project would generate a minimal amount of construction waste. All non- recyclable solid waste generated during construction would be taken to a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity. During operation, the project would not generate substantial solid waste; the limited waste generated along public roadways is typically diffuse litter. As a result, the proposed project would have a negligible effect on landfill capacity. Based on this small quantity of material, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of federal, state, and local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
65 e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The proposed project would generate a minimal amount of construction waste and no ongoing operational waste. Concrete and asphalt waste would be recycled and reused to the extent feasible to limit the volume of construction wastes requiring off-site disposal. Solid waste produced by the proposed project would be disposed of at a properly permitted facility in accordance with federal, state, and local laws. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

XX. Wildfire

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?    
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
   
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
   
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
   

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact. Emergency management services are overseen by the Temecula Fire Department composed of one Division Chief, two Battalion Chiefs, and sixty firefighting personnel that serve from five fire stations located within the city limits. The closest station to the project area is at 27415 Enterprise Circle West, south of Winchester Road and east of Diaz Road. The Temecula Fire Department fire engines are all four-person staffed, paramedic assessment engines, which ensures that a minimum of one paramedic and three emergency medical technician (EMT)- level personnel at the scene of all emergencies (City 2020).

Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project would temporarily restrict access for emergency vehicles due to the closure of segments of Diaz Road while under construction. However, construction would be required to comply with the County of Riverside’s Emergency Operations Plan to ensure the appropriate emergency access by means of adjacent

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
66 roadways. Furthermore, a Traffic Control Plan would be implemented to identify traffic control measures through the duration of project construction activities. Operations associated with the widened roadway would be similar to existing conditions, but would provide incrementally increased traffic capacity to accommodate future traffic volumes, which would also facilitate emergency response and evacuation activities in the project area. As such, implementation of the project would not impair an emergency response or evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than Significant Impact. The City is subject to both wildland and urban fires due to its climate, topography, and native vegetation. The extended droughts characteristic of the region’s Mediterranean climate and increasingly severe dry periods associated with global warming result in large areas of dry native vegetation that provide fuel for wildland fires. State law requires that all local jurisdictions identify VHFHSZs within their areas of responsibility (California Government Code Sections 51175–51189). Inclusion within these zones is based on vegetation density, slope severity, and other relevant factors that contribute to fire severity.

The project site is not located within or near an area designated as a state responsibility area (CAL FIRE, 2007, 2011) nor is it classified as or located near a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2007, 2011). The project site is mapped as Non-VHFHSZ per the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps prepared under the FRAP. According to the VHFHSZ Maps prepared by the City in collaboration with CAL FIRE, the nearest VHFHSZ is located approximately one mile west of the project near the City’s western boundary. In addition, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the City’s population which could potentially result in the expose of additional people. As a result, project implementation would not exacerbate wildlife risk, and impacts would be less than significant. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less than Significant Impact. As stated above in item XX.a, the project site is not located within a VHFHSZ so the site is not considered to be at a great risk for wildfires (CAL FIRE 2007, 2011). The proposed project includes the expansion of an existing roadway, which would infringe upon public walking and biking pathways as well as several small fenced/walled enclosures containing existing utility and water infrastructure (i.e., wells, piping, tanks, and small outbuildings). However, the majority of the land impacted by the roadway expansion is currently undeveloped. While the project would relocate the impacted utility infrastructure and public walking and biking pathways, such activities would not exacerbate wildfire risk as they would be installed in the existing buffer zone adjacent to the roadway. Operation and maintenance of the project would not differ from the current usage as a public right-of-way. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. No impacts would occur.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
67 d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less than Significant Impact. As stated in item XX.a, above, the project site is not located within a VHFHSZ so the site is not considered to be at a great risk for wildfires (CAL FIRE 2007, 2011).

Additionally, the project would include construction BMPs which would minimize impacts related to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, including maintaining the existing slope near Murrieta Creek and providing silt fences where applicable. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
   
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of past, present and probable future
projects)?
   
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
   

a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Although no burrowing owls or burrowing owl signs were observed on the project alignment or potential off-site staging areas, the project alignment does contain on-site burrows with potential to support burrowing owl. In addition, LBV and SWFL

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
68 were observed within the study area. The project alignment also contains vegetation that may provide nesting habitat for migratory birds, which are protected under the MBTA and could be affected if construction occurs during the breeding season. Mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl, LBV, SWFL, and migratory birds to a less-than-significant level. The project would also implement mitigation measures BIO-6 and BIO-7 to ensure consistency with the Western Riverside MSHCP. Therefore, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. Although cultural and tribal cultural resources were not identified within the project alignment, the potential for such resources exists due to the sensitivity of the area. Therefore, the project would implement mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-5 to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Similarly, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be addressed through implementation of mitigation measures PAL-1 and PAL-2; as such, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Only one project has been identified to potentially occur within the vicinity of the project alignment during the time of the proposed construction. This project, the Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Project, would extend Overland Drive from its existing southwestern terminus at Enterprise Circle West across Murrieta Creek to connect with Diaz Road. While the timing of implementation of this project has not been determined, its construction would entail activities similar in nature to the proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project but would be more limited in terms of footprint and duration. If the bridge project and proposed project were constructed concurrently, there would be the potential for additive effects in the vicinity of the bridge location. However, it is not anticipated that these additive effects would result in significant cumulative impacts given the mitigation measures that would be required to be implemented for both projects. Such measures, as well as compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, would limit the individual impacts of each project such that even if performed concurrently the combined impacts would not be significant. Further, because both projects would be undertaken by the City, the activities of each project would be coordinated as to minimize the potential for cumulative impacts to occur. Potential impacts have been identified in the categories of biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils (including paleontological resources), and Tribal Cultural Resources. The evaluation contained in this document determined that potential impacts to the environment can be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the identified mitigation measures.

Based on data provided in this document, including the type of project proposed and its location, it is concluded that implementation of the proposed project will not result in impacts that are either individually or cumulatively considerable or significant when viewed in relation to past, present or probable future projects.
c) Have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project will not result in any identifiable substantial adverse effects on humans either directly or indirectly. The goal of the proposed Project is to provide better circulation within the City of Temecula as envisioned by the City’s General Plan. Exposure to environmental effects associated with geology and soils (e.g., seismic

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
69 shaking and liquefaction) may result in substantial adverse effects to humans. Implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 would ensure adherence to regulatory codes, ordinances, regulations, standards, and guidelines for geology and soils. With implementation of the required mitigation no substantial adverse effect to humans will result from carrying out the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts from construction and operation of the proposed project to human beings would be less than significant with mitigation.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
70 4.0 References
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) 2009 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA As Recommended by CAL FIRE, Murrieta.

December 21.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2018 List of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways. Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/Configuration/Error-Pages/Error-404- Page?item=%2fprograms%2fdesign%2flandscape-architecture- programs&user=extranet%5cAnonymous&site=Caltrans. Accessed October 17, 2018. 2013 Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. September.

Coffman Associates, Inc.
2009 Airport Master Plan for French Valley Airport, Riverside County, California. Draft Final Technical Report. April.

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
2020 EnviroStor. Available from: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ .

David Evans and Associates
2020a Geotechnical Design Report Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW 17-25) City of Temecula, California. July 6.
2020b Traffic Impact Analysis for Diaz Road Widening Project. June 26.

Dudek and Associates
2003 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Final MSHCP, Volume I. Prepared for the County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency. Approved June 17.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
2020 FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=murrieta#searchresultsanchor .

Accessed October 12, 2021.

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX)
2021 General Biological Resources Assessment. July.
2020a Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment for Diaz Road Extension Project. October. 2020b Diaz Road Extension Project Cultural Resources Survey. September. 2020c Diaz Road Expansion Project Acoustical Analysis Report. December.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
71 Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Leighton)
2020 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Between Rancho California Road and Cherry Street Temecula, California 92590.

February 11.

Paleo Solutions, Inc. (Paleo Solutions)
2020 Paleontological Technical Study - Diaz Road Expansion Project. June 5.

Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. October 14.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) 2016 Roadway Construction Emissions Model Version 8.1.0. Available at:
http://www.airquality.org/businesses/ceqa-land-use-planning/ceqa-guidance-tools .

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
2017 SCAQMD Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. March. 2015 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. March. Available at:
www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 2010 Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15 (slide presentation). Diamond Bar, CA. SCAQMD. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/2010/sept28mtg/ghgmtg15-web.pdf .

September 28.
2009 Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds Look-up Tables. October. Available at:
www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook (as amended).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
2020 GeoTracker. Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ .

Urban Crossroads, Inc.
2021 Dias Road Widening RIVTAM Modeling and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Calculations.

May 6.

U.S. Department of Agriculture
2017 Web Soil Survey. Accessed October 8, 2020. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm .

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
72 5.0 Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND
A Notice of Intent to adopt a MND was posted at the project site, published in The Press-Enterprise newspaper, and filed with the Riverside County Clerk on January 31, 2022. The Draft IS/MND was submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and circulated for a 30-day public review period beginning January 31, 2022, ending March 1, 2022 (SCH No. 2022010554). Written comments were received on the Draft IS/MND from Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD), and Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). The comment letters and responses to the comments follow.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

73 A-1

A-2

A-1 The commenter provides an introduction to the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and the comments presented in the comment letter to follow.

A-2 The commenter suggests that the proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project would increase impervious surface area within the area tributary to Murrieta Creek and therefore would contribute to an existing drainage impact, and further, that this impact must be addressed in the City’s CEQA document. However, as discussed in Responses to Comments A-3 and A-5 below, implementation of the project would not notably change the existing drainage conditions upstream of Diaz Road.

The commenter also describes flooding events at the Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF) to provide background on the general drainage conditions at that facility and surrounding area. The commenter further asserts that these flooding events and drainage conditions are due in part to inadequate conveyance capacity in drainage facilities serving the TVRWRF, including facilities that convey stormwater to the east under existing Diaz Road to their respective discharge points at Murrieta Creek.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

74 A-3

A-4

A-5

A-3 The commenter notes that the Draft IS/MND describes the future installation of stormwater facilities including storm drains, catch basins, and other facilities in compliance with applicable regulations and also acknowledges the incremental increase in overall impervious surface area within the project site that would result from project implementation. The commenter then suggests that the Draft IS/MND states that the project would result in increased surface drainage that would be conveyed to planned facilities but does not provide adequate information to conclude that the increased runoff would not result in a significant drainage impact. However, such details as requested by the commenter were not available at the time the Draft IS/MND was prepared and thus specific design for stormwater facilities were not provided. Nonetheless, future stormwater facilities constructed as part of the project would be required, as noted in the Draft IS/MND, to adequately capture and convey the increased flows from the project, irrespective of the specific design of such facilities. Further, only a very small fraction of the increased impervious surface area associated with the project would be tributary to the culverts or earthen channel cited by the commenter (i.e., contributing drainage to the west side of Diaz Road requiring conveyance under the street to outlet at Murrieta Creek). The vast majority of the increased impervious surface and potential surface drainage would occur on the east side of Diaz Road (i.e., would not be combined with upstream flows including those from the TVRWRF that flow under Diaz Road). As such, while the project would contribute a very minute incremental amount of additional stormwater volume to the channel and culverts crossing under Diaz Road, the issues cited by the commenter are associated with an existing hydrologic condition which would be minimally impacted by project implementation.

A-4 The commenter cites a technical study prepared for EMWD regarding the existing flooding and drainage conditions at the TVRWRF and indicates that the study notes the existing drainage channel is unmaintained and undersized, which potentially leads to stormwater backup and overflowing over Diaz Road, thereby leading to flooding at the TVRWRF as has occurred in the past during large storm events. However, this existing condition is not a result of the Diaz Road project and would be

Continued on next page

COMMENTS RESPONSES

75 A-5
cont.

A-6

A-7

minimally affected by project implementation given the anticipated future drainage improvements for the Diaz Road project, which would convey almost all project-related stormwater flows directly to Murrieta Creek.

A-5 The commenter suggests that the lack of details regarding future stormwater facilities for the project would preclude the City from making the determination and flooding impacts of the project would be less than significant. To the contrary, however, as noted above in Response to Comment A-3 and in the Draft IS/MND, all future stormwater facilities would be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable stormwater regulations and permit requirements to the satisfaction of various agencies, including the City, Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). While the specific location and design of these facilities has not been determined at this stage of the project, such facilities would be required to adequately convey all project-related flows subject to review and approval by these agencies. Therefore, because the project would not exceed the capacity of stormwater facilities serving the project site given compliance with applicable regulations and the agency review/approval process, regardless of the upstream flooding conditions, impacts were concluded to be less than significant. In addition, CEQA requires that a project mitigate impacts that are a result of that project, and not to address existing conditions not caused by the project itself or in conjunction with other current, future, or probably future projects (i.e., cumulative effects).

Furthermore, mitigation measures, when required for a project, must directly address the impact at issue and must also be proportional to the impact caused by the project. As such, because the project is not causing the flooding impact cited by the commenter, and thus does not warrant mitigation, the City is not obligated to alleviate the existing upstream flooding conditions as part of the Diaz Road project, as suggested by the commenter.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

76 A-6 The commenter indicates that flooding of the TVRWRF could potentially continue to occur and that it would be exacerbated by project implementation, thereby causing damage to the TVRWRF resulting in impacts to the plant’s operation or potential sewage spills. However, this assertion is based on the assumption that the Diaz Road Expansion.

Project would, in fact, measurably increase the potential for flooding at the TVRWRF. For reasons noted above in Responses to Comments A-3 and A-5, the project is not anticipated to contribute notable stormwater flows to the facilities cited by the commenter as having capacity issues that have led to past flooding events at the TVRWRF. While the minor increase in impervious surface area along the west side of Diaz Road associated with the project would incrementally increase stormwater flows tributary to the earthen channel and culvert(s) in that location, the contribution to the overall flow volume at this location would be minimal compared to the upstream flows being conveyed through and generated on the TVRWRF property. The project’s de minimis increase in stormwater flows at this location would not result in a substantial increase in the potential for flooding or other adverse effects relative to existing conditions. Therefore, impacts associated with flooding and stormwater conveyance were concluded in the Draft IS/MND to be less than significant. Accordingly, the project would not be required to mitigate impacts in this regard and would not be required to improve the existing culvert(s) or channel as suggested by the commenter.

A-7 The commenter provides a concluding statement regarding the comments provided in this letter.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

77 COMMENTS RESPONSES

78 COMMENTS RESPONSES

79 B-1

B-2

B-1 The commenter provides an introduction to the comments contained in the comment letter, and also provides a brief summary of the proposed project. Because this comment does not raise a substantive issue regarding the project or the analysis presented in the Draft IS/MND, no further comment is warranted.

B-2 The commenter notes that the RCFC&WCD has jurisdiction over Murrieta Creek, and thus any work in areas within its jurisdiction will require the issuance of an encroachment permit, which requires review and approval of various documents. These documents include CEQA documentation, regulatory permits, nesting bird plan, and potentially other documents.

The commenter also indicates that the RCFC&WCD should be listed as a Responsible Agency in the Final IS/MND. The City will provide all necessary documentation and permits to the RCFC&WCD as part of the review and permitting process, as requested by the commenter, and comply with all permit conditions. Because this comment does not raise a substantive issue regarding the project or the analysis presented in the Draft IS/MND, no further comment is warranted.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

80 B-2
cont.

B-3

B-3 The commenter provides additional information to assist the City with future permitting efforts and also provides a concluding statement regarding the comments provided in the letter. Because this comment does not raise a substantive issue regarding the project or the analysis presented in the Draft IS/MND, no further comment is warranted.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

81 C-1

C-1 The commenter acknowledges receipt and review of the project plans and documentation but offers no other comments. Because this comment does not raise a substantive issue regarding the project or the analysis presented in the Draft IS/MND, no further comment is warranted.

Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022
82 This page intentionally left blank

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
619.462.1515 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com

October 5, 2020 DEA-12

Mr. Gavin Powell, PE
David Evans and Associates, Inc
41951 Remington Avenue, Suite 220
Temecula, CA 92590

Subject: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment for Diaz Road Extension Project, City of Temecula, CA
Dear Mr. Powell,
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) has assessed air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Diaz Road Extension Project (project). In addition, the analysis also addresses impacts to sensitive receptors from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs).

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

PROJECT LOCATION
The project is located in the City of Temecula (City) in southwestern Riverside County. The project is located south of the Interstate 215 (I-215) and Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange and west of I-15, within Township 7 South Range 3 West and Township 8 South Range 3 West of the Temecula Land Grant, on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5' Murrieta quadrangle. The approximately 2.2-linear mile project site is bordered by Rancho California Road to the south, Cherry Street to the north, and Murrieta Creek to the east. The Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) identified as being associated with the project site include segments of Diaz Road (APNs 909-120-006 and 909-370-050), the walking/biking pathway adjoining northeast of Diaz Road (APNs 921-740-004 and -005, and 909-120-016, -021, -040, -051 and -055), and several small walled/fenced enclosures containing utility and water company infrastructure along the northeast side of Diaz Road at several locations between Rancho California Road and Cherry Street (APNs 909-370- 051, 909-120-044 and -056, and 921-740-002).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes to improve Diaz Road to meet the roadway classification requirements of a major arterial with four divided lanes, as specified by City Standard No. 101, between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road. The standards call for a 100-foot minimum right-of-way, 76-foot roadway with a 14-foot raised median, and 12-foot parkways on each side of the road. The approximately 2.2-mile segment would be improved on its current horizontal alignment and as depicted in the City’s General

Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 2 of 18
October 5, 2020

Plan, Circulation Element, Figure C-2 Roadway Plan. As such, the proposed project would widen the existing Diaz Road segment and extend the northwestern end of Cherry Street. The project would complete the City’s only existing north-south corridor west of Murrieta Creek. North of Cherry Street, this north-south corridor is planned to continue as Washington Avenue within the City of Murrieta.

The project site encompasses the existing Diaz Road segment between Rancho California Road to the south and Cherry Street to the north, and the adjacent areas into which the roadways would be widened. At the northernmost end of the project site (from Dendy Parkway to Cherry Street), Diaz Road transitions to an unimproved dirt road. All widening activities would occur on the northeast side of Diaz Road, which would infringe upon public walking and biking pathways as well as several small fenced/walled enclosures containing existing utility and water infrastructure (i.e., wells, piping, tanks, and small outbuildings). With the exception of the small outbuildings in these utility enclosures, there are no existing buildings on the project site. Land uses at the project site include mostly existing public roadway, a small portion of dirt road, portions of an adjoining public walking/biking pathway, and some undeveloped land. Land uses in the vicinity of the project site consist of industrial and commercial developments to the west and south, Murrieta Creek and public walking/biking pathways to the northeast, and mostly undeveloped land to the north. The elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 1,000 to 1,040 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and the topography is relatively flat as a graded roadway, with an overall downward slope toward the southeast, and some localized sloping toward Murrieta Creek, which is located 200 feet to the northeast.

Signing and striping improvements for intersecting streets would be provided to the extent necessary to safely transition lane configurations and turning movements to existing improvements. These improvements would be in accordance with the latest edition(s) of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and the City’s requirements and specifications. Signal modifications would be needed at the intersection of Winchester Road and Rancho Way to accommodate revised turning movements and the Diaz Road widening. Landscape and planting improvements would include decorative rock, boulders and hardscape improvements for the center median, easterly parkway, and westerly parkway where existing landscape improvements do not exist. The median and parkway improvements would be in accordance with the City’s landscape guidelines. In addition, streetlights would be installed as appropriate according to the City’s design standards for type, location, and spacing. Storm drains would also be installed as appropriate along the expanded roadway to include catch basins and low impact development improvements.

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
Construction would commence as early as January 2021 and require approximately 16 months to complete. Construction activities would include site preparation, demolition of existing roadway, grading, installation of drainage and utilities, retaining walls, and paving. During construction, material such as vegetation, soil, old asphalt and concrete may be exported from the site and material such as soil, aggregate, asphalt and concrete may be imported to the site. Table 1, Phases and Material Import/Export, shows the anticipated construction phases, lengths, and amount of material imported or exported to/from the project site.

Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 3 of 18
October 5, 2020

Table 1

PHASES AND MATERIAL IMPORT/EXPORT
Phase Phase Length
(workdays)
Import Volume
(CY per Day)
Export Volume
(CY per Day)
Grubbing/Land Clearing 35 0 433
Grading/Excavation 158 55 293
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-grade/Retaining Wall 106 205 60
Paving 53 151 0
CY = cubic yards

The project’s construction emissions were estimated using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s (SMAQMD) Roadway Construction Emissions Model (RCEM), version 9.0 (SMAQMD 2018). This model utilizes the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2017 EMFAC and OFFROAD data to calculate vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust emissions. Emission estimates assume the use of water trucks, yielding a 50 percent control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures to meet the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Rule 403, Fugitive Dust (SCAQMD 2005). Project-specific input was based on general project information, assumptions provided by the project engineers, and default model settings to estimate reasonably conservative conditions. Fugitive dust emissions are calculated using the estimated maximum area (acres) of land disturbed daily, approximately 1 acre per day for the project. Roadway widening construction would disturb a total of 12 acres over approximately 16 months (352 working days).

Construction would require the use of off-road equipment. Because the off-road equipment required for construction of the project had not been determined at the time of this analysis, the RCEM default equipment for a road widening project was used in the modeling. Table 2, Construction Equipment Assumptions, presents a summary of the assumed equipment that would be involved in each stage of construction.

Table 2

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Phase Equipment Number Horsepower
Grubbing/Land Clearing
Crawler Tractors 1 212
Excavators 2 158
Signal Boards 5 6
Grading/Excavation
Crawler Tractors 1 212
Excavators 3 158
Graders 2 187
Rollers 2 80
Rubber Tired Loaders 1 203
Scrapers 2 367
Signal Boards 5 6
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 97

Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 4 of 18
October 5, 2020

Table 2 (cont.)

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Phase Equipment Number Horsepower
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-grade/
Retaining Wall
Air Compressors 1 78
Generator Sets 1 84
Graders 1 187
Plate Compactors 1 8
Pumps 1 84
Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 100
Scrapers 1 367
Signal Boards 5 6
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 97
Paving
Pavers 1 130
Paving Equipment 1 132
Rollers 2 80
Signal Boards 5 6
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 97
Source: RCEM

PROJECT OPERATION METHODLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
The project’s operational emissions resulting from the change in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were estimated using emission factor data for off-road equipment in Riverside County from the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Mobile Source Emissions and Emission Rates Database EMFAC2017 (CARB 2020). The emission factors were multiplied by the estimated change in VMT as a result of the project, as reported in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA; David Evans and Associates [DEA] 2020).

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

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

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

At night, the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling toward the sea. Local canyons can also alter wind direction, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SCAB is hampered by the presence of persistent temperature inversions. High pressure systems, such as the semi-permanent high-pressure zone in which the SCAB is located, are characterized by an upper layer of dry air that warms as it descends, restricting the mobility of cooler marine- influenced air near the ground surface, and resulting in the formation of subsidence inversions. Such

Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 5 of 18
October 5, 2020

inversions restrict the vertical dispersion of air pollutants released into the marine layer and, together with strong sunlight, can produce worst-case conditions for the formation of photochemical smog. The basin-wide occurrence of inversions at 3,500 feet above mean sea level or less averages 191 days per year (SCAQMD 1993).

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

As permitted by the Clean Air Act, California has adopted the more stringent California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) and expanded the number of regulated air constituents. Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the environment but is generated from complex chemical and photochemical reactions between precursor pollutants, primarily reactive organic gases (ROGs; also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs]), 1 and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). PM10 and PM2.5 are generated from a variety of sources, including road dust, diesel exhaust, fuel combustion, tire and brake wear, construction operations and windblown dust. In addition, PM10 and PM2.5 can also be formed through chemical and photochemical reactions of precursor pollutants in the atmosphere.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for the ambient air quality standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations do not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once. The air quality attainment status of the SCAB is shown in Table 3, South Coast Air Basin – Attainment Status.

1 CARB defines and uses the term ROGs while the USEPA defines and uses the term VOCs. The compounds included in the lists of ROGs and VOCs and the methods of calculation are slightly different. However, for the purposes of estimating criteria pollutant precursor emissions, the two terms are often used interchangeably.

Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 6 of 18
October 5, 2020

Table 3
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN – ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant Federal Attainment Status State of California Attainment Status
1-hour Ozone (O3) (No federal standard) Nonattainment
8-hour Ozone (O3) Extreme Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment (Maintenance) Attainment Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Attainment (Maintenance) Nonattainment Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment (Maintenance) Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment
Lead (Pb) Attainment Attainment
Sulfates (No federal standard) Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (No federal standard) Attainment
Visibility (No federal standard) Attainment
Source: SCAQMD 2016

The SCAB is currently in nonattainment for federal and/or state ozone (O3), suspended particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards. Concentrations of all other pollutants meet state and federal standards.

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 7 of 18
October 5, 2020

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

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

Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, including both gaseous and solid material. The solid material in diesel exhaust is known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). Almost all DPM is 10 microns or less in diameter, and 90 percent of DPM is less than 2.5 microns in diameter (CARB 2018).

Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. In 1998, CARB identified DPM as a TAC based on published evidence of a relationship between diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer and other adverse health effects. DPM has a significant impact on California’s population—it is estimated that about 70 percent of total known cancer risk related to air toxics in California is attributable to DPM (CARB 2018).

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

The project site is located in a commercial and industrial area with no adjacent sensitive land uses. The closest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are multi- and single-family homes approximately 1,600 feet (0.30 mile) south of Rancho California Road. The closest school (with students under 14) to the project site is the Temecula Elementary School, approximately 4,900 feet (0.93 mile) to the east.

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

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to assess the regional and

Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 8 of 18
October 5, 2020

localized impacts of project-related air pollutant emissions. The significance thresholds are updated, as needed, to appropriately represent the most current technical information and attainment status in the SCAB. Table 4, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, presents the most current significance thresholds, including regional daily thresholds for short-term construction and long-term operational emissions; maximum incremental cancer risk and hazard indices for TACs; and maximum ambient concentrations for exposure of sensitive receptors to localized pollutants. A project with daily emission rates, risk values, or concentrations below these thresholds is generally considered to have a less than significant effect on air quality.

Table 4

SCAQMD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Construction Operation
Mass Daily Thresholds (lbs/day)
VOC 75 55
NOX 100 55
CO 550 550
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOX 150 150
Lead 3 3
Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment)
Ambient Air Quality for Criteria Pollutants
NO2
1-hour average ≥ 0.18 ppm
Annual average ≥ 0.03 ppm
CO 1-hour average ≥ 20.0 ppm (state)
8-hour average ≥ 9.0 ppm (state/federal)
PM10
24-hour average ≥ 10.4 µg/m3 (construction)
24-hour average ≥ 2.5 µg/m3 (operation)
Annual average ≥ 1.0 µg/m3
PM2.5
24-hour average ≥ 10.4 µg/m3 (construction)
24-hour average ≥ 2.5 µg/m3 (operation)
SO2 24-hour average ≥ 25 µg/m3
Source: SCAQMD 2019
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SOX = sulfur oxides; TACs = toxic air contaminants; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; ppm = parts per million; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

Project Air Quality Analysis
(1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties, and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, economy, community development, and environment. With regard to air quality

Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 9 of 18
October 5, 2020

planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), a long-range transportation plan that uses growth forecasts to project trends out over a 20-year period to identify regional transportation strategies to address mobility needs. These growth forecasts form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. These documents are utilized in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in the AQMP. Both the RTP/SCS and AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with County and City General Plans.2
The two principal criteria for determining conformance to the AQMP are:

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

2. Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP.

With respect to the first criterion, the analyses presented below demonstrate that the project would not generate short-term or long-term emissions that could potentially cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay timely attainment of air quality standards.

With respect to the second criterion, the proposed project is improving and widening a roadway and would not result in population or employment increases and, therefore, would not exceed the growth projection assumptions in the AQMP. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the City General Plan Circulation Element roadway design guidelines. The project would support the City General Plan Policy 3.3 by providing Class II bicycle lanes along both sides of Diaz Road, and Policy 3.5 by providing space for future bus stops along Diaz Road.

2 SCAG serves as the federally designated metropolitan planning organization for the southern California region.

Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 10 of 18
October 5, 2020

• Dust (including PM10 and PM2.5) primarily from fugitive sources such as soil disturbance and vehicle travel over unpaved surfaces; and
• Combustion emissions of air pollutants (including ROG, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and sulfur oxides [SOX]), primarily from operation of heavy off-road equipment.

The results of the calculations for project construction are shown in Table 5, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with the SCAQMD thresholds, the model output is included as Attachment A to this letter.

As shown in Table 5, the project’s construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The impact would be less than significant.

Table 5

MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Phase Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation/Land Clearing 1.4 18.1 12.2 <0.1 10.8 2.7 Grading/Excavation 6.0 68.3 49.0 0.1 12.9 4.6
Underground Drainage/Utilities 3.5 36.9 31.7 <0.1 11.7 3.6 Paving 1.6 16.3 19.1 <0.1 0.8 0.7
Maximum Daily Emissions 6.0 68.3 49.0 0.1 12.9 4.6
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: RCEM; SCAQMD 2019
lbs/day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District

Operational Emissions
Less than Significant Impact. The project proposes widening and improving an existing roadway and would only generate emissions during construction in the near term. Because the project would result in additional lanes on Diaz Road and, therefore, increase the total available miles of roadways in the region, the TIA concluded that the project would result in a regional increase in VMT of 7,277 miles in the year 2040 (DEA 2020). The criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions were calculated using data from EMFAC2017, as described above. The calculated maximum daily emissions as a result of the increase in VMT would be less than 0.1 pounds per day for all pollutants and would not exceed any of the SCAQMD emission thresholds shown in Table 4. The calculation sheets are included as Attachment B to this letter. Therefore, the project’s operational criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The impact would be less than significant.

Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 11 of 18
October 5, 2020

(3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Criteria Pollutants
Less than Significant Impact. The localized effects from the on-site portion of daily construction emissions were evaluated at sensitive receptor locations potentially impacted by the project according to the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) method (SCAQMD 2009). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; they are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area (SRA). The LST methodology is recommended to be limited to projects of five acres or less and to avoid the need for complex dispersion modeling. For projects that exceed 5 acres, such as the proposed 12-acre project, the 5-acre LST look-up values can be used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants require detailed analysis. This approach is conservative as it assumes that all on-site emissions would occur within a 5-acre area and over-predicts potential localized impacts (i.e., more pollutant emissions occurring within a smaller area and within closer proximity to potential sensitive receptors). If a project exceeds the LST look up values, then the SCAQMD recommends that project-specific localized air quality modeling be performed.

The project is in SRA 26, Temecula Valley, and sensitive receptors are located within 500 meters (1,640 feet) south of the 2.2-mile long project site. Therefore, the LSTs being applied to the project are based on SRA 26, receptors located within 500 meters, and a disturbed area not to exceed 5 acres.

Consistent with the LST guidelines, when quantifying mass emissions for localized analysis, only emissions that occur on-site are considered. Emissions related to off-site delivery/haul truck activity and construction worker trips are not considered in the evaluation of construction-related localized impacts, as these do not contribute to emissions generated on a project site. As shown in Table 6, Maximum Localized Daily Construction Emissions, localized emissions for all criteria pollutants would remain below their respective SCAQMD LSTs. Therefore, impacts would be a less than significant.

Table 6

MAXIMUM LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Phase Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation/Land Clearing 1.3 10.5 10.6 2.6
Grading/Excavation 5.8 45.7 12.7 4.5
Underground Drainage/Utilities 3.3 29.2 11.5 3.5
Paving 1.5 17.4 0.7 0.7
Maximum Daily Emissions 5.8 45.7 13.7 4.5
SCAQMD LST 1,072 29,265 207 105
Significant Impact? No No No No
Source: RCEM; SCAQMD 2009
lbs/day = pounds per day; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; LST = Localized Significance Threshold

Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 12 of 18
October 5, 2020

Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction of the project would result in the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. These vehicles and equipment could generate DPM, which is a TAC.

Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a localized area (e.g., near locations with multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment working in close proximity) for a short period of time. Because construction activities and subsequent emissions vary depending on the phase of construction, the construction-related emissions to which nearby receptors are exposed to would also vary throughout the construction period. Concentrations of DPM emissions are typically reduced by 70 percent at approximately 500 feet (CARB 2005). As discussed above, the closest sensitive receptors to the project site are multi- and single-family homes approximately 1,600 feet south of Rancho California Road (the southernmost extent of the proposed roadway improvements).

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

Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance in the environment and the extent of exposure a person has with the substance; a longer exposure period to a fixed amount of emissions would result in higher health risks. Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents based on guidance from OEHHA) and are best suited for evaluation of long duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations. These assessment models and methodologies do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Cancer potency factors are based on animal lifetime studies or worker studies where there is long-term exposure to the carcinogenic agent. There is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from projects that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment [OEHHA] 2015). Considering this information, the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors, and the fact that any concentrated use of heavy construction equipment would occur at various locations throughout the project site only for short durations, construction of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations, and the impact would be less than significant. (4) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. The project could produce odors during proposed construction activities resulting from heavy diesel equipment exhaust and application of asphalt; however, standard construction practices would minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. The increase of construction odors would be minimal, as vehicle exhaust is already prevalent in the area due to its proximity to I-15. Furthermore, any odors emitted during construction would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the completion of the respective phase of construction. Therefore, odor impacts from construction of the project would be less than significant due to the duration of exposure.

Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 13 of 18
October 5, 2020

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

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

In order to help avert these potential consequences, AB 32 established a State goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, which is a reduction of approximately 16 percent from forecasted emission levels, with further reductions to follow. In addition, AB 32 required CARB to develop a Scoping Plan to help the State achieve the targeted GHG emission reductions. In 2015, Executive Order (EO) B-30-15 established a California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns California’s GHG emission reduction targets with those of leading international governments, including the 28 nation European Union. California is on track to meet or exceed the target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in AB 32. As a follow-up to AB 32 and in response to EO-B-30-15, Senate Bill (SB) 32 was passed by the California legislature in 2016 to codify the EO’s California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The most recent update to the Scoping Plan was adopted in December 2017 and establishes a proposed framework for California to meet the EO-B-30-15 reduction target (CARB 2017).

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

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

Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 14 of 18
October 5, 2020

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

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

Construction GHG emissions were calculated by using the RCEM, as described above. Input details and output are provided in Attachment A to this letter. The estimated construction GHG emissions for the project are shown in Table 7, Construction GHG Emissions. For construction emissions, SCAQMD recommends that the emissions be amortized (i.e., averaged) over the anticipated lifespan of the project (30 years) and added to operational emissions. Averaged over 30 years, the proposed construction activities would contribute approximately 37.8 MT CO2e emissions per year.

Table 7

CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Source Emissions (MT CO2e )
Site Preparation/Land Clearing 35.0
Grading/Excavation 668.5
Underground Drainage/Utilities 261.4
Paving 64.6
Total Construction Emissions1 1,134.7
Amortized Construction Emissions 37.8
Source: RCEM; SCAQMD 2010
1 Total may not sum due to rounding.

MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent

The project proposes widening and improving an existing roadway and would only generate emissions during construction in the near term. Because the project would result in additional lanes on Diaz Road and, therefore, increase the total available miles of roadways in the region, the TIA concluded that the project would result in a regional increase in VMT of 7,277 miles in the year 2040 (DEA 2020). The GHG emissions resulting from the increase in VMT were calculated using data from EMFAC2017, as described above. As shown in Table 8, Operational GHG Emissions, the combined operational emissions from the increased VMT and the amortized construction emissions would be 40.0 MT CO2e per year and would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. The impact would be less than significant.

Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 15 of 18
October 5, 2020

Table 8

OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Source Emissions (MT CO2e )
Operational Emissions from VMT Increase 2.2
Amortized Construction Emissions 37.8
Total Operational Emissions 40.0
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000
Significant Impact? No
Source: DEA 2020; EMFAC2017; SCAQMD 2010
CO2e: carbon dioxide equivalent; MT: metric tons; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District

(2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact.

There are numerous State plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall State plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. SB 32 would require further reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles (AB 1493), the low carbon fuel standard, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources are being implemented at the statewide level; as such, compliance at the project level is not addressed.

Approximately 57 percent of the GHG inventory was from transportation sources, 21 percent from commercial/industrial energy use, 20 percent from residential energy use, and the remaining from waste water and solid waste sources. The CAP established a target of reducing subregional GHG emissions 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020 and 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2035. To achieve the 2020 reduction target, the CAP identifies 14 State and regional measures, 3 local energy sector measures, 18 local transportation sector measures, and 2 solid waste sector measures. The CAP does not identify GHG reduction measures for achieving goals beyond 2020 (WRCOG 2014). The CAP does not include thresholds for determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions, nor does it include a checklist or other methodology for determining consistency of a project with the goals and measures in the CAP.

The project would involve widening and improvements to an existing roadway and only the transportation sector local reduction measures would be potentially applicable. The project would support the CAP local transportation sector measuresT-1, Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements, and T-5 Transit Service Expansion, by providing:
• Class II bicycle lanes in both directions of Diaz Road. • Improved crossings and signal-controlled crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists using the multi- use trail paralleling the north side of Diaz Road to the north.

Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 16 of 18
October 5, 2020
•Conformance with the latest ADA standards throughout the corridor. •Space for future bus stops out of the traffic lanes that improve transit safety and operational efficiency.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

SUMMARY
As described above, emissions of criteria pollutants would be below SCAQMD thresholds and the project would be consistent with the AQMP. Sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of TACs or odors. Thus, impacts to air quality would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Operational GHG emissions, including amortized construction GHG emissions, would be below SCAQMD thresholds. The project would be consistent with the WRCOG Subregional CAP and would not conflict with applicable State GHG reduction plans or policies. Therefore, GHG impacts would be less than significant no mitigation measures would be required.

Sincerely,
Victor Ortiz
Senior Air Quality Specialist
Attachments:

Attachment A: SMAQMD Roadway Construction Model Output
Attachment B: Operational Emissions Calculations

Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 17 of 18
October 5, 2020

REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. EMFAC2017 Web Database. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017 . Accessed August 2020. 2018. Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health . 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf . 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf .

David Evans and Associates (DEA). 2020. Traffic Impact Analysis for: Diaz Road Widening Project.

June 26.

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

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2018. Roadway Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0. Available at: http://www.airquality.org/businesses/ceqa-land-use- planning/ceqa-guidance-tools.

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

September 28.
2009. Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds Look-up Tables. October. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 18 of 18
October 5, 2020

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (cont.) 2005. Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. Amended June 3, 2005. Available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4 . 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April.

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

Attachment A
SMAQMD Roadway Construction
Model Output

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0
Daily Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Pounds)ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) SOx (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) CH4 (lbs/day) N2O (lbs/day) CO2e (lbs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.43 12.24 18.11 10.75 0.75 10.00 2.68 0.60 2.08 0.05 5,056.05 0.61 0.46 5,207.73 Grading/Excavation 5.99 49.02 68.33 12.92 2.92 10.00 4.65 2.57 2.08 0.12 12,193.69 2.89 0.48 12,408.77 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 3.50 31.66 36.94 11.68 1.68 10.00 3.57 1.49 2.08 0.08 7,846.21 1.22 0.38 7,989.66 Paving 1.62 19.14 16.26 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.04 4,027.09 0.77 0.20 4,107.05 Maximum (pounds/day)5.99 49.02 68.33 12.92 2.92 10.00 4.65 2.57 2.08 0.12 12,193.69 2.89 0.48 12,408.77 Total (tons/construction project)0.73 6.28 8.11 1.85 0.36 1.50 0.62 0.31 0.31 0.02 1,575.32 0.32 0.07 1,604.71 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2021
Project Length (months) -> 16
Total Project Area (acres) -> 12
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 1
Water Truck Used? -> Yes
Phase Soil Asphalt Soil Hauling Asphalt Hauling Worker Commute Water Truck Grubbing/Land Clearing 215
218 330 330 400 40
Grading/Excavation 263 85 420 150 1,000 40
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 245 50 390 90 760 40
Paving 0 151 0 240 600 40
CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

Total Emission Estimates by Phase for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases
(Tons for all except CO2e. Metric tonnes for CO2e)ROG (tons/phase) CO (tons/phase) NOx (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) SOx (tons/phase) CO2 (tons/phase) CH4 (tons/phase) N2O (tons/phase) CO2e (MT/phase) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.03 0.22 0.32 0.19 0.01 0.18 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.00 88.99 0.01 0.01 83.15 Grading/Excavation 0.47 3.88 5.41 1.02 0.23 0.79 0.37 0.20 0.16 0.01 965.74 0.23 0.04 891.57 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.18 1.67 1.95 0.62 0.09 0.53 0.19 0.08 0.11 0.00 414.28 0.06 0.02 382.70 Paving 0.04 0.51 0.43 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 106.32 0.02 0.01 98.36 Maximum (tons/phase)0.47 3.88 5.41 1.02 0.23 0.79 0.37 0.20 0.16 0.01 965.74 0.23 0.04 891.57 Total (tons/construction project)0.73 6.28 8.11 1.85 0.36 1.50 0.62 0.31 0.31 0.02 1575.32 0.32 0.07 1,455.78 CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

The CO2e emissions are reported as metric tons per phase.

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

DEA-12 Diaz Road All Sources
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.

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

Total Material Imported/Exported
Volume (yd3/day)

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 8/7/2020 Road Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0.0
Data Entry Worksheet
Optional data input sections have a blue background. Only areas with a yellow or blue background can be modified. Program defaults have a white background.

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

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

Input Type
Project Name DEA-12 Diaz Road All Sources
Construction Start Year 2021
Enter a Year between 2014
and 2040 (inclusive)
Project Type 1) New Road Construction : Project to build a roadway from bare ground, which generally requires more site preparation than widening an existing roadway 2) Road Widening : Project to add a new lane to an existing roadway 3) Bridge/Overpass Construction : Project to build an elevated roadway, which generally requires some different equipment than a new roadway, such as a crane 4) Other Linear Project Type: Non-roadway project such as a pipeline, transmission line, or levee construction Project Construction Time 16.00 months
Working Days per Month 22.00 days (assume 22 if unknown) Predominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 1) Sand Gravel : Use for quaternary deposits (Delta/West County) 2) Weathered Rock-Earth : Use for Laguna formation (Jackson Highway area) or the Ione formation (Scott Road, Rancho Murieta) 3) Blasted Rock : Use for Salt Springs Slate or Copper Hill Volcanics (Folsom South of Highway 50, Rancho Murieta) Project Length 2.20 miles
Total Project Area 12.00 acres
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day 1.00 acre
Water Trucks Used? 1

1. Yes

2. No
Material Hauling Quantity Input
Material Type Phase
Haul Truck Capacity (yd3) (assume 20 if
unknown)Import Volume (yd3/day) Export Volume (yd
3/day)
Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 215.00
Grading/Excavation 20.00 55.00 208.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 185.00 60.00
Paving
Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 218.00
Grading/Excavation 20.00 85.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 50.00
Paving 20.00 151.00
Mitigation Options
On-road Fleet Emissions Mitigation Select "2010 and Newer On-road Vehicles Fleet" option when the on-road heavy-duty truck fleet for the project will be limited to vehicles of model year 2010 or newer Off-road Equipment Emissions Mitigation
Select "Tier 4 Equipment" option if some or all off-road equipment used for the project meets CARB Tier 4 Standard Will all off-road equipment be tier 4?
The remaining sections of this sheet contain areas that can be modified by the user, although those modifications are optional.

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

Please note that the soil type instructions provided in cells E18 to E20 are specific to Sacramento County. Maps available from the California Geologic Survey (see weblink below) can be used to determine soil type outside Sacramento County.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/geologic_mapping/ Pages/googlemaps.aspx#regionalseries
2 Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background.

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

Data Entry Worksheet 1

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 8/7/2020 Note: The program's estimates of construction period phase length can be overridden in cells D50 through D53, and F50 through F53.

Program Program
User Override of Calculated User Override of Default
Construction Periods Construction Months Months Phase Starting Date Phase Starting Date Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.60 1.60 1/1/2021
Grading/Excavation 7.20 6.40 2/19/2021
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 4.80 5.60 9/26/2021
Paving 2.40 2.40 2/19/2022
Totals (Months)
Note: Soil Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D61 through D64, and F61 through F64.

Soil Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 30.00 11 330.00 Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 30.00 14 420.00
Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 30.00 13 390.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 30.00 0 0.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.06 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,779.29 0.00 0.28 1,862.69 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.06 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,779.29 0.00 0.28 1,862.69 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.07 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,768.77 0.00 0.28 1,851.67 Paving (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.08 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,748.57 0.00 0.27 1,830.52 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.03 0.31 2.31 0.08 0.04 0.01 1,294.48 0.00 0.20 1,355.15 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.78 0.00 0.00 23.85 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.04 0.39 2.95 0.10 0.05 0.02 1,647.52 0.00 0.26 1,724.74 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.03 0.23 0.01 0.00 0.00 130.48 0.00 0.02 136.60 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.04 0.36 2.74 0.10 0.04 0.01 1,520.80 0.00 0.24 1,592.07 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.00 80.30 0.00 0.01

84.06 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 Total tons per construction project 0.01 0.06 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.00 233.56 0.00 0.04 244.51
Note: Asphalt Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D91 through D94, and F91 through F94.

Asphalt Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 30.00 11 330.00 Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 30.00 5 150.00
Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 30.00 3 90.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 30.00 8 240.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.06 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,779.29 0.00 0.28 1,862.69 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.06 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,779.29 0.00 0.28 1,862.69 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.07 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,768.77 0.00 0.28 1,851.67 Paving (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.08 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,748.57 0.00 0.27 1,830.52 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.03 0.31 2.31 0.08 0.04 0.01 1,294.48 0.00 0.20 1,355.15 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.78 0.00 0.00 23.85 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.01 0.14 1.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 588.40 0.00 0.09 615.98 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.60 0.00 0.01 48.79 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.01 0.08 0.63 0.02 0.01 0.00 350.95 0.00 0.06 367.40 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.53 0.00 0.00 19.40 Pounds per day - Paving 0.02 0.22 1.70 0.06 0.03 0.01 925.19 0.00 0.15 968.55 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.42 0.00 0.00 25.57 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.03 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 112.34 0.00 0.02 117.60 16 Data Entry Worksheet 2

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 8/7/2020 Note: Worker commute default values can be overridden in cells D121 through D126.

Worker Commute Emissions User Override of Worker
User Input Commute Default Values Default Values
Miles/ one-way trip 20 Calculated Calculated
One-way trips/day 2 Daily Trips Daily VMT
No. of employees: Grubbing/Land Clearing 10 20 400.00
No. of employees: Grading/Excavation 25 50 1,000.00
No. of employees: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 19 38 760.00 No. of employees: Paving 15 30 600.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.02 1.10 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 339.80 0.00 0.01 342.28 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.02 1.10 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 339.80 0.00 0.01 342.28 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.02 1.07 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.00 336.00 0.00 0.01 338.40 Paving (grams/mile)0.02 1.00 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.00 328.72 0.00 0.01 330.96 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)1.18 2.95 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.81 0.08 0.04 85.39 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)1.18 2.95 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.81 0.08 0.04 85.39 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)1.15 2.91 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.03 0.08 0.03 84.37 Paving (grams/trip)1.11 2.85 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.54 0.08 0.03 82.43 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.07 1.10 0.10 0.04 0.02 0.00 302.86 0.01 0.01 305.60 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.33 0.00 0.00 5.38 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.17 2.75 0.25 0.10 0.04 0.01 757.15 0.02 0.02 764.01 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.01 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 59.97 0.00 0.00 60.51 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.13 2.03 0.18 0.08 0.03 0.01 569.01 0.01 0.02 574.07 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.04 0.00 0.00 30.31 Pounds per day - Paving 0.10 1.51 0.13 0.06 0.03 0.00 439.49 0.01 0.01 443.23 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.60 0.00 0.00 11.70 Total tons per construction project 0.02 0.38 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 106.94 0.00 0.00 107.90 Note: Water Truck default values can be overridden in cells D153 through D156, I153 through I156, and F153 through F156.

Water Truck Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Override of Default Values Calculated User Input Default # Water Trucks Number of Water Trucks Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Trips/day Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Daily VMT Grubbing/Land Clearing - Exhaust 1 5 5 8.00 40.00
Grading/Excavation - Exhaust 1 5 5 8.00 40.00
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 1 5 5 8.00 40.00
Paving 1 5 5 8.00 40.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.06 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,779.29 0.00 0.28 1,862.69 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.06 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,779.29 0.00 0.28 1,862.69 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.07 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,768.77 0.00 0.28 1,851.67 Paving (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.08 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,748.57 0.00 0.27 1,830.52 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.00 156.91 0.00 0.02 164.26 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.76 0.00 0.00 2.89 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.00 156.91 0.00 0.02 164.26 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.43 0.00 0.00 13.01 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.00 155.98 0.00 0.02 163.29 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.24 0.00 0.00 8.62 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.04 0.32 0.01 0.00 0.00 154.20 0.00 0.02 161.42 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.07 0.00 0.00 4.26 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.50 0.00 0.00 28.78 Note: Fugitive dust default values can be overridden in cells D183 through D185.

User Override of Max Default PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5
Acreage Disturbed/Day Maximum Acreage/Day pounds/day tons/per period pounds/day tons/per period Fugitive Dust - Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.00 10.00 0.18 2.08 0.04 Fugitive Dust - Grading/Excavation 1.00 10.00 0.79 2.08 0.16 Fugitive Dust - Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 1.00 10.00 0.53 2.08 0.11 Fugitive Dust
Data Entry Worksheet 3

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 8/7/2020 Off-Road Equipment Emissions
Default
Grubbing/Land Clearing Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option
Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.55 2.44 6.97 0.26 0.24 0.01 760.36 0.25 0.01 768.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.46 6.54 4.31 0.21 0.19 0.01 1,000.38 0.32 0.01 1,011.17 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.29 1.51 1.80 0.07 0.07 0.00 246.57 0.03 0.00 247.82 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grubbing/Land Clearing pounds per day 1.30 10.48 13.07 0.54 0.50 0.02 2,007.32 0.60 0.02 2,027.55 Grubbing/Land Clearing tons per phase 0.02 0.18 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.00 35.33 0.01 0.00 35.68 Mitigation Option

0.00 0.00
N/A

0.00 0.00
N/A
N/A

0.00 N/A

0.00 Number of Vehicles

0.00 N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
Data Entry Worksheet 4

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 8/7/2020 Default
Grading/Excavation Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option
Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.55 2.44 6.97 0.26 0.24 0.01 760.36 0.25 0.01 768.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.69 9.82 6.46 0.31 0.29 0.02 1,500.58 0.49 0.01 1,516.76 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.91 3.53 11.85 0.38 0.35 0.01 1,283.37 0.42 0.01 1,297.19 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.38 3.76 3.85 0.24 0.22 0.01 508.18 0.16 0.00 513.65 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.34 1.60 3.86 0.13 0.12 0.01 605.23 0.20 0.01 611.76 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 1.86 14.01 21.41 0.83 0.77 0.03 2,935.83 0.95 0.03 2,967.48 5 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.29 1.51 1.80 0.07 0.07 0.00 246.57 0.03 0.00 247.82 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.75 9.04 7.58 0.45 0.41 0.01 1,203.60 0.39 0.01 1,216.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grading/Excavation pounds per day 5.76 45.70 63.78 2.66 2.46 0.09 9,043.71 2.87 0.08 9,139.78 Grading/Excavation tons per phase 0.46 3.62 5.05 0.21 0.19 0.01 716.26 0.23 0.01 723.87 Mitigation Option
N/A
Number of Vehicles

0.00 0.00

0.00 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
Data Entry Worksheet 5

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 8/7/2020 Default
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option
Selected)Equipment Tier pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.29 2.42 1.98 0.12 0.12 0.00 375.26 0.03 0.00 376.74 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.35 3.68 3.08 0.16 0.16 0.01 623.04 0.03 0.00 625.21 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.44 1.75 5.70 0.18 0.17 0.01 641.55 0.21 0.01 648.46 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.04 0.21 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 34.48 0.00 0.00 34.65 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.37 3.74 3.13 0.17 0.17 0.01 623.04 0.03 0.00 625.26 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.12 2.29 1.57 0.06 0.05 0.00 333.76 0.11 0.00 337.36 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.89 6.79 10.10 0.39 0.36 0.02 1,468.73 0.48 0.01 1,484.56 5 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.29 1.51 1.80 0.07 0.07 0.00 246.57 0.03 0.00 247.82 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.54 6.76 5.46 0.31 0.29 0.01 903.05 0.29 0.01 912.77 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade pounds per day 3.32 29.15 33.07 1.48 1.40 0.06 5,249.47 1.20 0.04 5,292.83 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade tons per phase 0.18 1.54 1.75 0.08 0.07 0.00 277.17 0.06 0.00 279.46 Mitigation Option

0.00 0.00
Number of Vehicles

0.00 0.00

0.00 N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 6

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 8/7/2020 Default
Paving Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option
Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.21 2.88 2.10 0.10 0.09 0.00 455.26 0.15 0.00 460.17 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.18 2.55 1.74 0.08 0.08 0.00 394.47 0.13 0.00 398.73 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.33 3.72 3.45 0.20 0.18 0.01 508.21 0.16 0.00 513.68 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.29 1.51 1.80 0.07 0.07 0.00 246.57 0.03 0.00 247.82 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.49 6.71 5.03 0.27 0.25 0.01 903.72 0.29 0.01 913.44 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving pounds per day 1.50 17.37 14.11 0.72 0.67 0.03 2,508.22 0.76 0.02 2,533.84 Paving tons per phase 0.04 0.46 0.37 0.02 0.02 0.00 66.22 0.02 0.00 66.89 Total Emissions all Phases (tons per construction period) =>0.69 5.80 7.40 0.32 0.30 0.01 1,094.98 0.32 0.01 1,105.91 Mitigation Option

0.00 0.00
Number of Vehicles

0.00 0.00

0.00 N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 7

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 8/7/2020 Equipment default values for horsepower and hours/day can be overridden in cells D403 through D436 and F403 through F436.

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

END OF DATA ENTRY SHEET
Data Entry Worksheet 8

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0
Daily Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Pounds)ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) SOx (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) CH4 (lbs/day) N2O (lbs/day) CO2e (lbs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.30 10.52 13.55 10.55 0.55 10.00 2.59 0.51 2.08 0.02 2,164.22 0.60 0.04 2,191.82 Grading/Excavation 5.77 45.74 64.23 12.67 2.67 10.00 4.54 2.46 2.08 0.10 9,200.62 2.87 0.11 9,304.04 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 3.32 29.18 33.51 11.49 1.49 10.00 3.48 1.40 2.08 0.06 5,405.45 1.20 0.07 5,456.12 Paving 1.50 17.41 14.50 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.03 2,662.42 0.76 0.05 2,695.26 Maximum (pounds/day)5.77 45.74 64.23 12.67 2.67 10.00 4.54 2.46 2.08 0.10 9,200.62 2.87 0.11 9,304.04 Total (tons/construction project)0.69 5.81 7.48 1.82 0.32 1.50 0.61 0.30 0.31 0.01 1,122.47 0.32 0.01 1,134.69 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2021
Project Length (months) -> 16
Total Project Area (acres) -> 12
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 1
Water Truck Used? -> Yes
Phase Soil Asphalt Soil Hauling Asphalt Hauling Worker Commute Water Truck Grubbing/Land Clearing 215
218 0 0 0 40
Grading/Excavation 263 85 0 0 0 40
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 245 50 0 0 0 40
Paving 0 151 0 0 0 40
CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

Total Emission Estimates by Phase for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases
(Tons for all except CO2e. Metric tonnes for CO2e)ROG (tons/phase) CO (tons/phase) NOx (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) SOx (tons/phase) CO2 (tons/phase) CH4 (tons/phase) N2O (tons/phase) CO2e (MT/phase) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.02 0.19 0.24 0.19 0.01 0.18 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.00 38.09 0.01 0.00 35.00 Grading/Excavation 0.46 3.62 5.09 1.00 0.21 0.79 0.36 0.19 0.16 0.01 728.69 0.23 0.01 668.49 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.18 1.54 1.77 0.61 0.08 0.53 0.18 0.07 0.11 0.00 285.41 0.06 0.00 261.35 Paving 0.04 0.46 0.38 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 70.29 0.02 0.00 64.55 Maximum (tons/phase)0.46 3.62 5.09 1.00 0.21 0.79 0.36 0.19 0.16 0.01 728.69 0.23 0.01 668.49 Total (tons/construction project)0.69 5.81 7.48 1.82 0.32 1.50 0.61 0.30 0.31 0.01 1122.47 0.32 0.01 1,029.39 CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

The CO2e emissions are reported as metric tons per phase.

DEA-12 Diaz Road On-Site Only
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.

Total Material Imported/Exported
Volume (yd3/day)

Attachment B
Operational Emissions Calculations

Emissions from Change in VMT
VMT/Year
Increase (miles)
7,277
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e (MT)
Emissions Factor
(tons/VMT)1.359E-08 2.594E-07 8.044E-07 3.095E-09 6.023E-08 2.534E-08 3.201E-04 1.168E-08 2.234E-08 - Pounds per Day 0.0005 0.0103 0.0321 0.0001 0.0024 0.0010 12.7632 0.0005 0.0009 - Tons Per Year 0.0001 0.0019 0.0059 0.0000 0.0004 0.0002 2.3293 0.0001 0.0002 2.16 Notes:

1. Emission factors claulated from EMFAC2017 data for Riverside County in 2023.

2. Pounds per day = Emissions Factor * VMT * 2,000 pounds per ton / 365 days per year.

3. Ton per year = Emissions Factor * VMT.

4. 1 Metric Ton (MT) = 0.9071847 Tons.

5. CO2e = C02 + (CH4 * 25) + (N20 * 298)

EMFAC2017 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: County
Region: RIVERSIDE
Calendar Year: 2040
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption. Note 'day' in the unit is operation day.

Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population VMT Trips NOx_TOTEX PM2.5_TOTAL PM10_TOTAL CO2_TOTEX CH4_TOTEX N2O_TOTEX ROG_RUNEX ROG_TOTAL TOG_RUNEX CO_TOTEX SOx_TOTEX RIVERSIDE 2040 HHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 13.4955351 1502.956936 270.0186671 0.005052478 5.38059E-05 0.000137254 2.550870358 0.000110931 0.000219958 0.000485645 0.000584549 0.000708651 0.046511818 2.52429E-05 RIVERSIDE 2040 HHDT Aggregated Aggregated DSL 33740.3646 5125739.993 397160.6275 13.65580031 0.331368057 0.684767002 5813.086777 0.016451078 0.913736289 0.100245556 0.354187205 0.114121934 4.61593784 0.054919161 RIVERSIDE 2040 HHDT Aggregated Aggregated NG 873.934732 35622.84889 3408.345453 0.038009475 0.001521266 0.00397267 105.9091571 0.159481462 0.021590274 0.002772269 0.002790705 0.162197004 0.595468002 0 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDA Aggregated Aggregated GAS 1108066.28 36538843.09 5196954.759 1.333743811 0.739334502 1.828956864 8123.267416 0.137647546 0.222611838 0.075916033 1.891695587 0.110776498 23.98599135 0.080386316 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDA Aggregated Aggregated DSL 13559.5635 452844.9096 63948.00621 0.004322658 0.009250974 0.022746389 75.12090368 9.2479E-05 0.01180796 0.001991019 0.001991019 0.002266643 0.063805979 0.000710163 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDA Aggregated Aggregated ELEC 68820.7814 2229326.743 327950.8584 0 0.043619065 0.109969191 0 0 0 0 0.005271528 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 124317.605 3991479.588 571692.0612 0.169219328 0.081155581 0.200219485 1039.275829 0.017427344 0.02658306 0.0117021 0.29880174 0.017075677 2.804560497 0.010284477 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 16.4950165 540.9481873 76.81539067 2.19859E-05 1.30808E-05 2.92936E-05 0.171241099 3.69063E-07 2.69167E-05 7.9457E-06 7.9457E-06 9.04565E-06 8.35887E-05 1.61884E-06 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated ELEC 4410.05464 141311.682 20922.17446 0 0.002764908 0.006970684 0 0 0 0 0.000344478 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 367885.395 12076450.32 1709980.89 0.4949696 0.244817471 0.604988776 3105.187732 0.062942009 0.07765479 0.041532161 0.925231462 0.060603632 9.846643204 0.03072835 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 3673.24758 122980.1122 17286.90631 0.003777252 0.002936008 0.006620146 27.16552065 8.12921E-05 0.004270042 0.001750171 0.001750171 0.001992454 0.018097844 0.000256812 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated ELEC 15825.108 353454.734 75258.36179 0 0.006915704 0.017435368 0 0 0 0 0.001236857 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE 2040 LHDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 22405.1162 688032.6771 333802.8475 0.132436866 0.02717587 0.064925693 494.357758 0.006804271 0.013088972 0.002272919 0.165043775 0.003316637 0.670844351 0.004892071 RIVERSIDE 2040 LHDT1 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 23560.0154 710299.8344 296355.355 0.199018955 0.033231843 0.074715387 303.1736935 0.001272594 0.047654683 0.02454768 0.02739819 0.027945901 0.148595135 0.002866082 RIVERSIDE 2040 LHDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 3550.37349 106473.3752 52895.27501 0.02156409 0.004844581 0.011540663 87.97608172 0.001047709 0.002108602 0.00035179 0.024372507 0.000513331 0.105617373 0.000870595 RIVERSIDE 2040 LHDT2 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 9795.87525 281664.4863 123219.7875 0.112065559 0.016659151 0.035450229 132.5547719 0.000544057 0.020835764 0.010528029 0.011713225 0.011985461 0.065013144 0.001253119 RIVERSIDE 2040 MCY Aggregated Aggregated GAS 47247.186 292741.8543 94494.37198 0.382864675 0.002900876 0.006106327 73.27539529 0.12467375 0.022236656 0.668585796 1.335568659 0.839297791 6.404104763 0.000725119 RIVERSIDE 2040 MDV Aggregated Aggregated GAS 246415.858 7829871.319 1131403.364 0.374961278 0.159017169 0.392562554 2457.675821 0.045971363 0.054526368 0.030930692 0.799955936 0.045133993 6.654780591 0.024320695 RIVERSIDE 2040 MDV Aggregated Aggregated DSL 8556.49655 279529.0953 39930.24913 0.003175844 0.0057755 0.014108805 80.78331077 6.76762E-05 0.012698011 0.001457028 0.001457028 0.00165873 0.045473954 0.000763693 RIVERSIDE 2040 MDV Aggregated Aggregated ELEC 11772.3789 262736.6526 55979.26723 0 0.005140712 0.012960387 0 0 0 0 0.00091966 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE 2040 MH Aggregated Aggregated GAS 4023.88514 34354.58806 402.5494699 0.003935481 0.002263118 0.005427449 50.3728262 0.000125884 0.000468055 0.000312092 0.000910114 0.000455404 0.006755012 0.00049848 RIVERSIDE 2040 MH Aggregated Aggregated DSL 2286.70808 16374.34879 228.670808 0.03982502 0.001922617 0.003521628 14.22992014 3.36101E-05 0.002236745 0.000723606 0.000723606 0.000823778 0.002785015 0.000134524 RIVERSIDE 2040 MHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 3502.92858 164277.7286 70086.59508 0.041034078 0.010858818 0.025993342 242.5430621 0.003858451 0.003841237 0.001560729 0.043009574 0.002277413 0.305817696 0.00240016 RIVERSIDE 2040 MHDT Aggregated Aggregated DSL 19856.1096 1135629.238 198906.9573 1.669847358 0.08565233 0.190695257 895.014082 0.000467998 0.14068375 0.008790863 0.010075864 0.010007728 0.124317813 0.008455649 RIVERSIDE 2040 OBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 675.155661 26159.47605 13508.51446 0.00779342 0.001727881 0.004137781 38.46265614 0.000603993 0.000654337 0.000343791 0.008152805 0.000501659 0.048083069 0.000380619 RIVERSIDE 2040 OBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 572.896073 36818.77261 5337.513754 0.06626394 0.002930043 0.006342611 35.71364457 3.70369E-05 0.005613688 0.000397826 0.000797394 0.000452894 0.009974149 0.000337405 RIVERSIDE 2040 SBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 593.063228 22007.46711 2372.252911 0.005706821 0.007824711 0.018297794 19.87447654 0.001765047 0.000527748 0.000289198 0.010020795 0.000421998 0.075642739 0.000196674 RIVERSIDE 2040 SBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 1439.54404 45936.41379 16612.13859 0.165490289 0.016609772 0.038629605 51.39911703 7.08774E-05 0.008079225 0.001095932 0.00152597 0.001247635 0.024856009 0.000485593 RIVERSIDE 2040 UBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 181.921075 25613.54248 727.6843 0.004881618 0.001378976 0.003280134 31.19193068 0.000143881 0.000482262 0.000286841 0.000759864 0.000418558 0.009797262 0.000308669 RIVERSIDE 2040 UBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE 2040 UBUS Aggregated Aggregated NG 348.058852 47081.12942 1392.235408 0.021251269 0.002307701 0.005759671 90.32703332 0.271457382 0.018413757 0.004046426 0.004046426 0.277225404 2.104263639 0 Total VMT 73075699.93 Tons/VMT 2.59416E-07 2.53432E-08 6.02289E-08 0.000320088 1.16753E-08 2.23419E-08 1.35876E-08 8.11534E-08 2.31737E-08 8.04424E-07 3.09544E-09

Diaz Road
Improvement Project
General Biological Resources Assessment
July 2021 | 00207.00012.001
Submitted to:

City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Prepared for:

David Evans and Associates, Inc.
41951 Remington Avenue, Suite 220
Temecula, CA 92590
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
16485 Laguna Canyon Road
Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92618

This page intentionally left blank

Diaz Road
Improvement Project

General Biological Resources Assessment

Submitted to:

City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590

Prepared for:

David Evans and Associates, Inc.
41951 Remington Avenue, Suite 220
Temecula, CA 92590

Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
16485 Laguna Canyon Road
Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92618

July 2021 | 00207.00012.001

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. S-1

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

1.1 Purpose of the Report ......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Study Area Location ............................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 METHODS ......................................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Nomenclature ..................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 2

2.3 Field Surveys ....................................................................................................................... 2

2.3.1 General Biological Survey ...................................................................................... 3

2.3.2 Focused Species Surveys ........................................................................................ 3

2.3.3 Jurisdictional Delineation....................................................................................... 4

2.3.4 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment ........................................ 6

3.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 6

3.2 Topography and Soils .......................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Vegetation Communities .................................................................................................... 6

3.3.1 Arroyo Willow Thicket ........................................................................................... 7

3.3.2 Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland ........................................................ 7

3.3.3 Riverwash ............................................................................................................... 8

3.3.4 Developed .............................................................................................................. 8

3.3.5 Disturbed ............................................................................................................... 8

3.3.6 Eucalyptus Grove ................................................................................................... 8

3.3.7 Upland Mustards ................................................................................................... 9

3.4 Plants .................................................................................................................................. 9

3.5 Animals ............................................................................................................................... 9

3.6 Sensitive Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 9

3.6.1 Rare Plant Species .................................................................................................. 9

3.6.2 Sensitive Animal Species ...................................................................................... 10

3.6.3 Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitats ....................................................... 12

3.6.4 Habitat and Wildlife Corridor Evaluation ............................................................. 12

3.6.5 Jurisdictional Waters ........................................................................................... 12

3.7 Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ................................................. 18

3.7.1 Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (Section 6.1.1) ........... 18

3.7.2 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) . 19

3.7.3 Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (MSHCP Section 6.1.3) ................... 24

3.7.4 Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP Section 6.3.2) ...................... 24

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section Page

4.0 REGIONAL AND REGULATORY CONTEXT ....................................................................................... 25

4.1 Federal Regulations .......................................................................................................... 25

4.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act .......................................................................... 25

4.1.2 Federal Clean Water Act, Section 404 ................................................................. 25

4.1.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act .................................................................................... 26

4.1.4 Critical Habitat ..................................................................................................... 26

4.2 State Regulations .............................................................................................................. 26

4.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................................. 26

4.2.2 California Endangered Species Act ...................................................................... 26

4.2.3 Protection of Raptor Species ............................................................................... 27

4.2.4 California Fish and Game Code, Section 1602 ..................................................... 27

4.3 Local Regulations .............................................................................................................. 27

4.3.1 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency ................................... 27

4.3.2 Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan ............................................ 27

4.3.3 Protection of City Street Trees ............................................................................ 27

5.0 PROJECT EFFECTS ........................................................................................................................... 28

5.1 Sensitive Species ............................................................................................................... 29

5.1.1 Rare Plant Species ................................................................................................ 29

5.1.2 Sensitive Animal Species ...................................................................................... 29

5.2 Sensitive Vegetation Communities ................................................................................... 31

5.2.1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitats ......................................................................................... 31

5.2.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Riparian Habitat and Streambed .... 32

5.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Regional WAter Quality Control Board Jurisdiction ......... 33

5.4 Wildlife Movement and Migratory Species ...................................................................... 34

5.4.1 Wildlife Movement .............................................................................................. 34

5.4.2 Migratory Species ................................................................................................ 34

5.5 City-Protected Trees ......................................................................................................... 35

5.6 Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans ................................................................................ 35

5.6.1 MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements ............................................................ 35

5.6.2 Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) ...................... 35

5.6.3 Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Section 6.1.3) ....................................... 37

5.6.4 Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines (MSHCP Section 6.1.4) ............................. 37

5.6.5 Additional Surveys (MSHCP Section 6.3.2) .......................................................... 39

5.6.6 Fuels Management (MSHCP Section 6.4) ............................................................ 39

5.6.7 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Fees . 39

6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................................................ 40

7.0 CERTIFICATION/QUALIFICATION .................................................................................................... 44

8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 45

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

LIST OF APPENDICES

A Plant Species Observed
B Animal Species Observed or Detected
C Site Photographs
D Drainage Photographs
E Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur
F Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur
G Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report
H Least Bell’s Vireo Focused Survey Report
I Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title Follows Page

1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................................. 2 2 USGS Topography ............................................................................................................................ 2 3 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................................ 2 4 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 2 5a-h Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................ 8 6a-f Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian Areas ....................................................................... 14 7 MSHCP Criteria Cell ........................................................................................................................ 20 8a-h Impacts to Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 34 9a-f Impacts to Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas ...................................... 34

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Page

1 Vegetation and Land Uses ............................................................................................................... 7 2 Existing Jurisdictional Features ...................................................................................................... 12 3 Conservation Requirement of the MSHCP Criteria Cells ............................................................... 18 4 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Plant Species .............................................................. 21 5 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Animal Species ........................................................... 22 6 Impacts to Vegetation And Land Uses ........................................................................................... 32 7 Impacts to CDFW Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................ 32 8 Impacts to USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction ......................................................................................... 33 9 Impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas .................................................................................. 36

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AMSL above mean sea level

BMPs Best Management Practices
BUOW Burrowing Owl

CASSA Criteria Area Species Survey Area
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFG Code California Fish and Game Code
City City of Temecula
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
County County of Riverside
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CWA Clean Water Act

Dudek Dudek & Associates

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FESA Federal Endangered Species Act

HANS Habitat Acquisition and Negotiation Strategy
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

JD Jurisdictional Delineation

LBVI Least Bell’s Vireo
LDMF Local Development Mitigation Fee
LF linear feet

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCV Manual of California Vegetation
MSHCP Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan

NEPSSA Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark

Project Diaz Road Improvement Project

v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
RCA Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority ROW Right-of-way
RPW Relatively Permanent Water Body
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SKR Stephens’ kangaroo rat
SSC Species of Special Concern
SWFL Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

TNW Traditional Navigable Waters

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geologic Survey

WIFL Willow Flycatcher

This page intentionally left blank

General Biological Resources Assessment for the Diaz Road Improvement Project | July 2021 S-1

SUMMARY
The 32-acre Diaz Road Improvement Project (project) is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The project and a 500-foot survey buffer make up the 326-acre study area which is located within the Southwest Area Plan of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The study area is located within the Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) of the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP. The study area includes portions of Criteria Cells 6656, 6781, 6782, 6783, 6890, 6891, 7021, and 7078. Although the study area is within several Criteria Cells, the project site is mostly within existing developed areas and is not targeted for conservation or in an area that would contribute to the MSHCP reserve assembly. Furthermore, Diaz Road is considered a “covered road” under the MSCHP. The study area is not located within or adjacent to an MSHCP Criteria Area or MSHCP Conservation Area. The study area is located within the Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia; BUOW) Survey Area and supports potentially suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; LBVI) and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; SWFL). HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) conducted a general biological survey, including vegetation mapping and a general habitat assessment; an MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool habitat assessment; a habitat assessment and a jurisdictional delineation, including mapping of any MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Areas encountered on the study area; and focused surveys for BUOW, LBVI, and SWFL.

The study area mostly comprises existing development (163.04 acres) and uplands mustard (68.67 acres). In addition, the study area supports native arroyo willow thicket (27.63 acres) and Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland (0.37 acre). Riverwash (47.70 acres), disturbed habitat (14.56 acres), and eucalyptus grove (3.78 acres) were also mapped within the study area. Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis) was observed in the northern portion of the study area. Nine fully covered species under the MSHCP were determined to have a potential to occur on the study area, including Coast range newt (Taricha torosa), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys pallida), San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii), Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi; SKR), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus).

Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi), two-striped gartersnake (Thamnophis hammondii), and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus; foraging potential only) were determined to have a potential to occur on the study area and are not covered by the MSHCP. Focused BUOW and LBVI surveys were negative. Four males and one pair of LBVIs were observed within suitable habitat on the study area. The study area also supports suitable habitat for nesting migratory bird species. Two sensitive plant communities (arroyo willow thicket [27.63 acres] and southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest [0.37 acre]) were mapped on the study area. The study area supports 12 major drainage features (Murrieta Creek and Drainages A through K). The Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) survey area supports a total of 0.096 acre of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Regional Water Quality Control Board non-wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.093 acre of wetland. The JD survey area also supports and 1.49 acres of California Department of Fish and Wildlife jurisdictional streambed and riparian vegetation.

MSHCP Riparian Areas were identified within the study area, which are consistent with the limits of CDFW jurisdiction. No other special aquatic sites were observed on the study area. The study area supports trees that may be subject to City tree protection measures.

The project proposes to permanently impact 31.97 acres, including 25.28 acres of existing developed areas, 2.51 acres of disturbed habitat, 0.49 acre of eucalyptus grove, and 3.69 acres of upland mustards.

Temporary impacts are also proposed 0.20 acre, including 0.01 acre of existing developed areas,

General Biological Resources Assessment for the Diaz Road Improvement Project | July 2021 S-2

0.02 acre of disturbed habitat, 0.01 acre of eucalyptus grove, and 0.16 acre of upland mustards.

Potential significant impacts were identified for BUOW (if present during focused surveys or the 30-day pre-construction survey), LBVI (indirect impacts only), jurisdictional resources, MSHCP Riparian Areas, and nesting bird species. The project is required to comply with the regulations of the MSHCP and SKR HCP. The project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.032 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S and 0.018 acre of wetlands, and temporary impacts to approximately 0.005 acre of non- wetland waters of the U.S and 0.005 acre of wetlands. In addition, the project would result in permanent impacts to 0.265 acre and temporary impacts to 0.076 acre of CDFW jurisdiction. Since the study area supports trees that may be subject to City tree protection measures, a tree survey will be conducted prior to construction. If protected trees are located within the project site and must be damaged or removed, a Heritage Tree Removal or Relocation Permit must be obtained.

Measures related to the following topics are proposed herein to fully mitigate potential impacts of the project: BUOW, LBVI, jurisdictional resources and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas, migratory nesting bird species, City-protected street trees, compliance with MSHCP landscaping restrictions, and payment of MSHCP and SKR HCP fees. Successful implementation of these measures would mitigate potential impacts to below a level of significance.

General Biological Resources Assessment for the Diaz Road Improvement Project | July 2021 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
This report provides the City of Temecula (City; California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] lead agency), resource agencies, and the public with current biological data to satisfy review of the proposed Diaz Road Improvement Project (project), located in the City of Temecula (City) in Riverside County (County), California. The purpose of this report is to document the existing biological conditions on and in the immediate vicinity of the project site, and to provide an analysis of potential impacts to sensitive biological resources with respect to local, state, and federal policy. This report provides the biological resources technical documentation necessary for project review under CEQA by the City and demonstrates project consistency with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP; Dudek and Associates [Dudek] 2003).

1.2 STUDY AREA LOCATION
The approximately 32-acre project site comprises 2.2 miles along Diaz Road in the western portion of the City (Figure 1, Regional Location). It lies within Township 7 South, Range 3 West; and Township 8 South Range 3 West on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Murrieta and Temecula quadrangle maps (Figure 2, USGS Topography). The project site located along Diaz Road, between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road, and mostly occurs within an existing City right-of-way (ROW), but also includes areas immediately outside and along the ROW boundary (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph).

Due to the linear nature of the project, a 500-foot buffer surrounding the project site was also assessed (study area).

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is for the widening and improvement of Diaz Road (Figure 4, Site Plan). The project proposes to improve Diaz Road to meet the roadway classification requirements of a major arterial with four divided lanes, as specified by City Standard No. 101, between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road. The standards call for a 100-ft minimum right-of-way, a 76-ft roadway with a 14-ft raised median, and 12-ft parkways on each side of the road. The approximately 2.2-mile segment would be improved on its current horizontal alignment, as depicted in the City’s General Plan, Circulation Element, Figure C- 2 Roadway Plan (City 1993). As such, the proposed project would widen the existing Diaz Road segment and extend the northwestern end of Cherry Street. The project would complete the City’s only existing north-south road corridor west of Murrieta Creek. North of Cherry Street, this north-south road corridor is planned to continue as Washington Avenue within the City of Murrieta.

2.0 METHODS
Project evaluation included a review of project plans; a literature review of biological resources occurring on the study area and surrounding vicinity; a general biological survey, including vegetation mapping and a general habitat assessment; focused surveys for sensitive species, including burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; BUOW), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; LBVI), and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; SWFL); a jurisdictional delineation, including mapping of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Areas; and an MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Resources

2 habitat assessment. The methods used to evaluate the biological resources present on the study area are discussed in this section.

2.1 NOMENCLATURE
Nomenclature for this report follows Baldwin et al. (2012) for plants, and the MSHCP (Dudek 2003) for vegetation community classifications, with additional vegetation community information taken from Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV; Sawyer et al. 2009) and Oberbauer (2008).

Animal nomenclature follows Emmel and Emmel (1973) for butterflies, California Herps (2021) for reptiles and amphibians, American Ornithological Society (2020) for birds, and Baker et al. (2003) for mammals. Rare plant and sensitive animal statuses are from the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2021) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2021). Rare plant species’ habitats and flowering periods are from the Jepson Manual (Baldwin et al. 2012), MSHCP (Dudek 2003), CNPS (2021), and CNDDB (CDFW 2021). Soil classifications were obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (2021).

2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Prior to conducting the site visit, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) reviewed regional planning documents, Google Earth aerials (2020), Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2021), and sensitive species database records, including the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2021), CNDDB (CDFW 2021), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) critical habitat maps (2021a). A two-quadrangle database search, which included Murrieta and Temecula, was conducted on CNDDB and CNPS. In addition, the MSHCP (Dudek 2003) and the Regional Conservation Authority’s MSHCP Information Tool (Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2021) were consulted to determine project compliance with the MSHCP.

2.3 FIELD SURVEYS
Field surveys were conducted to document the existing condition of the study area and surrounding lands. The general biological survey included vegetation mapping, during which dominant plant species were noted. A habitat assessment was also conducted on the study area to determine habitat suitability for rare plant and animal species in addition to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Species. Focused surveys for BUOW, LBVI, and SWFL were also conducted. A jurisdictional delineation was conducted to determine the existing jurisdictional limits regulated by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW, in addition to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas.

A list of plant and animal species observed and/or detected during the field surveys are provided as Appendix A, Plant Species Observed, and Appendix B, Animal Species Observed and/or Detected. Noted animal species were identified by direct observation, vocalizations, or the observance of scat, tracks, or other signs. However, the list of animal species identified is not necessarily a comprehensive account of all species that use the study area, as species that are nocturnal, secretive, or seasonally restricted may not have been observed.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?z ?Æ
!"a$
!"a$
%&h(
?±
!"a$
!"a$?¹
?¹
%&h(
?±
?z
?¹AÐ
!"`$
Añ
?¡
AÙ
?±?¿
A¨
?¿
AÙ
?±
?¹
!"`$
!"`$
?ø
!"a$
?a
?±
AÎ
!"^$
?å
Añ
?¥%&h(
!"`$
?¡
AÔ
?³!Project Site

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

CAMPPENDLETON

MISSIONVIEJO

SANCLEMENTE

LAGUNABEACH

ONTARIO

RIVERSIDE
CORONA

LAKEELSINORE

SAN BERNARDINO
San
t
a

A
n
a

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
s
San Be
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
s

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

SAN DIEGO COUNTYRIVERSIDE COUNTY
O
R
A
N
G
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
San

J
a
c
i
n
t
o

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
s
Littl
e

S
a
n

B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
s

YUCCAVALLEY TWENTYNINEPALMS

TEMECULA

MURRIETA

NORCO MORENOVALLEY BANNING

BEAUMONT

PALM DESERTHEMET

SAN JACINTO

COACHELLA

PALMSPRINGSPERRIS
Pacific Ocean
Big Bear Lake MesquiteLake
CoyoteLake
LeeLake
Alvord
PerrisReservoir
LakeMathews
CanyonLake
HemetLake
LakeElsinore LakeCahuilla
SkinnerReservoir
Salton SeaVailLake
Clark LakeO'NeillLake
DiamondValley Lake
Figure 1
Regional LocationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig1_Regional.mxd DEA-12 2/25/2021 - ECSource: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013)K Diaz Road Expansion
0 10 Miles

Figure 2
USGS TopographyH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig2_USGS.mxd DEA-12 2/25/2021 - ECSource: MURRIETA & TEMECULA 7.5' Quad (USGS) Diaz Road Expansion
0 2,000 Feet K
Project Site
Study Area

JEFFERSO
N
A
V
E
Y
N
E
ZRD

R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A R DBUSINESSPARKDR
DIAZ

R
D

W INCHESTERRDD
E
L
R
I
ORD
DE N DY P K W Y¬«79
§¨¦15
Figure 3
Aerial PhotographH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig3_Aerial.mxd DEA-12 2/25/2021 - ECSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion
0 1,200 Feet
Project Site
Study Area

W IN C H ESTER R D
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
EYN
E
Z

RDOLDTOWNFRONTSTRANCHO CALIFORNIA R D

B U S IN E SS PARKDR
DIAZ
R
D
WINCHE
S
T
E
R
R
D
DELR
I
O
RD
¬«79
§¨¦15
Figure 4
Site PlanH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig4_SitePlan.mxd DEA-12 2/25/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion
0 800 Feet
Study Area
Project Site
Plan Lines

3 2.3.1 General Biological Survey
A general biological survey of the study area was conducted by HELIX Regulatory Specialist Ezekiel Cooley and Biologists Daniel Torres and Jessica Lee on March 27, 2020, in accordance with vegetation community classification described in Section 2.1.3 of the MSHCP (Dudek 2003) and with additional information from MCV (Sawyer et al. 2009) and Oberbauer (2008). Vegetation was mapped on a 175- foot (1 inch = 175 feet) aerial photograph of the study area. Vegetation communities and land uses were mapped by HELIX to one-hundredth of an acre (0.10 acre). The entire study area was surveyed on foot with the aid of binoculars. Representative photographs of the site were taken, with select photographs included in this report as Appendix C, Site Photographs. Plant and animal species observed or otherwise detected were recorded in field notebooks. Animal identifications were made in the field by direct, visual observation or indirectly by detection of calls, burrows, tracks, or scat. Plant identifications were made in the field or in the lab through comparison with voucher specimens or photographs.

2.3.2 Focused Species Surveys

2.3.2.1 Burrowing Owl
The study area is located within an MSHCP BUOW Survey Area. In accordance with the County’s survey protocol, a Step I-Habitat Assessment for BUOW was conducted on the study area and within a 150-meter (approximately 500-foot) buffer zone around the periphery of the study area (survey area; County of Riverside [County] 2006). Mr. Dimson completed the habitat assessment on June 5, 2020, during which potential suitable habitat for BUOW was observed.

After completing the habitat assessment, Step II surveys were conducted within the survey area. Step II surveys, which consist of a focused burrow survey (Part A) and four focused BUOW surveys (Part B), were conducted to determine whether the survey area supports suitable burrows and/or BUOWs. The focused burrow survey was conducted concurrently with the first focused BUOW survey. Since suitable burrows were observed within the survey area, three additional focused BUOW surveys were conducted. The biologist walked transects spaced no greater than 30 meters apart (approximately 100 feet) to allow for 100 percent visual coverage of all suitable habitat within the survey area. The biologist walked slowly and methodically, closely checking habitat for suitable burrows, BUOW diagnostic sign (e.g., molted feathers, pellets/castings, or whitewash at or near a burrow entrance), and individual BUOWs. Inaccessible areas of the survey area were visually assessed using binoculars. The focused burrow survey and four BUOW surveys were conducted by Mr. Dimson and HELIX Biologist Daniel Torres between June 5 and August 6, 2020.

2.3.2.2 Least Bell’s Vireo
The study area supports potentially suitable LBVI habitat. Focused surveys for LBVI were conducted in accordance with current USFWS survey protocol (USFWS 2001). The survey consisted of eight site visits conducted by Mr. Cooley, Mr. Torres, and HELIX Biologists Erica Harris and Lauren Singleton between April 28 and July 27, 2020. Surveys were conducted in accordance with the current USFWS survey protocol. The surveys were conducted by walking along the edges of, as well as within, potential LBVI habitat within 500 feet of the study area (survey area) while listening for LBVI and viewing birds with the aid of binoculars. The survey route was designed to ensure complete survey coverage of habitat potentially occupied by LBVI. Accessible potentially suitable habitat within the survey area was

4 surveyed, which included approximately 28.0 acres of arroyo willow thicket along Murrieta Creek and Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland along a tributary to Murrieta Creek.

2.3.2.3 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Focused surveys for SWFL were performed by Ms. Erica Harris (TE-778195-13) in accordance with the current USFWS approved survey protocol (Sogge et al. 2010). The survey protocol requires that five survey visits be conducted at least five days apart, between the hours of sunrise and 10:30 a.m., and within three identified survey periods. One survey was conducted between Survey Period 1 (May 15 through 31), two surveys were conducted during Survey Period 2 (June 1 through 24), and two surveys were conducted during Survey Period 3 (June 25 through July 17), totaling five surveys.

The surveys were conducted by walking within and along the perimeter of suitable SWFL habitat on the study area. Surveys were conducted with binoculars to aid in bird detection. Recorded SWFL vocalizations were played every 20 meters (approximately 65 feet) to 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) followed by a one-minute silent period to listen for a response. The survey route was arranged to ensure complete survey coverage of habitat with potential for SWFL occupancy. Accessible potentially suitable habitat within the survey area was surveyed, which included approximately 28.0 acres of arroyo willow thicket along Murrieta Creek and Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland along a tributary to Murrieta Creek.

2.3.3 Jurisdictional Delineation
Prior to beginning fieldwork, aerial photographs (1 inch = 175 feet), topographic maps (1 inch = 175 feet), USGS quadrangle maps, and National Wetlands Inventory maps (USFWS 2021b) were reviewed to assist in determining the location of jurisdictional waters on the study area. Mr. Cooley conducted the jurisdictional delineation field work on March 27, 2020. Only jurisdictional features occurring within an approximately 50-foot buffer of the project site were delineated as project disturbance beyond the buffer is not anticipated. The assessment was conducted to identify jurisdictional waters subject to USACE jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), RWQCB jurisdiction pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, and streambed habitats subject to CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFG Code).

Data collection was targeted in areas that were deemed to have the potential to support jurisdictional resources, such as the presence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM), the presence of a bed/bank and streambed associated vegetation, and/or other surface indications of streambed hydrology. Formal wetland soil pits were not conducted due to the presence of obvious hydric soil indicators. The limits of wetlands were identified based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydrogen sulfide odor in the soils. A hand auger was used to confirm hydrogen sulfur odor in the upper column of the soil profiles. The final determination of jurisdiction will be made by USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW through subsequent processing of regulatory permits for the project.

Representative photographs were taken of jurisdictional features and are included as Appendix D, Drainage Photographs. A summary of the regulatory framework is provided below.

5 2.3.3.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction
The USACE waters of the U.S. were determined using current USACE guidelines (Environmental Laboratory 1987, USACE 2008a). Areas were determined to be waters of the U.S. if there was evidence of regular surface flow (e.g., bed and bank). Jurisdictional limits for these areas were measured according to the presence of a discernible OHWM, which is defined in 33 Code of Federal Regulations Section 329.11 as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the character of the soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence of litter or debris; or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” The USACE has issued further guidance on the OHWM (Riley 2005; USACE 2008b), which also was considered in this jurisdictional delineation.

The jurisdictional delineation was conducted in accordance with court decisions (i.e., Rapanos v. United States, Carabell v. United States, and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. USACE), as outlined and applied by the USACE (USACE 2007; Grumbles and Woodley 2007); and USACE and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA; 2007). These publications explain that the EPA and USACE will assert jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters (TNW) and tributaries to TNWs that are a relatively permanent water body (RPW), which has year-round or continuous seasonal flow. For water bodies that are not RPWs, a significant nexus evaluation is used to determine if the non-RPW is jurisdictional. As an alternative to the significant nexus evaluation process, a preliminary jurisdictional delineation may be submitted to the USACE. The preliminary jurisdictional delineation treats all waters and wetlands on a site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. (USACE 2008a). A significant nexus evaluation or preliminary jurisdictional delineation are typically only required for projects that propose impacts to jurisdictional features and, therefore, require a Section 404 permit from the USACE.

The RWQCB asserts regulatory jurisdiction over activities affecting wetland and non-wetland waters of the State pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

RWQCB jurisdiction found within the study area follows the boundaries of USACE jurisdiction for waters of the U.S. and extends them to the top of bank. There are no areas supporting isolated waters of the State subject to exclusive RWQCB jurisdiction pursuant to the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

2.3.3.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction The CDFW jurisdictional boundaries were determined based on the presence of riparian vegetation or regular surface flow, if present. Streambeds within CDFW jurisdiction were delineated based on the definition of streambed as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses with surface or subsurface flow that supports riparian vegetation” (Title 14, Section 1.72). This definition for CDFW jurisdictional habitat allows for a wide variety of habitat types to be jurisdictional, including some that do not include wetland species (e.g., oak woodland and alluvial fan sage scrub). Jurisdictional limits for CDFW streambeds were defined by the top of bank. Vegetated CDFW habitats were mapped at the limits of streambed-associated vegetation, if present.

6 2.3.4 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment In accordance with the MSHCP, a Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool habitat assessment was conducted by Mr. Cooley on March 27, 2020. This habitat assessment was conducted concurrently with the jurisdictional delineation. The identification of Riparian/Riverine habitats is based on potential for the habitat to support, or be tributary to habitat that support, Riparian/Riverine Covered Species identified in MSHCP Section 6.1.2.

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The study area mostly consists of paved roads within the Diaz Road ROW. The study area also supports commercial use and some undeveloped land. Diaz Road within the study area has existed as a dirt road since 1978 and has been paved since at least 1996 (Historic Aerials 1978, 1996). The study area supports 16 drainage features, including Murrieta Creek and its tributaries. Arroyo willow thicket was observed along the edges of Murrieta Creek and Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland within the upstream portion of a small tributary to Murrieta Creek. Surrounding land uses include mostly commercial development with some undeveloped parcels along the western study area boundary and Murrieta Creek along the eastern boundary.

3.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS
The topography of the study area is mostly flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 1,016 feet (310 meters) above mean sea level (AMSL) near the southern boundary to 1,037 feet (316 meters) AMSL near the northern boundary.

The MSHCP lists nine sensitive soil types that occur within the Plan Area (Dudek 2003). Two of these soil types (Domino and Willows soil series) are mapped within the study area. Specifically, six soil types were mapped within the project site, with the majority of the study area dominated by Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkaline). The other five soil types included Domino silt loam (strongly saline-alkaline), Grangeville fine sandy loam (drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes; saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes), Grangeville sandy loam (sand substratum, drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes), riverwash, and Willows silty clay (saline-alkaline; deep, saline-alkaline; deep, strongly saline-alkaline; NRCS 2021). The Grangeville soil component in the northern portion of the study area consists of well-drained soils and are associated with alluvial fans. The Chino soil component within the central portion of the study area is somewhat poorly drained and is associated with floodplains. The Domino and Willows soil component within the southern portion of the project site is poorly drained and are associated with alluvial fans and basin floors.

3.3 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Seven vegetation communities and land uses were mapped on the study area, including Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland, arroyo willow thicket, riverwash, developed, disturbed, eucalyptus grove, and upland mustards (Table 1, Vegetation and Land Uses; Figures 5a-h, Vegetation). A brief description of each vegetation community and land use mapped on the study area is provided below.

7 The CDFW CaCodes and Oberbauer Element Codes are provided in parentheses next to each community name.

Table 1

VEGETATION AND LAND USES
MSHCP Vegetation Community Classification1 MCV/Oberbauer Acres2 Collapsed Uncollapsed Riparian Scrub,
Woodland, Forest
Southern Willow Scrub Arroyo Willow Thicket (CaCode3 61.201.01)4 27.63 Southern Cottonwood/
Willow Riparian
Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland
(CaCode 61.130.23)4

0.37 N/A N/A Riverwash (O5 64140) 47.70
Developed/Disturbed
Land
Residential/Urban/Exotic Developed (O 12000) 163.04
Disturbed (O 11300) 14.56
Eucalyptus Grove (CaCode 79.100.02) 3.78
Upland Mustards (CaCode 42.011.05) 68.67
TOTAL 325.75
1 Collapsed and uncollapsed community classifications are terms from MSHCP Table 2-1. 2 Acreages are rounded to the nearest hundredth.
3 CDFW CaCodes
4 Sensitive community pursuant to CDFW’s Natural Communities List (CDFW 2020). 5 Oberbauer Element Code.

3.3.1 Arroyo Willow Thicket
Arroyo willow thicket consists of dense, broad-leaved, winter-deciduous stands of trees dominated by shrubby willows (Salix spp.) in association with mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), scattered Fremont cottonwoods (Populus fremontii), and western sycamores (Platanus racemosa). This vegetation community occurs on loose, sandy, or fine gravelly alluvium deposited near stream channels during flood flows. Frequent flooding maintains this early seral community, preventing succession to a riparian woodland or forest.

Arroyo willow thicket was observed along the edges of Murrieta Creek, totaling 27.63 acres. This community was dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), with some intermixed sandbar willow (Salix exigua). Native species observed in the understory included mule fat, hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), and cattails (Typha sp.).

3.3.2 Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland
Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland consists of tall, open, broad-leaved, winter-deciduous riparian species and is dominated by cottonwood species (e.g., Populus fremontii and Populus trichocarpa), with willow species (Salix spp.) comprising the main understory. This vegetation community is dense, structurally diverse, and similar to southern arroyo willow riparian forest, although it contains a greater amount of cottonwoods and western sycamores (Holland 1986).

Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland was observed in one area in the central portion of the study area, totaling 0.37 acre. This plant community was dominated by Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and arroyo willow.

8 3.3.3 Riverwash
Riverwash is mostly unvegetated streambed that typically consists of coarse-textured substrate, which ranges from sand to gravel. The coarse-textured substrate is transported and deposited by stream flows.

The majority of Murrieta Creek consisted of unvegetated and sparsely vegetated riverwash, totaling

47.70 acres within the study area. The riverwash consisted of mostly unvegetated sandy streambed.

Some mule fat and non-native grasses were scattered throughout this area.

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

The majority of the study area includes existing developed land, which totaled 163.04 acres. The developed land consisted of commercial developments, roads, sidewalks, and associated ornamental vegetation.

3.3.5 Disturbed
Disturbed land is included under the Urban/Residential/Exotic classification in the uncollapsed MSHCP Vegetation Community Classification. This land use includes land cleared of vegetation (e.g., dirt roads), land containing a preponderance of non-native plant species such as ornamentals or ruderal exotic species that take advantage of disturbance (previously cleared or abandoned landscaping), or land showing signs of past or present animal usage that removes any capability of providing viable habitat.

Disturbed land was observed throughout the study area, which totaled 14.56 acres. These areas consisted of compact dirt adjacent to the paved roads and were mostly unvegetated due to heavy perpetual disturbance.

3.3.6 Eucalyptus Grove
Eucalyptus grove is included under the Urban/Residential/Exotic classification in the uncollapsed MSHCP Vegetation Community Classification. Eucalyptus grove is dominated by eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), an introduced species that has often been planted purposely for wind blocking, ornamental, and hardwood production purposes. The understory within well-established groves is usually very sparse due to the closed canopy and allelopathic nature of the abundant leaf and bark litter.

A total of 3.78 acres of eucalyptus grove was mapped throughout the study area. The canopy of this plant community was dominated by red river gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis). Other non-native tree species observed in the canopy included Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis) and lemon-scented gum (Eucalyptus citriodora). The understory comprised scattered non-native herbaceous species, such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), and short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana).

E!(DENDY PKWYDI
A
Z

R
D
1 Figure 5a
VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig5_Veg.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion
0 150 Feet
Study Area
Project Site
F!(Photo Point
Vegetation
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Developed
Disturbed
River Wash
Upland Mustards
a b c d e
f g
hPage Locator

ZEVODRREMINGTON AVEDIAZRD
Figure 5b
VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig5_Veg.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion
0 150 Feet
Study Area
Project Site
Vegetation
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Developed
Disturbed
River Wash
Upland Mustards
a b c d e
f g
hPage Locator

E!(E!(

ENTERPRISECIR

RIONEDODIAZ

R
D
W INCHESTERRD2
3 Figure 5c
VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig5_Veg.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion
0 150 Feet
Study Area
Project Site
F!(Photo Point
Vegetation
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Developed
Disturbed
River Wash
Upland Mustards
a b c d e
f g
hPage Locator

E!(E!(
ENT
E
R
P
R
I
S
E

C
I

R RIDER WAYSARAH WAYA
Q
U
A

V
I
S
T
A

W
A

Y BLACKDEER LOOPRIO NEDOAVENIDA ALVARADODIAZ

R
DWINCHESTERRD2
3 Figure 5d
VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig5_Veg.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion
0 150 Feet
Study Area
Project Site
F!(Photo Point
Vegetation
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Developed
River Wash
Upland Mustards
a b c d e
f g
hPage Locator

C
OMM
E
R
C
E

C
E
N
T
E
R

D
R

BLACKDEER LOOPSARAH WAYENTERPRISE CIRD
I
A
Z

R
D
Figure 5e
VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig5_Veg.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion
0 150 Feet
Study Area
Project Site
Vegetation
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Developed
River Wash
Upland Mustards
a b c d e
f g
hPage Locator

RANCHO WAYVIA MONTEZUMAD
E
L

R
I
O

R
D

VIA DOS PICOSDI
A
Z

R
D

B US I NESS PARK DR
Figure 5f
VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig5_Veg.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion
0 150 Feet
Study Area
Project Site
Vegetation
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Developed
Disturbed
Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland
River Wash
Upland Mustards
a b c d e
f g
hPage Locator

E!(D
E
L

R
I
O

D LAS HACIENDAS STRANCHO WAYC A L L E C O R T E Z

JEFFERSON
AVE
DI
A
Z

R
D
D
EL
RI
O
R
D
§¨¦15
4 Figure 5g
VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig5_Veg.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion
0 150 Feet
Study Area
Project Site
F!(Photo Point
Vegetation
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Developed
River Wash
Upland Mustards
a b c d e
f g
hPage Locator

VINCENT MORAGA DRSI NGL E O A K D R

FELIX VALDEZ RD

R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A R D

BUSINESSPARK

DR JEFFERSONAVEDIAZ
RD
Figure 5h
VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig5_Veg.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion
0 150 Feet
Study Area
Project Site
Vegetation
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Developed
Disturbed
Eucalyptus Grove
River Wash
Upland Mustards
a b c d e
f g
hPage Locator

9 3.3.7 Upland Mustards
The upland mustards community is included under the Urban/Residential/Exotic classification in the uncollapsed MSHCP Vegetation Community Classification. This vegetation community is typically associated with land that has been heavily influenced by human activities, including areas adjacent to roads, manufactured slopes, and abandoned lots. Upland mustards are dominated by ornamental and exotic species that take advantage of previously cleared or abandoned landscaping or land showing signs of past or present animal usage that removes any capability of providing viable habitat.

Upland mustards totaled 68.67 acres. This community mostly comprised non-native short-pod mustard.

Other non-native species observed in this community included red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens) and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis).

3.4 PLANTS
HELIX identified a total of 85 plant species on the study area during surveys to date, of which 51 (approximately 60 percent) are non-native species (Appendix A). The predominance of non-native species is indicative of the high degree of disturbance on the site and the presence of surrounding development.

3.5 ANIMALS
A total of 66 animal species were detected on the study area during surveys to date, including 57 bird species, two reptile species, five insect species, and two mammal species (Appendix B). In addition to those listed in Appendix B, other animal species that are expected to occur but were not observed during surveys conducted on the study area, include reptile species, such as woodland alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata webbii) and San Diego gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer annectens), and mammal species such as Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana).

3.6 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.6.1 Rare Plant Species
Rare plant species are uncommon or limited in that they: (1) are only found in the western Riverside County region; (2) are a local representative of a species or association of species not otherwise found in the region; or (3) are severely depleted within their ranges or within the region. Rare plant species include those species listed by CNPS with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1, 2, or 3 (2021), federally and state listed endangered and threatened species, or those species that require additional surveys by the MSHCP (Dudek 2003). Since the study area does not occur within any MSHCP rare plant survey overlays, no focused surveys were warranted. The MSHCP survey requirements for rare plant species are discussed in Sections 3.7.2 and 3.7.3.1 below.

A total of 29 rare plant species were recorded within the Murrieta and Temecula quadrangles based on a database search conducted on CNDDB and CNPS (CDFW 2021, CNPS 2021). These species are included in Appendix E, Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur. Of the 29 rare plant species recorded within the vicinity of the study area, 17 species were considered to have no potential to occur based on geographic range, elevation range, and/or lack of suitable habitat on the study area.

10 Ten of these species (alkali marsh aster [Almutaster pauciflorus], Coulter's goldfields [Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri], little mousetail [Myosurus minimus ssp. apus], Orcutt’s brodiaea [Brodiaea orcuttii], Parry's spineflower [Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi], long-spined spineflower [Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina], prostrate vernal pool navarretia [Navarretia prostrata], San Bernardino aster [Symphyotrichum defoliatum], spreading navarretia [Navarretia fossalis], and vernal barley [Hordeum intercedens]) were determined to have a low potential to occur on the study area based on the presence of low-quality habitat within the study area and/or lack of recent observations within the vicinity of the study area. All but two of these species are either fully or conditionally covered under the MSCHCP.

Alkali marsh aster and San Bernardino aster are not covered under the MSHCP. Although potentially suitable habitat is present, these two species are not expected to occur since records within the vicinity of the study area are historical records from the early 1900s. There are no recent observations of alkali marsh aster in Riverside County. The most recent observation of San Bernardino aster in Riverside County was 2015 in the San Jacinto Mountains, approximately 29 miles to the northeast of the project site.

One of these species (San Diego ambrosia [Ambrosia pumila]) was determined to have a high potential to occur on the study area based on mapped sandy soils, and this species’ affinity for disturbance and observations within one mile of the study area (CDFW 2021). This species is a federally endangered species and is conditionally covered under the MSHCP.

One of these species (smooth tarplant [Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis]) was observed within the study area during the general biological survey. Smooth tarplant was observed within Drainage A2.1 in the northern portion of the study area north of Diaz road. This species is a CPRP 1B.1 species and is conditionally covered under the MSHCP.

3.6.2 Sensitive Animal Species
Sensitive animal species include federally and state listed endangered and threatened, candidate species for listing by USFWS or CDFW, and/or are species of special concern (SSC) pursuant to CDFW. Additional MSHCP survey requirements for LBVI, SWFL, and BUOW are discussed below in Sections 3.7.1.1 and

3.7.3.3. A total of 29 sensitive animal species were recorded within the Murrieta and Temecula quadrangles based on a database search conducted on CNDDB (CDFW 2021). These species are included in Appendix F, Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur. Of the 29 sensitive animal species recorded within the vicinity of the study area, 15 species were determined to have no potential to occur on the study area due to lack of suitable habitat. The remaining 14 species (in addition to SWFL) are discussed in further detail below and in Appendix F.

Four of these species were determined to have a low potential to occur on the study area, based on the presence of low quality and isolated habitat, limited acreage of habitat, surrounding development, and lack of recent observations within the immediate vicinity of the study area. These species include coast range newt (Taricha torosa; SSC), San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii; SSC), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni; state endangered; foraging potential only), and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus; SSC; foraging potential only). All species but western mastiff bat are fully covered species under the MSHCP.

11 Six of these species were determined to have a moderate potential to occur based on the presence of suitable habitat and recent observations within the vicinity of the study area. These species include red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber; SSC), Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi; SSC), southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys pallida; SSC), Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi; SKR; federally endangered and state threatened), two-striped gartersnake (Thamnophis hammondii; SSC), and western spadefoot (Spea hammondii; SSC). All species but Southern California legless lizard and two-striped gartersnake are fully covered species under the MSHCP.

Two of these species were determined to have a high potential to occur, based on the presence of suitable habitat and recent observations within the vicinity of the study area. The species include coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri; SSC) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; state fully protected).

Both of these species are fully covered species under the MSHCP.

Focused surveys for BUOW, LBVI, and SWFL were conducted in 2020. The survey results are summarized below.

Burrowing Owl
Focused surveys for BUOW were conducted in accordance with the County’s survey protocol (2006), as previously described in Section 2.3.2.1 above. No BUOWs or BUOW sign were observed within the survey area. Therefore, the study area does not currently support BUOWs. The survey methods and results are discussed in detail in a separate letter report, which is provided as Appendix G, Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report.

Least Bell’s Vireo
Focused surveys for LBVI were conducted in accordance with USFWS’s survey protocol (USFWS 2001), as previously described in Section 2.3.2.2 above. Four males and one pair of LBVIs were observed within suitable habitat on the study area. Therefore, this species is currently presumed present within the study area. The survey methods and results are discussed in detail in a separate letter report, which is provided as Appendix H, Least Bell’s Vireo Focused Survey Report.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Although SWFL was not recorded within the Murrieta or Temecula quadrangles on CNDDB, suitable habitat was observed within the study, and focused surveys were conducted to comply with MSHCP requirements. The focused SWFL surveys were conducted in accordance with the USFWS approved survey protocol (Sogge et al. 2010), as previously described in Section 2.3.2.3 above. No breeding SFWL were detected during the survey effort. One willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii; WIFL) was detected during the first survey in May. A single male WIFL was heard signing along the eastern bank of Murrieta Creek, between Dendry Road and Winchester Road, near its confluence with Santa Gertrudis Creek.

Although the male could not be identified to subspecies, the male was not detected during the subsequent four surveys, and no other WIFLs were detected during any of the surveys. The single observation of a male WIFL is presumed to be a migrating individual. The detailed report findings for the SWFL surveys are included as Appendix I, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Report.

12 3.6.3 Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitats
Sensitive vegetation communities/habitats are considered either rare within the region or sensitive by CDFW (CDFW 2018, Holland 1986). Communities are given a Global and State ranking on a scale of 1 to

5. Communities afforded a rank of 5 are most common while communities with a rank of 1 are considered highly periled. CDFW considers sensitive communities as those with a rank between 1 and 3.

The study area supports two sensitive plant communities pursuant to CDFW, including 0.37 acre of Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland (CDFW CaCode 61.130.23) and 27.63 acres of arroyo willow thicket (CDFW CaCode 61.130.23; Figures 5a-h).

3.6.4 Habitat and Wildlife Corridor Evaluation
Wildlife corridors connect otherwise isolated pieces of habitat and allow movement or dispersal of plants and animals. Corridors can be local or regional in scale; their functions may vary temporally and spatially based on conditions and species presence. Local wildlife corridors allow access to resources such as food, water, and shelter within the framework of their daily routine. Animals use these corridors, which are often hillsides or tributary drainages, to move between different habitats. Regional corridors provide these functions over a larger scale and link two or more large habitat areas, allowing the dispersal of organisms and the consequent mixing of genes between populations.

The study area consists of mostly developed land (Diaz Road, commercial development), with disturbed land along the periphery. Native vegetation is limited to Murrieta Creek and its tributaries. The study area is constrained by commercial development to the west. Portions of the northern boundary of the study area are adjacent to water retention ponds. The eastern portion of the study area is located within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, which consists of Murrieta Creek (Dudek 2003). Regional wildlife movement is expected to occur within Murrieta Creek, which is within the study area but outside of the project site.

3.6.5 Jurisdictional Waters
Based on the results of the jurisdictional delineation, 16 jurisdictional features were observed within the jurisdictional survey area (JD survey area; Figures 6a-f, Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian Areas; Table 2, Existing Jurisdictional Features). Representative drainage photographs are included as Appendix D.

Table 2

EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES
Drainage
USACE/RWQCB1 CDFW1
(acres)2 Non-Wetland
(acres)2
Wetland
(acres)2
Murrieta Creek 0.000 0.000 0.577
A 0.014 0.000 0.074
A1 0.008 0.000 0.008
A2 0.002 0.000 0.002
A3 0.005 0.000 0.183
B 0.001 0.029 0.027
C 0.005 0.013 0.059
D 0.003 0.023 0.083

13 Table 2 (cont.)

EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES
Drainage
USACE/RWQCB1 CDFW1
(acres)2 Non-Wetland
(acres)2
Wetland
(acres)2
E 0.036 0.000 0.109
F 0.001 0.000 0.004
G 0.005 0.002 0.063
H 0.007 0.000 0.086
I 0.001 0.016 0.079
I1 0.002 0.000 0.011
J 0.006 0.000 0.073
K 0.000 0.010 0.057
TOTAL 0.096 0.093 1.495
1 Jurisdictional acreages overlap and are not cumulative (e.g., USACE/RWQCB acreages are included in the CDFW acreages.
2 Acreages are rounded to the nearest thousandth

The JD survey area supports a total of 0.096 acre of USACE/RWQCB non-wetland waters of the U.S. and

0.093 acre of wetland. The JD survey area also supports and 1.49 acres of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and riparian vegetation. The jurisdictional features are described in detail below.

3.6.5.1 Murrieta Creek
Murrieta Creek is a USGS mapped blueline stream that originates approximately 8.3 miles to the northwest of the JD survey area. The creek flows from northwest to the southeast for roughly 2.1 miles within the JD survey area. Murrieta Creek flows through the JD survey area as a soft-bottomed channel and continues for approximately 1.9 miles, where Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek meet to form the Santa Margarita River. The Santa Margarita River ultimately drains into the Pacific Ocean, approximately 24 miles to the southwest of the JD survey area. Murrieta Creek is dominated by riverwash and also supports arroyo willow thicket along the edges. Soils within Murrieta Creek consist of Chino silt loam (drained, strongly saline-alkali), Grangeville fine sandy loam (saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes), Grangeville sandy loam (sandy substratum, drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes), riverwash, Willows silty clay (deep, strongly saline-alkali), and Willows silty clay (saline-alkali; NRCS 2021).

Within the JD survey area, Murrieta Creek supports approximately 0.577 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and riparian vegetation. Waters of the U.S. associated with Murrieta Creek were not located within the 50-foot buffer surrounding the project site.

3.6.5.2 Drainage A
Drainage A is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek, located in the northwestern portion of the JD survey area. Drainage A initiates in the vicinity of a reservoir approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the JD survey area. The drainage appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the slopes adjacent to the reservoir and adjacent undeveloped areas, southwest of the JD survey area. The drainage begins as a cement V- ditch before converting to a small cement drainage. The drainage enters the JD survey area as an earthen drainage and flows northwest for approximately 110 linear feet (LF) before it continues under Diaz Road. Drainage A flows under Diaz Road within a culvert for approximately 75 LF. The drainage daylights on the northside of Diaz Road and flows approximately 50 LF northwest until it meets Murrieta

14 Creek. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation and a small area of arroyo willow thicket.

Soils within Drainage A consist of Grangeville sandy loam (sandy substratum, drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes) and Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkali; NRCS 2021).

Within the JD survey area, Drainage A supports approximately 0.014 acre of USACE/RWQCB of non- wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.074 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and riparian vegetation.

3.6.5.3 Drainage A1
Drainage A1 is a small ephemeral tributary to Drainage A, which initiates in the northwestern portion of the JD survey area. The drainage extends for approximately 45 LF prior to joining Drainage A. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation and some arroyo willow thicket. Soils within Drainage A1 consist of Grangeville sandy loam (sandy substratum, drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes; NRCS 2021).

Within the JD survey area, Drainage A1 supports approximately 0.008 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.008 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and riparian vegetation.

3.6.5.4 Drainage A2
Drainage A2 is a small ephemeral tributary to Drainage A, which initiates in the northwestern portion of the JD survey area. The drainage extends for approximately 25 LF northwest until jurisdictional indicators are no longer discernable. It is assumed that this drainage sheet flows for approximately 215 LF before joining Drainage A. The drainage primarily consists of saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima). Soils within Drainage A2 consist of Grangeville sandy loam (sandy substratum, drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes; NRCS 2021).

Within the JD survey area, Drainage A2 supports approximately 0.002 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.002 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation.

3.6.5.5 Drainage A2.1
Drainage A2.1 is a small ephemeral tributary to Drainage A, which initiates 450 feet southeast of the JD survey area. The drainage flows northeast within the JD survey area for approximately 215 LF until jurisdictional indicators are no longer discernable. This portion of the drainage is located on private property, which was fenced and had active construction activities occurring during the survey. Due to inaccessibility, the connection is assumed to be through surface flow and not a direct connection through a culvert. It is assumed that the drainage sheet flows across unpaved portions of Diaz Road for approximately 100 feet before it enters a roadside swale that runs parallel to Diaz road. The roadside swale continues for approximately 230 feet before indicators end. Surface runoff is expected to join Drainage 2. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation. Soils within Drainage A2.1 consist of Grangeville fine sandy loam (drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes) and Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkali; NRCS 2021).

Within the JD survey area, Drainage A2.1 supports approximately 0.005 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.183 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation.

A2
A
A2.1
A1

DENDY PKWYDI
A
Z

R
D
Figure 6a
Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig6_JD.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion
0 100 Feet
Study Area
Project Site
USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction
CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas
a
b c
d e f
Page Locator

Murrieta Creek
B

RIO NEDOENT
E
R
P
R
I
S
E

C
I

R ENTERPRISECIRWINCHESTER RDDIAZ

R
D
Figure 6b
Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig6_JD.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion
0 100 Feet
Study Area
Project Site
USACE Jurisdictional Wetland
USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction
CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas
a
b c
d e f
Page Locator

DBLACKDEER LOOPSARAH WAYENTERPRISE CIRD
I
A
Z

R
D
Figure 6c
Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig6_JD.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion
0 100 Feet
Study Area
Project Site
USACE Jurisdictional Wetland
USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction
CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas
a
b c
d e f
Page Locator

F
G
E
D
E
L

R
I
O

DVIA MONTEZUMADI
A
Z

R
D
Figure 6d
Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig6_JD.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion
0 100 Feet
Study Area
Project Site
USACE Jurisdictional Wetland
USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction
CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas
a
b c
d e f
Page Locator

I
H
I1
D
E
L

R
I
O

DLAS HACIENDAS STCALLE CORTEZRANCHO WAYDI
A
Z

R
D
D
E
L

R
I
O

R
D
Figure 6e
Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig6_JD.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion
0 100 Feet
Study Area
Project Site
USACE Jurisdictional Wetland
USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction
CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas
a
b c
d e f
Page Locator

Murrieta Creek
K
J

JEFFERSONAVEDELRIORD
D
I
A
Z
R
DFigure 6f
Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig6_JD.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion
0 100 Feet
Study Area
Project Site
USACE Jurisdictional Wetland
USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction
CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas
a
b c
d e f
Page Locator

15 3.6.5.6 Drainage B
Drainage B is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the central portion of the JD survey area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage B enters the JD survey area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 80 LF before joining Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports southwestern willow scrub, hardstem bulrush, and cattails with some non- native vegetation. Soils within Drainage B consist of Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkali; NRCS 2021).

Within the JD survey area, Drainage B supports approximately 0.001 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S. in addition to 0.029 acre of wetlands. Drainage B also supports approximately

0.027 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation.

3.6.5.7 Drainage C
Drainage C is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the central portion of the JD survey area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage C enters the JD survey area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 100 LF before exiting the JD survey area.

Drainage C continues off-site for approximately 130 feet before flowing into Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation with hardstem bulrush and cattails in the bed of the drainage. Soils within Drainage C consist of Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkali; NRCS 2021).

Within the JD survey area, Drainage C supports approximately 0.005 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S. in addition to 0.013 acre of wetlands. Drainage C also supports approximately

0.059 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation.

3.6.5.8 Drainage D
Drainage D is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the central portion of the JD survey area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage D enters the JD survey area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 100 LF before exiting the JD survey area.

Drainage D continues off-site for approximately 130 feet before flowing into Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports willows and mule fat in the bed of the drainage. Soils within Drainage D consist of Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkali; NRCS 2021).

Within the JD survey area, Drainage D supports approximately 0.003 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S., in addition to 0.023 acre of wetlands. Drainage D also supports approximately 0.083 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation.

3.6.5.9 Drainage E
Drainage E is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the central portion of the JD survey area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage E enters the JD survey area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 100 LF before exiting the JD survey area.

Drainage E continues off-site for approximately 150 feet before flowing into Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation. Soils within Drainage E consist of Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkali; NRCS 2021).

16 Within the JD survey area, Drainage E supports approximately 0.036 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S. and approximately 0.109 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation.

3.6.5.10 Drainage F
Drainage F is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the central portion of the JD survey area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage F enters the JD survey area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 50 LF before jurisdictional indicators cease. Drainage F presumably sheet flows for approximately 170 feet until joining Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation. Soils within Drainage F consist of Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkali; NRCS 2021).

Within the JD survey area, Drainage F supports approximately 0.001 acre of USACE/RWQCB non-wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.004 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation.

3.6.5.11 Drainage G
Drainage G is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the central portion of the JD survey area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage G enters the JD survey area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 100 LF before exiting the JD survey area.

Drainage G continues off-site for approximately 250 feet before flowing into Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation, with small mule fat shrubs, and hardstem bulrush in the drainage bed. Soils within Drainage G consist of Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkali; NRCS 2021).

Within the JD survey area, Drainage G supports approximately 0.005 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S. in addition to 0.002 acre of wetlands. Drainage G also supports approximately 0.063 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation.

3.6.5.12 Drainage H
Drainage H is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the southeastern portion of the JD survey area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage H enters the JD survey area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 100 LF before exiting the JD survey area. Drainage H continues off-site for approximately 150 feet before flowing into Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation. Soils within Drainage H consist of Domino silt loam (strongly saline-alkali; NRCS 2021).

Within the JD survey area, Drainage H supports approximately 0.007 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.086 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation.

3.6.5.13 Drainage I
Drainage I is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the southeastern portion of the JD survey area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage I enters the JD survey area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 90 LF before exiting the JD survey area. Drainage I continues off-site for approximately 100 feet before flowing into Murrieta Creek. The

17 drainage primarily supports willows and hardstem bulrush in the drainage bed. Soils within Drainage I consist of Willows silty clay (deep, strongly saline-alkali; NRCS 2021).

Within the JD survey area, Drainage I supports approximately 0.001 acre of USACE/RWQCB non-wetland waters of the U.S. in addition to 0.016 acre of wetlands. In addition, Drainage I supports approximately

0.079 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation.

3.6.5.14 Drainage I1
Drainage I1 is a small ephemeral tributary to Drainage I, which initiates in the southeastern portion of the study area. The drainage extends for approximately 20 LF prior to joining Drainage I. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation. Soils within Drainage I1 consist of Willows silty clay (deep, strongly saline-alkali; NRCS 2021).

Within the study area, Drainage I1 supports approximately 0.002 acre of USACE/RWQCB non-wetland waters of the U.S. and approximately 0.011 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation.

3.6.5.15 Drainage J
Drainage J is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the southeastern portion of the study area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage J enters the study area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 90 LF before exiting the study area.

Drainage J continues off-site for approximately 150 feet before flowing into Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation. Soils within Drainage J consist of riverwash (NRCS 2021).

Within the study area, Drainage J supports approximately 0.006 acre of USACE/RWQCB non-wetland waters of the U.S. and approximately 0.073 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation.

3.6.5.16 Drainage K
Drainage K is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the southeastern portion of the study area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage K enters the study area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 70 LF before exiting the study area. Drainage K continues off-site for approximately 130 feet before flowing into Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports willows in the drainage bed and some eucalyptus grove. Soils within Drainage K consist of riverwash and Grangeville fine sandy loam (drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes; NRCS 2021).

Within the study area, Drainage K supports approximately 0.010 acre of USACE/RWQCB wetland waters of the U.S and approximately 0.057 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and riparian vegetation.

18 3.7 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

3.7.1 Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (Section 6.1.1) The MSHCP Plan Area is divided into 16 Area Plans, within which 153,000 acres were identified as potential areas for conservation that would contribute to the overall existing MSHCP Conservation Area.

The areas identified for conservation within the MSHCP Plan Area are called Criteria Areas, and include Core Areas that support habitat for covered species and Linkages that provide a connection between Core Areas. The Criteria Areas are divided into 160-acre cells, which each have their own conservation goal. All projects within a cell or cell group are required to be assessed through the Habitat Acquisition and Negotiation Strategy (HANS) process to determine the amount of MSHCP conservation required.

The HANS processes aid in the acquisition of lands that will contribute to the assembly of the MSHCP Reserve.

The study area is located within the Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) of the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP. The study area includes portions of Criteria Cells 6656, 6781, 6782, 6783, 6890, 6891, 7021, and 7078 (Figure 7, MSHCP Criteria). The conservation requirements for these Criteria Cells are presented below in Table 3, Conservation Requirement of the MSHCP Criteria Cells. Although the study area is within several Criteria Cells, the project site is mostly within existing developed areas. The project site is not targeted for conservation or in an area that would contribute to the MSHCP reserve assembly.

Furthermore, Diaz Road is considered a “covered road” under the MSCHP. According to MSHCP Section

7.3.4, “safety improvements to other publicly maintained existing roadways within the Criteria Area are Covered Activities. The proposed road widening is considered a safety improvement and is, therefore, a “covered activity.” Implementation of the proposed project would avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive species and habitats adjacent to the existing roadway. Overall, the project would be consistent with the MSHCP.

Table 3

CONSERVATION REQUIREMENT OF THE MSHCP CRITERIA CELLS
Criteria Cell Conservation Criteria
6656
Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage

13. Conservation within this Cell will focus on the existing Murrieta Creek channel and adjacent grassland habitat and agricultural land to the extent feasible. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6528 to the north and to grassland habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6782 to the southeast.

Conservation within this Cell will range from 5%-15% of the Cell, focusing in the southwestern portion of the Cell.
6781
Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 10.

Conservation within this Cell will focus on chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and grassland habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and grassland habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6780 to the west and #6888 to the south. Conservation within this Cell will range from 35%-45% of the Cell, focusing in the southwestern portion of the Cell.

19 Table 3 (cont.)

CONSERVATION REQUIREMENT OF THE MSHCP CRITERIA CELLS
Criteria Cell Conservation Criteria
6782
Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage

13. Conservation within this Cell will focus on the existing Murrieta Creek channel and adjacent grassland habitat to the extent feasible. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6656 to the northwest and to grassland and adjacent habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6783 to the east.

Conservation within this Cell be approximately 5% of the Cell, focusing in the northeastern portion of the Cell.
6783
Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage

13. Conservation within this Cell will focus on the existing Murrieta Creek channel and adjacent riparian scrub, woodland forest and grassland habitat to the extent feasible. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to grassland and adjacent habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6782 to the west and to riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6890 to the south. Conservation within this Cell will be approximately 5% of the Cell, focusing in the southwestern portion of the Cell. 6890
Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage

13. Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland, forest, and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat along Murrieta Creek. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6783 to the north and to Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6891 to the east.

Conservation within this Cell will range from 10%-20% of the Cell, focusing in the northeastern portion of the Cell.
6891
Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage

13. Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland, forest, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub and grassland habitat along Murrieta Creek. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6890 to the west and to riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7021 to the south.

Conservation within this Cell will range from 15%-25% of the Cell, focusing in the southwestern portion of the Cell.
7021
Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage

13. Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat along Murrieta Creek. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6891 to the north and in Cell #7078 to the south. Conservation within this Cell will range from 20%-30% of the Cell, focusing in the eastern portion of the Cell.
7078
Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage

13. Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat along Murrieta Creek. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7021 to the north and in Cell #7079 to the east. Conservation within this Cell will range from 15%-25% of the Cell, focusing in the northeastern portion of the Cell.

3.7.2 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment (MSHCP Section 6.1.2)
The identification of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources is based on the potential for the habitat to support, or be a tributary to habitat that supports, Riparian/Riverine Covered Species. Riparian/Riverine

20 Covered Species are identified in MSHCP Section 6.1.2. The MSHCP defines Riparian/Riverine habitat as “lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year” (Dudek 2003). The MSHCP defines Vernal Pools as “seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season” (Dudek 2003). Artificially created features, except for those created intentionally to provide wetland habitat or resulting from the creation of open waters or alteration of natural stream courses, are not considered MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas or Vernal Pools.

In accordance with the MSHCP, a Riparian/Riverine habitat assessment was conducted by Mr. Cooley on March 27, 2020. The Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool habitat assessment was conducted concurrently with the jurisdictional delineation. MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas were identified within the study area, which are consistent with the limits of CDFW jurisdictional vegetation. The Riparian/Riverine Areas mapped on the study area are equivalent to the total area of CDFW jurisdiction within Murrieta Creek and Drainages A through K (1.49 acres; Figure 6). The study area does not support any areas considered MSHCP Vernal Pool Habitat.

3.7.2.1 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Species
Through the protection of Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool habitats, the MSHCP aims to conserve several plant and animal species within the Plan Area. During the Riparian/Riverine habitat assessment discussed above, each plant and animal species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP was evaluated to determine the potential to occur on the study area. Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool species are discussed in detail below.

Temecula City CouncilMay 24, 2022

Temecula City Council
May 24, 2022