Temecula City Council
January 27, 2026

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
^'^•��"^ '^'r January 2026
Section 4.17: Transportation
Considering the relatively short distance (less than one mile), any potential near -term increase in VMT relating to additional vehicular capacity is expected to be minor and would be offset by the enhanced bike lane and sidewalk improvements. Furthermore, since the proposed Project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element, the Project would not increase VMT beyond long-range forecasts included in the Southern California Associations of Government (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (Connect SoCal 2024). Thus, the proposed Project aligns with the City -established screening criteria for transportation projects that may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. c) Would the project 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 Ynez Road. Upon completion of construction, the proposed median, streetlights, bike lanes, and sidewalks would minimize hazards to vehicular travelers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Each of these improvements would be constructed in accordance with City standards and would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment). Therefore, the impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
d) Would the project 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 Ynez 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.

4.17.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Transportation apply to the proposed Project.

4.17.3 Conclusion
Potential impacts of the proposed Project associated with Transportation would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
0255January 2026 Section 4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
A Cultural Resources Assessment for the proposed Project was performed to determine potential impacts to historic and archaeological resources (Appendix C). The assessment addressed the ethnographic and archaeology of the Native American occupation in the City of Temecula .

City of Temecula AB 52 Tribal Consultation
On July 24, 2025, the City of Temecula notified via email the following tribal entities of the Project and that the 30-day timeframe in which to request consultation would end within 30 days of receipt of the letter, in accordance with AB52. The following summarizes the results of the AB52 consultation.
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Result: The Project is outside of the Tribe's traditional use area; defer to other tribes. Consultation concluded. • Pechanga Band of Indians. Result: Mitigation measures were identified and included in this document at CUL-1 through CUL-7 and TRC-1 through TRC-11. • Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians. Result: No response. Consultation concluded. • Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. Result: The tribe defers the Project to the Pechanga Band of Indians. Consultation concluded.
• Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians: Email received August 1, 2025 stating that the Project is not located in the Tribe's traditional area. Consultation concluded.

4.18.1 Environmental Setting
The Cultural Resources Report in Appendix C assessed the proposed Project for potentially important cultural resources as required under CEQA. The pedestrian survey identified no cultural resources within the Project area.

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
Q2_5January 2026 Section 4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources

4.18.2 Impact Analysis
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
No Impact or

CEQATHRESHOLDS
Significant
with
Significant
Does Not
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Apply
Incorporated
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES:

Would the project 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:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
X
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
X
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.

Discussion
a) Would the project 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 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)?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Accordingto PRC Chapter 2.5, Section 21074, tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and items 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 Section 5020.1.

There were no resources that were identified as eligible for listing to the California Register of Historic Places within or near the Project site during the cultural resources assessment included as Appendix C. Therefore, there would be no impact to known tribal cultural

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
0255January 2026 Section 4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources resources. However, duringAB52 consultation, Pechanga informed the City of Temecula that the proposed Project area exists within its ancestral territory and, therefore, is of interest to the Tribe. However, due to the nature and location of the proposed project, and given Pechanga's present state of knowledge, Pechanga did not have any concerns with the project's implementation, as planned, at this time. However, Pechanga requested that Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-11, located at the end of this section, be made a part of the project/permit/plan conditions to protect for unidentified resources. b) Would the project 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 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?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The Project has no resources that have been identified as significant within or near the Project site. Ground -disturbing activities, however, do have the potential to uncover unanticipated tribal cultural resources.

There are no resources that have been identified as eligible for listing to the California Register of Historic Places within or near the Project site. As discussed above, the Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-11 would be implemented to avoid potential impacts to tribal cultural resources that may be unearthed by Project construction activities. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 is consistent with CUL-1 through CUL-5.

4.18.3 Mitigation Measures
TCR-1 A Pechanga Tribal monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the project archaeologist, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property as required by the following:

A. At least 30 days prior to the start of any ground -disturbing activities, the City shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to develop an Agreement ("Agreement").

This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
0255January 2026 Section 4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered onsite. The Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground -disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist. Pechanga Tribal Monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities.

TCR-2 Prior to beginning project construction, the City of Temecula shall hire an archaeologist to monitor all ground disturbing activities in an effortto identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resource evaluation. The archaeological monitor shall have the authority to stop and redirect grading in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Indians in order to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property. The archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities.

TCR-3 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.

TCR-4 If, during ground disturbance activities, unique cultural resources are discovered that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment conducted prior to Project approval, the following procedures shall be followed. Unique cultural resources are defined, for this Mitigation only, as being multiple artifacts in close association with each other, but may include fewer artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of significance due to its sacred or cultural importance as determined in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Indians. Tribal cultural resources are excluded from the definition of unique cultural resources as those resources are defined by the tribal values ascribed to the them by their affiliated communities. Treatment of Tribal cultural resources inadvertently discovered during the project's ground -disturbing activities shall be subject to the consultation process required by state law and AB 52.

All ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of the discovered cultural resources shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the City, the Project Archaeologist, the Pechanga Band of Indians, and the Planning Director to discuss the significance of the find.
ii. Further ground disturbance, including but not limited to grading, trenching, vegetation clearing, etc., shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional Tribal and archaeological Monitors if needed.

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
Q2_5January 2026 Section 4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources iii. At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after consultation with the Tribal Representative(s) and the Project Archaeologist, a decision shall be made, with the concurrence of the Planning Director, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, avoidance, recovery, etc.) for the cultural resources.
iv. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Monitoring Agreement entered into with the Pechanga Band of Indians. This may include avoidance of the cultural resources through project design, in -place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils and/or re -burial of the resources on the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in CUL-4.

V. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the Project Applicant and the Pechanga Band of Indians cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, recommendations of the project archeologist and shall consider the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Pechanga Band of Indians. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council. vi. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site feasibly cannot be achieved, a Mitigation recovery plan shall be prepared by the Project Archeologist, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Indians, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan.
vii. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant Cultural or Tribal Cultural Resource is found, shall be provided to City of Temecula upon the completion of a treatment plan and include a final report detailing the significance and treatment finding.

TCR-5 In the event that Tribal Cultural Resources are discovered during the course of grading, the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries: One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Indians.

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
0255January 2026 Section 4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources Preservation -In -Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources.
ii. Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The measures for reburial shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity.

Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods, and Native American human remains are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request. iii. If preservation in place and/or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid.

There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods, and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report.

Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to the City of Temecula upon the completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and treatment finding.

TCR-6 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 through CUL-5.

TCR-7 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

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
0255January 2026 Section 4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources 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) shallthen 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 TCR-1.

TCR-8 The following shall be included on the notes for the grading plan:

Note 1: Archaeological Monitoring Grading Note: A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property as required by Note 1.

TCR-9 The following shall be included on the notes for the grading plan:

Note 2: Discovery of Cultural Resources Grading Note: If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered by the Tribal or Archaeological monitor, all work in the area of the find shall cease, and the Discovery of Cultural Resources mitigation measure shall be followed. Upon determining that the discovery is a cultural/Tribal Cultural resource, no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Planning Director.

TCR-10 The following shall be included on the notes for the grading plan:

Note 3: Relinquishment of Cultural Resources Grading Note: The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition as required by Note 1.

TCR-11 The following shall be included on the notes for the grading plan:

Note 4: Human Remains Grading Note: If Human Remains are encountered all work is to cease within 50 ft of the discovery in accordance with Note 1 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) are to be followed.

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
Q2_5January 2026 Section 4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources

4.18.4 Conclusion
Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1, TCR-2, TCR-3, TCR-4, TCR-5, TCR-6, TCR-7, TCR- 8, TCR-9, TCR-10, and TCR-11 would reduce potential impacts of the proposed Project associated with Tribal Cultural Resources to less than significant.

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
0255 January 2026 Section 4.19: Utilities and Service Systems

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.19.1 Impact Analysis
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
No Impact or

CEQATHRESHOLDS
Significant
with
Significant
Does Not
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Apply
Incorporated
XIX.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:

Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
X
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
X
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
X
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
X
infrastructure, or otherwise impairthe attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
X
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
0255 January 2026 Section 4.19: Utilities and Service Systems Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project consists of the relocation of various existing underground utilities to accommodate the new Project limits. These facilities may be taken out of service temporarily during construction. However, all utility providers will re- route service to the area by use of other nearby facilities.

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.

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 new storm drains within the Project alignment, however, these storm drains are designed to convey the flows of a 0.5 acre new drainage area as a result of the Project. The storm drains are designed in accordance with City standards. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would use a minimal amount of water required for dust control during the temporary construction period. 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, and no mitigation is required. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves ormayserve 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? Less Than Significant. The proposed project would generate a minimal amount of construction waste. All nonrecyclable solid waste generated during construction would be taken to a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity. No solid waste is generated during Project operation of a roadway, other than litter from passing vehicles. 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, impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
0255 January 2026 Section 4.19: Utilities and Service Systems e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant. 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 bythe proposed Projectwould be disposed of at a properly permitted facility in accordance with federal, state, and local laws. Therefore, the impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

4.19.2 Mitigation Measures:

No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Utilities and Service Systems apply to the proposed Project.

4.19.3 Conclusion
Potential impacts of the proposed Project associated with Utilities and Service Systems would be Less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
^'^•��"^ '^'r January 2026

4.20 WILDFIRE
Section 4.20: Wildfire
A wildfire is a nonstructural fire that occurs in vegetative fuels, excluding prescribed fire. Wildfires can occur in undeveloped areas and spread to urban areas where the landscape and structures are not designed and maintained to be ignition resistant.

The Project alignment 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 Very High Fire Hazard Zone (VHFHSZ, CAL FIRE 2007, 2011). The Project site is mapped as Non-VHFHSZ per the CALFIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. According to the VHFHSZ Maps prepared by the City in collaboration with CAL FIRE, the nearest VHFHSZ is located approximately 1 mile west of the Project near the City's western boundary.

4.20.1 Impact Analysis
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
No Impact or

CEQATHRESHOLDS
Significant
with
Significant
Does Not
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Apply
Incorporated
XX. WILDFIRE:

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
X
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
X
concentrations from a wildfire orthe uncontrolled
spread of wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
X
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
X
landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
^'^•��"^ '^'r January 2026
Section 4.20: Wildfire
Discussion
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The Project alignment is not located within or near an area designated as a VHFHZ. A Traffic Control Plan would be implemented during construction that would allow for emergency vehicles and evacuation procedures.

Operations associated with the widened roadwaywould be similarto existing conditions, but would provide incrementally increased traffic capacity that would also facilitate emergency response and evacuation activities in the Project area. As the Project is not located within a VHFHZ and Project safety controls are in place, implementation of the Project would not impair an emergency response or evacuation plan, and there would be no impact. 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?
No Impact. The Project alignment is not located within or near an area designated as a VHFHZ.

The purpose of the Project is to widen a less than 0.5 mile segment of Ynez Road to match the lane conditions both north and south of the Project alignment. The Project would not result in an increase in the City's population which could potentially result in the exposure of additional people to wildfire. As the Project is not located within a VHFHZ and is a project type that does not involve increasing population, Project implementation would not exacerbate wildlife risk. No impact would occur.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, powerlines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The Project alignment is not located within or near an area designated as a VHFHZ.

The Project would include road and utilities associated with lane widening in a 1,763 segment between Rancho Vista Road and Tierra Vista Road. And though the Project includes elements such as roads and utilities, because the Project alignment is not located within a VHFHZ, no impact would occur.
d) Expose people orstructures to significant risks, including downslope ordownstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
^'^•��"^ '^'r January 2026
Section 4.20: Wildfire
No Impact. The Project alignment is not located within or near an area designated as a VHFHZ.

Beyond the road shoulder of the alignment, however, the topography slopes steeply (2:1) to between 15 and 20 feet belowthe edge of the unimproved raised shoulder. Approximately 40 feet beyond the slope to the east, a drainage parallels the Ynez Road alignment within the vacant parcels 944-290-017 and -016, outletting under Rancho Vista Road. The outlet at Rancho Visa Road is heavily vegetated and includes various oak trees. A cluster of oak trees also exists along the slope of the area of the proposed retaining wall.

Project improvements include a retaining wall along portions of the roadway to stabilize the slope. As the Project type is a road improvement that is not located within a VHFHZ, the Project would not 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. There would be no impact.

4.20.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures associated with impacts to Wildfire apply to the proposed Project.

4.20.3 Conclusion
The proposed Project would have no impact associated with Wildfire risk, and no mitigation would be required.

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
0255 January 2026 Section 4.21: Mandatory Findings

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
No Impact or

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Significant
with
Significant
Does Not
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Apply
Incorporated
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
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,
X
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
X
are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
X
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
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? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As concluded in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the Project Site is generally not going to impact sensitive resources except for a portion of the adjacent stream. However, the vegetation on site may attract birds and other mammal species that are protected by the MBTA. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to perform a pre -construction nesting bird survey is required to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds protected by the MBTA. Additionally, no burrowing owls or recent sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) was observed during the

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
0255 January 2026 Section 4.21: Mandatory Findings
field investigation. Based on the results of the field investigation, it was determined that the Project Site has a low potential to support burrowing owls and focused surveys are not recommended. However, to ensure burrowing owls have not moved into the site prior to construction, Mitigation Measure 131O-2 to provide a site survey prior to construction is required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Additionally, Mitigation Measure 131O-3 requires that the City will mitigate impacts to 0.22 acre of riverine habitat through the management (removal of non-native plant species) of

0.66 acre of habitat within a City owned parcel along Temecula Creek.

As indicated in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, and Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, no cultural or tribal resources are anticipated, although unanticipated discoveries may occur during Project construction. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, CUL-4, CUL-5, CUL-6, and CUL-7 as well as TCR-1, TCR-2, TCR-3, TCR-4, TCR-5, TCR-6, TCR-7, TCR-8, TCR-9, TCR-10, and TCR-11 would reduce the Project's potential environmental impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources to less than significant.

As indicated in Section 4.7 Geology and Soils, the Project Site exists in previously disturbed surface and near -surface soils in the Project Site which have a relatively low potential to contain significant paleontological resources. The undisturbed soils below the recent and disturbed soils, however, which consist of alluvial fan deposits of sand and gravel from the Pleistocene epoch, are considered to have a high potential to contain significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources. Thus, the Project's potentialto impact significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources is high when construction activities extend into these older subsurface sediments. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 that requires a Paleontological Resources Management Plan (PRMP) to be prepared prior to grading is required to reduce impacts to less than significant.

Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, the proposed Project would not potentially 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. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The proposed Project is being developed according to the General Plan Circulation Element.

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
0255 January 2026 Section 4.21: Mandatory Findings
As demonstrated by the analysis in this Initial Study, the proposed Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts in any environmental category with implementation of Project -specific mitigation measures. Implementation of mitigation measures at the Project -level would reduce the potential for incremental environmental effects of the proposed Projectto be considered when viewed in conjunction with the effects of past projects, current projects, or probablyfuture projects. Project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The Project is required to comply with a number of local, State and federal regulations that are identified throughout this document. Implementation of these regulations will ensure that Project -specific impacts will be less than significant. Project -specific impacts would be mitigated through Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which requires a hazardous spill prevention plan, and Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 which requires that all asphalt shall be disposed of in accordance with current regulatory standards, which would reduce potential substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as identified in this analysis.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
^'^•��"^ '^'r January 2026
5 LIST OF PREPARERS
Contributors and Consultants
Julie Gilbert, ELMT Consulting, Senior CEQA Specialist
Travis McGill, ELMT Consulting, Senior Biologist
Lindsey Sessions, ELMT Consulting, CEQA Associate Specialist Tyler Klassen, MD Acoustics, Senior Air Quality Specialist Nick Shepetuk, M.A., RPA, BCR Consulting LLC
City Staff
Various Staff, Public Works Engineering
Section 6: Preparers

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
"'^••^^��^ '^'�January2026
6 REFERENCES
Section 7: References
The following reports and/or studies are applicable to development of the Project site and are hereby incorporated by reference:

State of California, Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF .

United States Dept of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA), Web Soil Survey, https://websoiLsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoiLSurvey.aspx .

*; EMT

CONSULTING
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

APPENDICES

ODEEMT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
❑� CONSULTING Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
Appendix A
Ynez Road Widening Project — Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, City of Temecula, CA
MID Acoustics
October 1, 2025

MDACOI ICTICS AZ Office CA Office
V J I J 4960 S. Gilbert Road, Ste 1-461 1197 Los Angeles Avenue, Ste C-256 Sound solutions for Planning and Design Chandler, AZ 85249 Simi Valley, CA 93065 p. (602) 774-1950 p. (805) 426-4477
October 1, 2025
Mr. Travis McGill
ELMT Consulting, Inc.
2201 N Grand Ave, Ste #10098
Santa Ana, CA 92711
Subject:

Ynez Road Widening Project — Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, City of Temecula, CA
Dear Mr. McGill:

MD Acoustics, LLC (MD) has completed a focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation for the proposed Ynez Road Widening Project in the City of Temecula, CA. The purpose of this focused study is to evaluate the air quality, greenhouse gas, and energy construction emissions generated by the proposed project and to compare the project emissions to South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) thresholds of significance as it relates to residential and commercial uses and consistency to the City's General Plan. A list of definitions and terminology is located in Appendix A.

1.0 Project Description
The project proposes to widen the easterly side of Ynez Road, from Rancho Vista Road north roughly 1600 feet, to two lanes in each direction and complete missing segments of curb and gutter, sidewalk, and striped medians in coordination with adjacent development between Tierra Vista Road and Rancho Vista Road. The nearest sensitive receptors are the single-family residences located approximately 65 feet to the southwest.

2.0 AQ/GHG Thresholds of Significance

2.1 AQ Significance Thresholds
Project emissions were compared to both regional and localized SCAQMD's thresholds of significance for construction emissionsl,2.

2.2 GHG Significance Thresholds
The project emissions were compared to the SCAQMD's 3,000 MTCO2e draft threshold for all land uses3.

3.0 Evaluation Procedure/Methodology
MD utilized the latest version of CaIEEMod (2022.1.1.29) to calculate both the construction emissions from the project site4. Project construction is modeled to commence no earlier than January 2026 and be completed by September 2026. Construction assumes grubbing & land clearing; grading & excavation; drainage, utilities, & sub -grade; and paving. CalEEmod defaults were utilized. Assumptions and output calculations are provided in Appendix B.
1 https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-threshoIds.pdf z https://www.agmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds a https://www.agmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg-significance-thresholds/page/2 ° https://www.caleemod.com/
MD Acoustics, LLC
JN: 07392509_Letter Report

ynez Road Widening Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Energy Impact Study

4.0 Local Ambient Conditions
The project site is located in South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) in the Temecula Valley Source Receptor Area (SRA 26)1. The nearest air monitoring station to the project site is the Pechanga Reservation Monitoring Station. Historical air quality data for the vicinity can be found both at CARB and SCAQMD's websites6,7.

Temperature and historical precipitation data can be found at the WRCC8.

5.0 Findings
The following outlines the emissions for the project:

5.1 Regional Construction Emissions
The construction emissions for the project would not exceed the SCAQMD's daily emission thresholds at the regional level as indicated in Table 1, and therefore the impact would be considered less than significant.

Table 1: Reeional Sienificance - Construction Emissions (lbs/dav) Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
voc
NOx
CO
S02
PM10
PM2.5
Grubbing & Land Clearing
On -Site'

0.46 4.04

4.49 0.01

0.42 0.22
Off -Site'

0.03 0.03

0.41 0.00

0.10 0.02
Total

0.49 4.07

4.90 0.01

0.52 0.24
Grading & Excavation
On -Site'
ISO

29.90 36.60

0.07 2.76

1.36 Off -Site'

0.16 0.18

2.70 0.00

0.50 0.11
Total

3.66 30.08

39.30 0.07

3.26 1.47
Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade
On -Site'

1.79 16.00

19.70 0.04

1.24 0.64
Off -Site'

0.11 0.10

1.80 0.00

0.33 0.08
Total

1.90 16.10

21.50 0.04

1.57 0.72
Paving
On -Site'

0.81 7.53

11.70 0.02

0.30 0.28
Off -Site'

0.08 0.39

1.36 0.00

0.32 0.08
Total

0.89 1 7.92

13.06 0.02
1 0.62

0.36 SCAQMD Thresholds
75 100
550
150
150
55 Exceeds Thresholds
No
No
No
No
No
No
Notes:

Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29
On -site emissions from equipment operated on -site that is not operated on public roads. s Off -site emissions from equipment operated on public roads. ° Architectural coatings and paving phases may overlap.

5.2 Localized Construction Emissions
Utilizing the construction equipment list and associated acreages per 8-hour day provided in the SCAQMD "Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds" (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2011b), the maximum number of acres disturbed in a day would be 4.0 acres during 5 https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/map-of-monitoring-areas.pdf?sfvrsn=6 6 https://www.agmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-by-year https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/
a https://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmsca.html
MD Acoustics, LLC 2
JN: 07392509_Letter Report

ynez Road Widening Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Energy Impact Study
grading & excavation (as shown in Table 2 below); therefore, the project emissions have been compared to the 2-acre per day localized significance threshold, the next conservative threshold.

Table 2: Maximum Number of Acres Disturbed Per Day'
Activity
Equipment
Number
Acres/8hr-day
Total Acres
Graders
2 0.5

1.0 Rubber Tired Dozers
1 0.5

0.5 Grading & Excavation
Scrapers
2 1.0

2.0 Crawler Tractor
1 0.5

0.5 Total Per Phase

4.0 Notes:
' Source: CalEEMod output and South Coast AQMD, Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- sou rce/ceqa/hand book/localized-sign ifica nce-thresholds/caleemod-guida nce.pdf?sfvrsn=2 None of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the LST emission thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors as shown in Table 3. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant from construction.

Table 3: Localized Significance - Construction Emissions (Ibs/dav) Phase
On -Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)'
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
Grubbing & Land Clearing

4.04 4.49

0.42 0.22
Grading & Excavation

29.90 36.60

2.76 1.36
Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade

16.00 19.70

1.24 0.64
Paving

7.53 11.70

0.30 0.28
SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet) or leSS2
234
1,100
7 4
Exceeds Threshold?
No
No
No
No
Notes:
' Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD's Mass Rate Look -up Tables for two acres in the Temecula Valley Source Receptor Area (SRA 26). Project will disturb a maximum of 4.0 acres per day (see Table 7).
2The nearest sensitive receptor is located 20 meters southwest; therefore, the 25-meter threshold has been used.

5.3 GHG Emissions
Table 5 outlines the construction GHG emissions for the project. The project's emissions are below (444.36 MTCO2e) the SCAQMD's draft screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land uses and; therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Table 5: Opening Year Proiect-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Activity
Emissions (MTCO2e)'
Onsite
Offsite
Total
Grubbing & Land Clearing

5.18 0.80

5.98 Grading & Excavation
282.00

19.06 301.06
Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade
101.00

7.97 108.97
Paving

21.70 6.65

28.35 Total
409.88

34.48 444.36
SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold
3,000
Exceeds Threshold?
No
Notes:
' MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide).

MD Acoustics, LLC 3
JN: 07392509 Letter Report

ynez Road Widening Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Energy Impact Study
City of Temecula, CA

5.4 Consistency with Applicable Plans
Consistency with the City's General Plan
The project site is located in the City of Temecula. The proposed project consists of the widening of the existing Ynez Road. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the City's.

The project will be subject to the policies and ordinances pertaining to air quality and climate change in the City's General Plan. Although the project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, these emissions are short-term and not considered to have a significant impact on the environment. Furthermore, project emissions have demonstrated that they will be below any significant thresholds as outlined by SCAQMD.

In addition, as shown below, the project's GHG impacts have been evaluated by assessing the project's consistency with applicable statewide, regional, and local GHG reduction plans and strategies.

Consistency with Executive Orders 5-03-05 and 8-30-15
Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30-15 are orders from the State's Executive Branch for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. These strategies call for developing more efficient land -use patterns to match population increases, workforce, and socioeconomic needs for the full spectrum of the population. The project includes elements of smart land use as it is well -served by transportation infrastructure and near public transit.

Although the project's emissions level in 2050 cannot be reliably quantified, statewide efforts are underway to facilitate the State's achievement of that goal and it is reasonable to expect the project's emissions profile to decline as the regulatory initiatives identified by ARB in the First Update are implemented, and other technological innovations occur. As such, given the reasonably anticipated decline in project emissions once fully constructed and operational, the project is consistent with the Executive Order's horizon -year goal. Therefore, the project is consistent with Executive Orders 5-3-05 and B-30-15.

Consistency with AB32 Scoping Plan
The ARB Board approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan in December 2008. The Scoping Plan outlines the State's strategy to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions limit. The Scoping Plan "proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health" (California Air Resources Board 2008). The measures in the Scoping Plan have been in place since 2012.

This Scoping Plan calls for an "ambitious but achievable" reduction in California's greenhouse gas emissions, cutting approximately 30 percent from business -as -usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 10 percent from today's levels. On a per -capita basis, that means reducing annual emissions of 14 MD Acoustics, LLC 4
JN: 07392509_Letter Report

ynez Road Widening Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Energy Impact Study
City of Temecula, CA
tons of carbon dioxide for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020.

In May 2014, CARB released its First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB 2014). This Update identifies the next steps for California's leadership on climate change. While California continues on its path to meet the near -term 2020 greenhouse gas limit, it must also set a clear path toward long-term, deep GHG emission reductions. This report highlights California's success to date in reducing its GHG emissions and lays the foundation for establishing a broad framework for continued emission reductions beyond 2020, on the path to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

In November 2017, CARB release the 2017 Scoping Plan. This Scoping Plan incorporates, coordinates, and leverages many existing and ongoing efforts and identifies new policies and actions to accomplish the State's climate goals, and includes a description of a suite of specific actions to meet the State's 2030 GHG limit. In addition, Chapter 4 provides a broader description of the many actions and proposals being explored across the sectors, including the natural resources sector, to achieve the State's mid and long- term climate goals.

Guided by legislative direction, the actions identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan reduce overall GHG emissions in California and deliver policy signals that will continue to drive investment and certainty in a low carbon economy. The 2022 Scoping Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new, technologically feasible, and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards innovation, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The Plan includes policies to require direct GHG reductions at some of the State's largest stationary sources and mobile sources. These policies include the use of lower GHG fuels, efficiency regulations, and the Cap -and Trade Program, which constrains and reduces emissions at covered sources.

As the latest, 2022 Scoping Plan builds upon previous versions, project consistency with applicable strategies of both the 2008 and 2017 Plan are assessed as well in Table 6. As shown in Table 6, the project is consistent with the applicable strategies and would result in a less than significant impact.

Table 6: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures' 2008 Scoping Plan Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Project Compliance with Measure
California Light -Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards — Implement adopted standards and planned second phase of Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles the program. Align zero -emission vehicle, alternative and that access the project that are required to comply with renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with long- the standards will comply with the strategy.
term climate change goals.

Energy Efficiency— Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards; pursue additional efficiency including Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current new technologies, policy, and implementation mechanisms.

Title 24 standards.

Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard — Develop and adopt the Low
Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles Carbon Fuel Standard.
that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

MD Acoustics, LLC 5
JN: 07392509_Letter Report

ynez Road Widening Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Energy Impact Study
City of Temecula, CA
Vehicle Efficiency Measures — Implement light -duty vehicle Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles efficiency measures.
that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles — Adopt medium and heavy-
Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles duty vehicle efficiency measures.
that access the project that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

Consistent. The California Green Building Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code in the CCR. Part 11
Green Building Strategy — Expand the use of green building establishes voluntary standards, that are mandatory in
practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California's new the 2019 edition of the Code, on planning and design for and existing inventory of buildings.
sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water
conservation, material conservation, and internal air
contaminants. The project will be subject to these
mandatory standards.

Consistent. CARB identified five measures that reduce
High Global Warming Potential Gases —Adopt measures to
HFC emissions from vehicular and commercial
reduce high global warming potential gases.
refrigeration systems; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the measures will comply
with the strategy.

Consistent. The state is currently developing a regulation Recycling and Waste — Reduce methane emissions at landfills. to reduce methane emissions from municipal solid waste
Increase waste diversion, composting, and commercial
landfills. The project will be required to comply with City recycling. Move toward zero waste.
programs, such as City's recycling and waste reduction
program, which comply, with the 75 percent reduction
required by 2020 per AB 341.

Water — Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy Consistent. The project will comply with all applicable City sources to move and treat water.
ordinances and CAL Green requirements.
2017 Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Compliance with Recommended Action
Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Further increase GHG
Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles stringency on all light -duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced that access the project that are required to comply with Clean Car regulations.
the standards will comply with the strategy.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: At least 1.5 million zero Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles emission and plug-in hybrid light -duty electric vehicles by that access the project that are required to comply with 2025 and at least 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid the standards will comply with the strategy.
light -duty electric vehicles by 2030.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Innovative Clean Transit:

Transition to a suite of to -be -determined innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20 percent of new urban buses
Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with that access the project that are required to comply with the penetration of zero -emission technology ramped up to the standards will comply with the strategy.
100 percent of new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty low-NOX standard.

MD Acoustics, LLC
JN: 07392509_Letter Report

ynez Road Widening Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Energy Impact Study
City of Temecula, CA
Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zero- Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles emission trucks primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks that access the project that are required to comply with in California. This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5
the standards will comply with the strategy.
percent of new Class 3-7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10 percent in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030.

Implement SB 350 by 2030: Establish annual targets for
statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy Title 24 standards.
efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030.

By 2019, develop regulations and programs to support
Consistent. The project will be required to comply with organic waste landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and SB City programs, such as City's recycling and waste
1383.
reduction program, which comply, with the 75 percent
reduction required by 2020 per AB 341.
2022 Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Compliance with Recommended Action
Deploy ZEVs and reduce driving demand
Consistent. The project will be within an existing residential community.

Coordinate supply of liquid fossil fuels with declining California Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current fuel demand
Title 24 standards.

Generate clean electricity
Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards and would not interfere with clean energy generation.

Decarbonize industrial energy supply
Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards and would be commercial, therefore
would not interfere with this goal.

Decarbonize buildings
Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards.

Reduce non -combustion emissions
Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards.

Source: CARB Scoping Plan (2008, 2017, and 2022)
Consistency with SCAG's 2024-2050 RTP/SCS
At the regional level, the 2024-2050 RTP and Sustainable Communities Strategy represent the region's Climate Action Plan that defines strategies for reducing GHGs. In order to assess the project's potential to conflict with the RTP/SCS, this section analyzes the project's land use profile for consistency with those in the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Generally, projects are considered consistent with the provisions and general policies of applicable City and regional land use plans and regulations, such as SCAG's Sustainable Communities Strategy, if they are compatible with the general intent of the plans and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals.

Table 7 demonstrates the project's consistency with the Actions and Strategies set forth in the 2024- 2050 RTP/SCS. As shown in Table 7, the project would be consistent with the GHG reduction related actions and strategies contained in the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS.

MD Acoustics, LLC 7
JN: 07392509_Letter Report

ynez Road Widening Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Energy Impact Study
City of Temecula, CA
Table 7: Project Consistency with SCAG 2024-2050 RTP/SCSI Responsible
Actions and Strategies
Party(ies)
Consistency Analysis
Land Use Strategies
Reflect the changing population and demands,
Consistent. The proposed project is a road
including combating gentrification and
Local
widening project and will not displace existing
displacement, by increasing housing supply at a
Jurisdictions
housing.
variety of affordability levels.

Consistent. The proposed project is a road
Focus new growth around transit.

Local
widening project that would be consistent with
Jurisdictions
the 2024 RTP/SCS focus on growing near transit
facilities.

Consistent. The proposed project is a road
Plan for growth around livable corridors, including
SCAG, Local
widening project that would be consistent with
growth on the Livable Corridors network.

Jurisdictions
the 2024 RTP/SCS focus on growing along the
2,980 miles of Livable Corridors in the region.

Consistent. The proposed project would help
Provide more options for short trips through
SCAG, Local
further jobs/housing balance objectives. The
Neighborhood Mobility Areas and Complete
Jurisdictions
proposed project is also consistent with the
Communities.

Complete Communities initiative that focuses on
creation of mixed -use districts in growth areas.

Not Applicable. This strategy calls on local
Support local sustainability planning, including
governments to adopt General Plan updates,
developing sustainable planning and design policies,
Local
zoning codes, and Climate Action Plans to further
sustainable zoning codes, and Climate Action Plans.

Jurisdictions
sustainable communities. The proposed project
would not interfere with such policymaking and
would be consistent with those policy objectives.

Consistent. The proposed project is a road
Protect natural and farmlands, including developing
SCAG, Local
widening project that would help reduce
conservation strategies.

Jurisdictions
demand for growth in urbanizing areas that
threaten green fields and open spaces.

Transportation Strategies
SCAG, County
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on investing in
Transportation
the maintenance of our existing transportation
Preserve our existing transportation system.

Commissions,
system. The proposed project would not
Local
Jurisdictions
interfere with such policymaking.

Manage congestion through programs like the
County
Transportation
Consistent. The proposed project is a road
Congestion Management Program, Transportation
Commissions,
widening project that will minimize congestion
Demand Management, and Transportation Systems
Local
impacts on the region.

Management strategies.

Jurisdictions
SCAG, County
Not Applicable. This strategy aims to improve the
Promote safety and security in the transportation
Transportation
safety of the transportation system and protect
Commissions,
users from security threats. The proposed
system.

Local
project would not interfere with such
Jurisdictions
policymaking.

Complete our transit, passenger rail, active
SCAG, County
transportation, highways and arterials, regional
Transportation
Consistent. The proposed project would be a
express lanes goods movement, and airport ground
Commissions,
part of this larger goal of investing in the
transportation systems.

Local
transportation system.

Jurisdictions
Technological Innovation and 21st Century Transportation MD Acoustics, LLC
JN: 07392509_Letter Report

ynez Road Widening Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Energy Impact Study
City of Temecula, CA
SCAG, Local
Not Applicable. The project would be a road
Promote zero -emissions vehicles.

Jurisdictions
widening project and would not interfere with
the goal of promoting zero -emission vehicles.

SCAG Local
Not Applicable. The project would be a road
Promote neighborhood electric vehicles.

Jurisdictions
widening project and would not interfere with
the goal of promoting electric vehicles.

Not Applicable. This strategy is designed to
SCAG, Local
integrate new technologies for last -mile and
Implement shared mobility programs.

Jurisdictions
alternative transportation programs. The
proposed project would not interfere with these
emerging programs.

N otes:
1 Source: Southern California Association of Governments; 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, May 2020.

5.5 Energy Analysis
Information from the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 Daily and Annual Outputs contained in the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses above was utilized for this analysis. The CalEEMod outputs detail project related construction equipment, transportation energy demands, and facility energy demands.

Construction Energy Demand
Construction Equipment Fuel Estimates
Using the CalEEMod data input, the project's construction phase would consume electricity and fossil fuels as a single energy demand, that is, once construction is completed their use would cease. CARB's 2017 Emissions Factors Tables show that on average aggregate fuel consumption (gasoline and diesel fuel) would be approximately 18.5 hp-hr-gal.9 As presented in Table 8 below, project construction activities would consume an estimated 48,438 gallons of diesel fuel.

Table 8: Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates Phase
Number
of Days
Off road Equipment Type
Amount
Usage
Hours
Horse
Power
Load
Factor
HP
hrs/day
Total Fuel
Consumption
(gal diesel
fuel)'
Grubbing &
18 Crawler Tractors
1 8
87 0.43
299
291
Land
18 Excavators
2 8
36 0.38
219
213
81 Crawler Tractors
1 8
87 0.43
299
1,310
81 Excavators
3 8
36 0.38
328
1,438
&
81 Graders
2 8
187

0.41 1,227
5,371
Grading
81 Rollers
2 7
80 0.38
426
1,863
Excavation
81 Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8
247

0.40 790
3,461
81 Scrapers
2 8
423

0.48 3,249
14,224
81 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4 8
97 0.37
1,148
5,028
Drainage,
54 Air Compressors
1 8
37 0.48
142
415
9 Aggregate fuel consumption rate for all equipment was estimated at 18.5 hp-hr/day (from CARB's 2017 Emissions Factors Tables and fuel consumption rate factors as shown in Table D-21 of the Moyer Guidelines: ( https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mover/guidelines/2017gl/2017 gl appendix d.pdf).

MD Acoustics, LLC 9
JN: 07392509_Letter Report

ynez Road Widening Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Energy Impact Study
City of Temecula, CA
Utilities, & Sub-
54 Generator Sets
1 8
1 84

0.74 497
1,452
Grade
54 Graders
1 8
187

0.41 613
1,790
54 Plate Compactors
1 8
8 0.43
28 80
54 Pumps
1 8
11 0.74
65 190
54 Rough Terrain Forklifts
1 8
96 0.40
307
897
54 Scrapers
1 8
423

0.48 1,624
4,741
54 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 8
97 0.37
861
2,514
27 Pavers
1 8
130

0.42 437
637
27 Paving Equipment
1 8
132

0.36 380
555
Paving
27 Rollers
2 8
80 0.38
486
710
27 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 3
1 8
1 97
1 0.37
1 861
1 1,257
CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (gallons of diesel fuel)
1 48,438
Notes:
'Using Carl Moyer Guidelines Table D-21 Fuel consumption rate factors (bhp-hr/gal) for engines less than 750 hp. (Source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf) Construction Worker Fuel Estimates
It is assumed that all construction worker trips are from light duty autos (LDA) along area roadways.

With respect to estimated 92,408 VMT, the construction worker trips would generate an estimated 92,408 VMT. Vehicle fuel efficiencies for construction workers were estimated in the air quality and greenhouse gas analysis using information generated using CARB's EMFAC model. Table 9 shows that an estimated 2,986 gallons of fuel would be consumed for construction worker trips.

Table 9: Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates Phase
Number of
Days
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Grubbing & Land Clearing
18 7.5

18.5 2497.5

30.95 81
Grading & Excavation
81 37.5

18.5 56,194

30.95 1,816
Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade
54 25

18.5 24,975

30.95 807
Paving
27 17.5

18.5 8,741

30.95 282
Total Construction Worker Fuel Consumption
1 2,986
Notes:
'Assumptions for the worker trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 defaults.

Construction Vendor/Hauling Fuel Estimates
Tables 10 and 11 show the estimated fuel consumption for vendor and hauling during building construction and architectural coating. With respect to estimated VMT, the vendor and hauling trips would generate an estimated 3,580 VMT. For the architectural coatings it is assumed that the contractors would be responsible for bringing coatings and equipment with them in their light duty vehicles.10 Tables 10 and 11 show that an estimated 388 gallons of fuel would be consumed for vendor and hauling trips.

Table 10: Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD Trucks)' 11 Vendors delivering construction material or hauling debris from the site during grading would use medium to heavy duty vehicles with an average fuel consumption of 9.22 mpg for medium heavy-duty trucks and 6.74 mpg for heavy heavy-duty trucks (see Appendix C for details).

MD Acoustics, LLC 10
JN: 07392509_Letter Report

ynez Road Widening Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Energy Impact Study
City of Temecula, CA
Phase
Number of
Days
Vendor
Trips/Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Grubbing & Land Clearing
18 0

10.2 0

9.22 0
Grading & Excavation
81 1

10.2 826

9.22 90
Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade
54 0

10.2 0

9.22 0
Paving
27 10

10.2 21754

9.22 299
Total Vendor Fuel Consumption
389
N otes:
'Assumptions for the vendor trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 defaults.

Table 11: Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks)' Phase
Number of
Days
Hauling
Trips/Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Grubbing & Land Clearing
18 0
20 0

6.74 0
Grading & Excavation
81 0.0
20 0

6.74 0
Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade
54 0
20 0

6.74 0
Paving
27 0
20 0

6.74 0
Total Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption
0 N otes:
'Assumptions for the hauling trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.29 defaults.

Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures
Construction equipment used over the approximately 9-month construction phase would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards and is evidence of related fuel efficiencies. In addition, the CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby minimizing unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Furthermore, the project has been designed in compliance with California's Energy Efficiency Standards and 2022 CALGreen Standards.

Construction of the proposed development would require the typical use of energy resources. There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in construction of the project would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel.

6.0 Conclusions
Construction project emissions were evaluated and compared to both regional and localized SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. In addition, project GHG emissions were evaluated and compared to SCAQMD's draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses. Project emissions are anticipated to be below SCAQMD's thresholds of significance with no mitigation. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

MD Acoustics, LLC 11
JN: 07392509_Letter Report

ynez Road Widening Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Energy Impact Study
City of Temecula, CA
Furthermore, construction of the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources. The proposed project does not include any unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities and is a road widening project that is not proposing any additional features that would require a larger energy demand than other projects of similar scale and configuration. The energy demands of the project are anticipated to be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy delivery systems. The project would therefore not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California. The Project has been designed in compliance with California's Energy Efficiency Standards and 2022 CALGreen Standards. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

MD is pleased to provide this focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation. If you have any questions regarding this analysis, please don't hesitate to call us at (805) 426-4477.

Sincerely,
MD Acoustics, LLC
Tyler Klassen, EIT
Air Quality Specialist
MD Acoustics, LLC 12
JN: 07392509_Letter Report

Appendix A
Glossary of Terms

AQMP
Air Quality Management Plan
CAAQS
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CARB
California Air Resources Board
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs
Chlorofluorocarbons
CH4
Methane
CNG
Compressed natural gas
CO
Carbon monoxide
CO2
Carbon dioxide
CO2e
Carbon dioxide equivalent
DPM
Diesel particulate matter
GHG
Greenhouse gas
HFCs
Hydrofluorocarbons
LST
Localized Significant Thresholds
MTCO2e
Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MMTCO2e
Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOx
Nitrogen Oxides
NO2
Nitrogen dioxide
N2O
Nitrous oxide
Os
Ozone
PFCs
Perfluorocarbons
PM
Particle matter
PM10
Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter PM2.5
Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter PMI
Point of maximum impact
PPM
Parts per million
PPB
Parts per billion
RTIP
Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP
Regional Transportation Plan
SCAB
South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD
South Coast Air Quality Management District
SF6
Sulfur hexafluoride
SIP
State Implementation Plan
Sox
Sulfur Oxides
SRA
Source/Receptor Area
TAC
Toxic air contaminants
VOC
Volatile organic compounds
WRCC
Western Regional Climate Center

Appendix B
Site Plan

/'CA/CDAI AInTCC

UTILITYCONTACTS

1. STANDARDS. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE

CURRENT EDITION OF THE CITY'S IMPROVEMENT STANDARD DRAWINGS FOR

RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOCATION AND

PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS), THE CITY'S PROTECTION OF ALL UTILITIES. FOR
ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL. CITY CODES AND REQUIREMENTS.

LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILIZES,

2. EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS. (ANSWERING MACHINE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE):

OR FOR EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE CALL:

KIM RR BEY REDTAIL ACQUISITIONS 949-433-5610
(RESPONSIBLE PERSON/DEVELOPER) (COMPANY) (24-HR PHONE NUMBER) TELEPHONE.

JAY SKJERVEN REDWOOD CONSTRUCTION 949-299-OBIS

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
CTOR) (COMPANY) (24-HR PHONE NUMBER)
(RCENO
PH. 800-921-8101

3. /PERM/TEREOUIREMENT.
o. PRIOR TO START OF ANY WORK, A BUSINESS LICENSE SHALL BE G4S.,
OBTAINED FROM THE CITY.

SOCAL GAS COMPANY
b. A GRADING PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED, PRIOR TO ANY WORK ON PRIVATE 527 NORTH SAN JACINTO STREET
DEVELOPMENT. THE PERMIT AND AN APPROVED SET OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS HEMET,, CA 92543
MUST BE PRESENT AT THE JOBSI7E DURING CONSTRUCTION.

PH. 800-427-2200

4. NOTIFICATIONS. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION SHALL BE NOTIFIED VIA EMAIL AT LDINSPECTIONS®TEMECULACA.GOV AT LEAST TWO (2) BUSINESS DAYS IN ELECTRICITY•
ADVANCE OF BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION/GRADING OPERATIONS.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

5. ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE CITY DOES NOT 24487 PRIELIPP ROAD

RELIEVE THE APPLICANT AND ENGINEER OF RECORD FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY WILDOMAR, CA 92595

FOR THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS DISCOVERED DURING PH. 800-684-8123
CONSTRUCTION.

6. WORKING HOURS. CITY ORDINANCE NO. 94-25 STATES THAT NO PERSON SHALL CABLE.,

ENGAGE IN OR CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION 77ME WARNER CABLE

SITE IS WITHIN ONE -QUARTER OF A MILE OF AN OCCUPIED RESIDENCE, 26487 YNEZ ROAD, SUITE G
BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 6.30 PM AND 6.30 AM, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY TEMECULA, CA 92591

AND SHALL ONLY ENGAGE IN OR CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BETWEEN PH. 888-892-2253
THE HOURS OF 7:00 AM AND 6.30 PM ON SATURDAY. NO CONSTRUCTION

ACTIVITY SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN ON SUNDAY AND NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED SEWER.

HOLIDAYS.

EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

Z REGULATORY AGENCY CLEARANCES THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BY THE CITY 2270 RUMBLE ROAD

DOES NOT IMPLY OR PROVIDE ANY CLEARANCES FROM STATE OR FEDERAL PERRIS, CA 92572

AGENCIES REGULATING THE PROVISIONS OF STATE OR FEDERAL ENDANGERED PH. 800-698-0400
SPECIES ACTS OR WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS. THE APPROPRIATE CLEARANCES FROM THESE AGENCIES SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO ANY S17E DISTURBANCE WATER.,
OR GRADING.

RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT

8. CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ANY CONSTRUCTION CHANGE MUST BE FIRST 421.75 WINCHESTER ROAD

SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AS A REDLINE REVISION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL TEMECULA, CA 92590
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE IN THE FIELD. REFER TO THE CITY'S PH. 951-296-6900
ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL.

9. PRE-00NS7RUCTION MEETING. A PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE

SOLID WASTE
SCHEDULED TWO WORK DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. DURING

CR&R INCORPORATED

CONSTRUCTION, A DEPENDABLE AND RESPONSIVE CONTRACTOR'S
1706 GOETZ ROAD
REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE AT THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES.

PERRIS, CA 92570

10. UTILITIES. APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE CITY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PH. 800-755-8112

REPRESENTATION AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE LOCATION,

NOR THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES

WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS ANY UTILITY DAMAGED DURING THE PERFORMANCE

OF THE WORK SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE GOVERNING AGENCY BY THE CONTRACTOR, AT HIS EXPENSE.

11. SURVEY IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE

ENGINEER OF RECORD AND TO INSTALL STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTS, AS REQUIRED BY RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 461. CENTERLINE TIES SHALL

BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY ENGINEER, UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND BEFORE ACCEPTANCE IS GRANTED. ALL EXISTING MONUMENTA71ON (DISTURBED OR DESTROYED DURING CONSTRUCTION) SHALL BE REPLACED TO

CITY STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND SURVEYORS ACT AND THE STREETS AND HIGHWAY CODE. AND AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.

UPON REQUEST, SURVEY CUTS SHEETS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY ENGINEER.

12. DUST CONTROL. DUST SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY WATERING OR OTHER

METHODS, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND SHALL COMPLY WITH SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S (SCAOMD) RULE 403,

13. CONSTRUCTION FENCING, A SIX FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE /S REQUIRED ON ALL

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROJECTS UNTIL ROOF SYSTEMS ARE COMPLETED OR AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY ENGINEER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. THE

MAINTENANCE OF THE FENCE IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.

14. INSPECTIONS. ALL WORK PERFORMED WITHOUT PROPER INSPECTION FROM THE CITY MAY BE SUBJECT TO REJECTION.

15. OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES REFER TO SEPARATE N07ES FOR "GRADING'" "EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL."•PAVING"AND 'IRA 'REQUIREMENTS, IF APPLICABLE.

16. OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION. REFER TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 18, "CONSTRUCTION. GRADING AND ENCROACHMENTS".

CON T24CTORS NOTE

CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT HE SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE COND177ONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY.. THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY CON77N000SLY AND NOT BE LIM17ED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS AND THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND

HOLD THE OWNER AND THE ENGINEER HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEP77NG FOR LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNER OR THE ENGINEER.

THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF AVAILABLE RECORDS. TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE ARE NO EXISTING URLIRES EXCEPT THOSE SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO PR07ECT THE URLIRES SHOW, AND ANY 07HER LINES OR STRUCTURES NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF OR ANY DAMAGE TO THESE LINES OR STRUCTURES.

ALL RETAINING WALLS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED PER SEPARATE PERMIT.

CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS AND SHALL REPORT ALL DISCREPANCIES TO THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.

PROACTIVE ENGINEERING

CONSULTANTS
WEST,
INC.
4 VIA IUSTRIA
TE1ELA, CA 9CI590C19 , 1-2O o -6840

BASIS OF BEARINGS

BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE
PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS831, ZONE 6 BASED
CALL TOLL FREE LOCALLY ON N.G.S. CORS STATION ROSA,
1-800-422-4133 P/D-DX3769. DISTANCE SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GRID LEVEL DISTANCES,
MULTIPLY DISTANCES BY 1.00008466.

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG

CONSTRUCTION RECORD I D/
Contractor,
Inspector,
Date Con

CITY OF TEMECULA

STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN
YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS -PHASE /, PW23-02
I
I
APN 944-330-0 APN 944-330-048 I APN 944-290-016
I I I
1— 1p1 1922 1Q3 194-- _��5---- �— 177�----T�� p------ 110 �
----------------------------- YNEZ ROAD -----
APN 944-331-026 TERRA APN 944-334-028 i APN 944-352-015

VISTA I
OAD I

SHEET INDEX
TITLE
VIL11Iy1I T IVlfif
N.T.S.

SHEET NO. DRAWING NO.

TITLE SHEET,INDEX MAP & NOTES .................................. 1 T1
DEMOLITION PLAN, EXISTING UTILITIES AND NOTES ........
2 C7
ADDITIVE PLAN................................................................. 3 C2
TYPICAL SECTIONS AND DETAILS ..................................... 4 C3
PLAN AND PROFILES....................................................... 5-6
C4-05
MEDIAN PLAN AND PROFILE ............................................ 7 C6
SIGNING AND S7RIPING PLAN .......................................... 8 C7
EROSION CONTROL PLAN ................................................. 9-10
C8 & C9
STREET LIGHT PLAN.......................................................... 11 CIO
SEWER AND CURB RAMP DETAILS .................................... 12 C71
RETAINING WALL DETAILS .................................................. 13-14
S7-S2

DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE
1, GEORGE CENFESIEY. HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM THE ENGINEER OF

WORK FOR THIS PROJECT THAT I HAVE EXERCISED RESPONSIBLE CHARGE

OVER THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT
AS DEFINED /N SECTION 6703 OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE,

AND THE DESIGN /S CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT STANDARDS AND CITY OF TEMECULA.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHECK OF PROJECT DRAWINGS AND

SPECIFICATIONS BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA IS CONFINED TO A REVIEW ONLY AND DOES NOT RELIEVE ME OF RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PROJECT DESIGN.

C/ ID171=V A11 1TC
THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE BEARING OF NORTH 48' 15' 11' WEST PER TRACT NO. 23992, MB 231/9-12, ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY RECORDER.

AS BUILT'
DATE
RCE EXP.

REVIEWED BY.,

INSPECTOR DATE

REVISIONS DATE I APP'D I BENCHMARK
RVERSIDE COUNTY BENCH MARK T-32-81.

LOCATED IN THE NORTHERLY SIDEWALK OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 6' WEST OF THE

CURB RETURN, WEST OF EFTERSON AVENUE,
20' 1 EAST OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE
MURRIETA CREEK FOUND 2 1/2- BRASS DISK
STAMPED 'T--32-81 R-6-30-05 EL=
1006-84'
ELEVATION: 1006.84'

DESIGN DATA
ANC YNEZ APN 944-290-017 VISTA ROADWAYALSSIFICA TION.

ROAD DESIGN SPEED: 45 MPH
1111 11Z - _ -Tjj----- 114 --_ lT5-----T'6- 117 118
APN 944-363-010
I
I

BID ITEM TABLE
100' 0 100' 200' 300
SCALE.- 1 "_ 100'
LEGEND

RIGHT-OF-WAY, R/W

DAYLIGHT LINE

MANHOLE
MH

PROP CONTOUR
�00()_

EXISTING CONTOUR
(XXXX)

CURB & GUTTER

CENTERLINE, CL
-----

M/DWEST GUARDRAIL SYSTEM

TUBULAR STEEL FENCE

USACE JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS

CDFW JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS

CONCRETE

AC PAVING

COLD PLANE
REMOVE EX. AC PAVING

STREET LIGHT
�f

FIRE HYDRANT

EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT

PROPOSED SIGN

EXISTING SIGN
O

TYPE E DETECTOR LOOP
O

TYPE F DETECTOR LOOP
TYPE Q DETECTOR LOOP (3'X6)

SECTION REFERENCE
XX
v�

SHEET REFERENCE

ABBREVIATIONS
PROP.

PROPOSED
EXIST.

EXIS77NG

CL, C/L

CENTERLINE
TC

TOP OF CURB
R

FLOW LINE
FS

FINISHED SURFACE
D/A

DIAMETER
Ep

EDGE OF PAVEMENT
CB

CATCH BASIN
AC
ASPHAL 77C CONCRETE
AB

AGGREGATE BASE
BCR

BEGIN CURB RETURN
ECR

END CURB RETURN
BVC

BEGIN VERTICAL CURVE
,MVC

MIDDLE VERTICAL CURVE
EVC
END VER77CAL CURVE
PRC

POINT OF REVERSE CURVE
FCC

POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE
FRVC

POINT OF REVERSE VERTICAL CURVE
(1329.02)
EXIS77NG ELEVA7ON
1479.70

PROPOSED ELEVARON
LT
LEFT
RT
RIGHT
FH

FIRE HYDRANT
ST
STREET
R/W

RIGHT OF WAY
D/W

DRIVEWAY
V.C.

VER77C4L CURVE
p/
POINT OF I1V7ERSEC7701V
pW

POINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTION
PUE

PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT

CONSTRUCTION COORDINATION TABLE
AGENCY

IMPROVEMENT
DWG STD.

ESTIMATED DURATION

STATION

REMARKS
CHARTER NEEDS 2 WEEK NOTICE PRIOR TO START OF WORK

CHARTER
RELOCATE 2 VAULTS
-
2 WEEKS
107+65 & 111+90
AND TO BEGIN AFTER ULTIMATE PARKWAY IS GRADED. CHARTER
TO COMPLETE WORK AND COVER CONSTRUCTION COST.

EMWD
CONSTRUCT 1 MEDIAN ROLLED CURB
SB-53 , SB-61,
_
101+75 - 117+75

CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM WORK

ACCESS MANHOLE CUT OUT
SB-181
ADJUST 2 EXISTING VAULTS AND
CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM WORK. FRONTIER NEEDS 2 WEEK
fRONTIER

MANHOLE TO GRADE
-
2 DAYS
110+07 & 116+23
NOTICE PRIOR TO START OF WORK AND TO BEGIN AFTER A.C.
1st LIFT
RELOCATE 1 EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
RCWD NEEDS 4 WEEK NOTICE PRIOR TO START OF WORK AND
RCWD

EXTEND LATERAL AND REPLACE
RW-8, RW-30
2 DAYS
106+55
TO BEGIN AFTER ULTIMATE PARKWAY /S GRADED. CONSTRUCTION

BLOW OFF WITH HYDRANT
COST /S COVERED BY RCWD.

RCWD

ADJUST VALVE TO GRADE
-

CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM WORK
SCALE
SEAL.
��QR�Ess1�F
No. 45920 i z
sp qvi� �P
9�cr CA1-

IORIZONTAL

AS SHOWN

VERTICAL

AS SHOWN

DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
PEC WEST PEC WEST PEC WEST RECOMMENDED BY: DATE:

AVLIN ODVIAR, PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER
Plan: jP red Under The Supervision Of
ACCEPTED BY: DATE:

Date: 02/19/25 RON MORENO

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
R.C.E. No. 45920 Expires 12131126 I R.C.E. No. 69156

EARTHWORK VOLUMES
FILL .............. 6,019.97 CY
CUT .............. 9.71 CY
NET .............. 6,010.26 CY FILL
N07E VOLUMES ARE UNADJUSTED.

GRADING NOTES
SEE SHEET 2
NO.

DESCRIP77ON
OUAN17 Y
UN?
1 MOB/L/ZATION/DEMOB/L/ZATION
i
LS
2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING
1 LS
3 ENGINEERING/ CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING
i
LS
4 TRAFFIC CONTROL
i
LS
5 NPDES COMPLAINCE
1 LS
6 EARTHWORK
1 LS
7 CRUSHED AGGREG47E BASE (15-INCH)
2,500
C.Y.

B

ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
1,944
TON
9 ASPHALT RUBBER HOT MIX
583
TON
10 SAWCUT AND REMOVE EXISTING BERM
f,579
L.F.
11 SAWCUT AND REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT
3,332
S.F.
12 REMOVE AC PAVEMENT
31,344
S.F.
13 CURB & GUTTER (TYPE A-6)
1,448
L.F.
14 CURB & GUTTER (TYPE A-8)
26 L.F.
15 CONCRETE SIDEWALK
9,701
S.F.
16 REMOVE EXISTING ADA ACCESS CURB RAMP
1 EA
17 ADA ACCESS CURB RAMP WITH TRUNCATED DOMES
1 EA
18 MEDIAN STAMPED CONCRETE
3,769
S.F.
19 MEDIAN CURB (TYPE 0-8)
796
L.F.
20 MEDIAN CURB (TYPE 0-6)
262
L.F.
21 MEDIAN ACCESS -SEWER MANHOLE
40 L.F.
22 V-DITCH
161
L.F.
23 RETAINING WALL
i
LS
24 RIPRAP (} TON)
800
C.Y.
25 CONDUIT, WIRING, PULLBOXES, PULL ROPES, AND METER SERVICES

PEDESTAL FOR STREET LIGHT
i
LS
26 STREETLIGHT
3 EA
P7

RELOCATE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PULL BOX
5 EA
28 REMOVE AND SALVAGE PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL PEDESTAL
1 EA
29 INSTALL NEW PEDESTRIAN PUSH BOTTOM PEDESTAL
1 EA
30 TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOOP DETECTORS
12 EA
31 REMOVE EXISTING SIGN
i
LS
32 SIGNING AND STRIPING
i
LS
33o
RUBBERIZED EMULSION AGGREG47E SLURRY (REAS) - TYPE 1
52,297
S.F.
33b

TIRE RUBBERIZED MODIFIED SLURRY SEAL (TRUSS) - TYPE II
52,297
S.F.
33c
RUBBER POLYMER MODIFIED SLURRY SEAL (RPMS) - TYPE If
52,297
S.F.
34 REMOVE AND REPLACE PAVEMENT DELINEATION
1 LS
35 REMOVE TREES PER ARBORIST RECOMMENDATIONS
9 EA
36 TREE PRUNING PER ARBORIST RECOMMENDATIONS
2 EA
37 MIDWEST GUARDRAIL SYSTEM
300
L.F.
38 TUBULAR STEEL FENCE
1,573
L.F.
39 ADJUST EXISTING MANHOLE TO GRADE (FRONTIER)
1 EA
40 ADJUST EXIS77NG VAULT TO GRADE (FRONTIER)
2 EA
41 ADJUST EXISTING VALVE TO GRADE (RCWD)
3 EA

CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
5 YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS -PHASE I PROJECT PW23-02
g a YNEZ ROAD STA 101 +99.21 TO STA 117+61.56
�,�,°� TITLESHEET, IIIAPAND NOTES
No.

T-1
SHEET 1 OF 14

GRADING NOTES

1. STANDARDS, ALL CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING RELATED ACTIVITIES (I.E.,

STOCKPILING, LAND CLEARING, EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL, ETC) SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18 OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE. THE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL. ALL APPLICABLE

STANDARDS, THE LATEST EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (APPENDIX ,Q AND, IT'S APPLICABLE, THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (SWRCB) NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPOES) GENERAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.

2. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. A GRADING PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK ON THE SITE.

J. NOTIFICATIONS. PUBLIC WORKS SHALL BE NOTIFIED VIA EMAIL AT LDINSPECTIONSOTEMECULACA.GOV AT LEAST TWO (2) DAYS IN ADVANCE OF BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION/GRADING OPERATIONS.

4. SOILS. ALL CONSTRUCTION/GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE DONE IN CONFORMANCE

WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY SOILS INVESTIGATION BY LGC VALLEY. INC GEO7ECHNIC4L CONSULTING DATED 10117124
SAID REPORT SHALL BE CONSIDERED A PART OF THIS GRADING PLAN.

5. CUTIFILL.

A. MAXIMUM CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE 2:1; UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED

BY THE CITY ENGINEER, AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOILS REPORT. FILL SLOPES SHALL NOT HAVE LESS THAN 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION OUT TO THE FINISH SURFACE.

B. FILL MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON EXISTING GROUND UNTIL THE

GROUND HAS BEEN CLEARED OF WEEDS, DEBRIS, TOPSOIL, VEGETATION AND OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL. IF THE SLOPE RATIO EXCEEDS 5:1 AND /S

GREATER THAN FIVE FEET, THE TERRAIN MUST BE KEYED AND BENCHED INTO

EITHER BEDROCK OR NATIVE SOIL, AS DIRECTED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.

C. STABILITY CALCULATIONS WITH A FACTOR -OF -SAFETY OF AT LEAST ONE AND FIVE TENTHS (1.5) SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC WORKS A REGISTERED

CIVIL ENGINEER, SOILS ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST FOR CUT AND FILL SLOPES OVER THIRTY FEET (JO) IN VERTICAL HEIGHT.

D. ALL GRADING SHALL BE DONE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A REGISTERED

CIVIL ENGINEER, SOILS ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST, WHO SHALL SUBMIT TWO SETS OF WRITTEN CERTIFICATION THAT ALL FILLS OVER ONE FOOT (1) IN DEPTH HAVE BEEN PROPERLY PLACED.

6. RAD WAGE.

A. AS APPLICABLE, PROVIDE CONCRETE BROW DITCHES TO CONVEY 100-YEAR

STORM FLOWS OR PROVIDE GRADED BERMS ALONG THE TOP OF ALL GRADED

SLOPES OVER THREE FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT OR THAT ARE ADJACENT TO

GRADED AREAS, TO DIRECT SURFACE RUNOFF AWAY FROM THE TOP OF SLOPES. ALL DRAINAGE DEVICES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER THE APPROVED PLANS.

B. EXISTING DRAINAGE COURSES SHALL CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AT ALL TIMES. NO

OBSTRUCTION OF FLOOD PLAINS OR NATURAL WATER COURSES SHALL BE PERMITTED.

C. TEMPORARY DRAINAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED UNTIL PERMANENT DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ARE INSTALLED. PROTECTIVE MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED

TO PROTECT ADJOINING AND DOWNSTREAM PROPERTIES FROM SILT DEPOSITION AND PONDING WATER DURING CONSTRUCTION/GRADING OPERATIONS.

D. APPROVED PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND TEMPORARY DRAINAGE PROVISIONS

MUST BE USED TO PROTECT ADJOINING PROPERTIES DURING THE GRADING PROJECT.

E DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAR OF ALL OBSTRUCTIONS NO BUILDING OR WALLS SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF EASEMENTS.

F. THE MINIMUM GRADE FOR CONCRETE SURFACE DRAINAGE FACILITIES SHALL BE A ONE-HALF PERCENT (0.5%).

7. PROTECT CORNERS, ALL PROPERTY CORNERS SHALL BE CLEARLY DELINEATED /N

THE FIELD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION/GRADING ACTIVITY, AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.

8. ROUGH GRADING THE PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT. INSPECTIONS SHALL BE

REQUESTED VIA EMAIL TO THE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION LINE AT LD/NSPECTIONSOTEMECULACA.GOV AT LEAST TWO (2) BUSINESS DAYS /N ADVANCE (PLEASE INDLUDE YOUR PERMIT # IN THE SUBJECT LINE).

SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING:

A. ONE (1) PAD ELEVATION CERTIFICATION (I.E., ROUGH GRADE) TO INCLUDE A

STATEMENT THAT THE PAD ELEVATION COMPLIES WITH THE APPROVED GRADING PLAN. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE TO LINE, GRADE, ELEVATION AND LOCATION OF CUT/FILL SLOPES.

B. ONE (1) PAD COMPACTION CERTIFICATION (LE, FINAL GE07ECHNICAL/SOILS

REPORT) TO INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT THE GRADING COMPLIES WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT.

9. FINAL INSPECTION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. REFER TO THE CITY'S ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL.

10. POST GRADING ACTIVITIES. POST GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE

LIMITED TO, INSTALLING WHERE APPLICABLE GROUNDCOVER, TREES, SHRUBS OR A

COMBINATION THEREOF /N ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION SLOPES OVER FOUR FEE( (4) IN VERTICAL HEIGHT

SHALL HAVE PERMANENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WITH BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES. BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES MUST COMPLY WITH THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE (U.P.C).

11. OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES FOR -PAVING,- GENERAL - AND 'EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL" REQUIREMENTS.

BASIS OF BEARINGS

BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE
PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS831, ZONE 6 BASED
CALL TOLL FREE LOCALLY ON N.G.S. CORS STA77ON ROSA,
1-800-422-4133 P/D-DX3769. DISTANCE SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GRID LEVEL DISTANCES,
MULTIPLY DISTANCES BY 1.00008466.

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG

CONSTRUCTION RECORD I D/
Contractor,
Inspector -
Date ComF
1060
0IC nON RISD70
CDFW 1065 _ 1065
JURISDICTIONAL � _ �- /��' USACE CD
LIMITS - _ _ 9. _ _ USACE --' -- , JURISDICTIONAL AL
\ LIMITS
\ ° uMlD/cnoNAL I LIMITS�. APN 944-290-0>
PARCEL BOUNDARI, �o�, \ \ �i�BOUNDARY - _ , I � � � �/ 35" OAK APN 944-330-016 \ 944
��J,/, RCWD EASEMENT\-
i INST. NO. 2022-03
RIGHT-OF-WAY P 06 �1075 2 "OAK 2 m
RIGHT-OF-WAY ' 0 Li
1060�
w 4 w w w 0 ---_ - °6h -.-. soot1
0 n �0
7 -r -
5 0
4 EXISTING AC BERM - _
- _- - - - i - - I - - 41:70AK 473�
i
m
w T w W T -. N 7 _ y VJ T, — w w \ 7
�F34.69 YNEZ
101
c
SECT/ON o .: `. 5 .- � -� i� � � EXISTING — — — — — W
I
NA VISTA R �n EXISTING 6" CURB
I — AND ROA©sTREEr ucHr
L - - - - - - - - - - - ° - - - AND GUTTER-
-- -
-- -- —_--- m
RIGHT-OF-WAY o o o�� �, �
APN 944-331-026 I PARCEL BOUNDARY I
W APN 944-352-015
APN 944-334-028
ROA CONTRACTORS NOTE: I I
I
CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE AND VERIFY ALL EXIS77NG UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. U77LITY LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND REQUIRE FIELD VERIFICATION.

CONSTRUCTION NOTES
UNIT
OUAN17Y
® SAWCUT AND REMOVE DOSING AC BERM
FT
1,579
OSAWCUT AND REMOVE 1' WIDE (MIN.) OF EXIS77NG AC PAVEMENT AND COLD PLANE (2' MIN.) PER DETAIL ON SHEET 4
S.F.
3,332
O7 EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT PER RCWD RW-8 TO BE RELOCATED BY RCWD EA.
1 9O REMOVE IX/S77NG STREET SIGN
EA.
3 f0 EXIS77NG TRAFFIC SIGNAL PULL BOX TO BE RELOCATED
EA.
4 20 EXISTING FRONTIER VAULT TO BE ADJUSTED TO GRADE BY CONTRACTOR EA.
2 24 REMOVE AC PAVEMENT
S.F.
31,344
32 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL PEDESTAL TO BE REMOVED AND SAL VAGED EA.
i
40 RCWD TO EXTEND LATERAL AND TO RF STAKED Ry CONTRACTOR.REPLACE BLOW OFF WITH HYDRANT. PROPOSED LOCATION 1 41 REMOVE TREE PER ARBOR/ST REPORT
EA.
10 42 TREE PRUNING AND PROTECT /N PLACE PER TREE PROTECTION DETAIL ON SHEET 4 ANDRE, REPORT FOR PR07EC77ON SPECIFICATIONS EA.
1 ®0 REMOVE EXIS77NG RAMP
EA.
1 51 EXIS77NG ABOVE GROUND TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOX TO BE RELOCATED BY CHARIER EA.
3 ®3 EXIS77NG CAN PULL BOX TO BE RELOG47ED BY CHARTER
EA.
2 © EXIS77NG FRONTIER MANHOLE TO BE ADJUSTED TO GRADE BY CONTRACTOR EA.
1 72 ADJUST RCWD VALVES TO GRADE BY CONTRACTOR
EA.
3 QPROTECT EXISTING TREE /N PLACE PER TREE PROTECTION DETAIL ON SHEET 4 AND REFER EA
7 TO ARBOR/ST REPORT FOR PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS

REVISIONS DATE APP'D BENCHMARK
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BENCH MARK T-32-81.

LOCATED IN THE NORTHERLY SIDEWALK OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 6' WEST OF THE

CURB RETURN, WEST OF EFTERSON AVENUE,
20' t EAST OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE
MURRIETA CREEK FOUND 2 1/2- BRASS DISK
STAMPED 'T--32-81 R-6-30-05 EL=
1006-84'
ELEVA770N: 1006.84'
/i/" IV y'F4-JOJ-U I U
LEGEND

COLD PLANE
- ®
EXIS77NG SCE TRANSFORMER
- 0

REMOVE EX AC PAVING
-

CAN PULL BOX
-
EXISTING 7ELECOMMUNIC4nONS
-
T

IX/STING STREET LIGHT
- 0-->

EXISTING FRONTIER FIBER OPTIC
-
FO

EX/STING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
_ o

EXISTING GAS
-
G

PULL BOX

EXISTING EMWD SEWER
-
SS

IX/STING EMWD SEWER MANHOLE
- OSMH

EXISTING RCWD WATER
-
W
IX/STING RCWD F.H.
-

EXISTING SCE CONDUIT
-
E
EXIS77NG RCWD AV/AR
- -E=a

PROPOSED RCWD FIRE HYDRANT
-

EX/STING SIGN
- ds

EXISTING TREE
- {

EXISTING FRONTIER MANHOLE
- O FRT

EXISTING FRONTIER VAULT
- ❑°

EXISTING

STREET LIGHT

EXISTING

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL
—w w-
-5
�6-
=w w-
40' 0 40' 80, 120'
SCALE: 1 "=40'

PROACTIVE ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS ,INC.

EVIA INDUSTIA
TM USTRECULA, CA 92590
�Zl 951-200-6840
SCALE SEAL. DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY Drawing No.

QgGFESSlOi,, RECOMMENDED BY: DATE: CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS I "� PEC WEST PEC WEST PEC WEST
IORIZONTAL Pine AFT FF AVLIN ODVIAR, PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER Plons Pr pared Under The Supervision Of
o W m ACCEPTED BY: DATE:

AS SHOWN No. 45920 t z 02118125 RON MORENO 5 YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS —PHASE l PROJECT PW23-02 C-1 * Date: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
VERTICAL �TgIpCAUFP R.C.E. No. 45920 Expires 12/31/26 R.C.E. No. 69156 YNEZ ROAD STA 101+99.21 TO STA 117+61.56 AS SHOWN DEMOLITION PLAN AND NOTES SHEET 2 OF 9

Appendix C
CaIEEMod Output

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2026) - Unmitigated

3.3. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Linear, Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 1 / 26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off -Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change
2/26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
[. ���fl"�Fi�:�7:Z�[1C�i[�Ti1f•C�11T-��.

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
3/26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Project Name
Construction Start Date
Lead Agency
Land Use Scale
Analysis Level for Defaults
Windspeed (m/s)
Precipitation (days)
Location
County
City
Air District
Air Basin
TAZ
EDFZ
Electric Utility
Gas Utility
App Version

1.2. Land Use Types
Road Widening 0.30 Mile
Ynez Road Widening
1 /1 /2026
Project/site
County

1.80 23.4

33.50164468379312,-117.14695571841078
Riverside -South Coast
Temecula
South Coast AQMD
South Coast
5554
11 Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
2022.1.1.29
100 0.00 — —
4/26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025

1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Unmit.

3.66 30.1

39.3 0.07

1.31 1.95

3.25 1.20

0.27 1.48 -
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Unmit.

3.65 30.1

38.6 0.07

1.31 1.95

3.25 1.20

0.27 1.48 -
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
(Max)
Unmit.

1.18 9.86

12.9 0.02

0.41 0.61

1.02 0.38

0.09 0.47 -
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
(Max)
Unmit.

0.22 1.80

2.36 < 0.005

0.08 0.11

0.19 0.07

0.02 0.09 -

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
2026 3.66 30.1 39.3 0.07 1.31 1.95 3.25 1.20 0.27 1.48 - 5/26
8,191 8,191 0.33 0.08 1.83 8,226
8,149 8,149 0.32 0.09 0.05 8,183
2,668
2,668

0.10 0.03

0.31 2,680
442
442

0.02 0.01

0.05 444
NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
8,191 8,191 0.33 0.08 1.83 8,226

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Daily - - - - - - - - - -
- -
Winter
(Max)
2026 3.65 30.1 38.6 0.07 1.31 1.95 3.25 1.20 0.27

1.48 -
Average - - - - - - - - -
- -
Daily
2026 1.18 9.86 12.9 0.02 0.41 0.61 1.02 0.38 0.09

0.47 -
Annual - - - - - - - - -
- -
2026 0.22 1.80 2.36 < 0.005 0.08 0.11 0.19 0.07 0.02

0.09 -

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Onsite - - - - - - - - -
- -
Daily, - - - - - - - - -
- -
Summer
(Max)
Daily, - - - - - - - - -
- -
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 0.46 4.04 4.49 0.01 0.21 - 0.21 0.20 -

0.20 -
Equipment
Dust - - - - - 0.21 0.21 - 0.02

0.02 -
From
Material
Movemen r
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Average - - - - - - - - -
- -
Daily
8,149
8,149

0.32 0.09

0.05 8,183
2,668
2,668

0.10 0.03

0.31 2,680
442
442

0.02 0.01

0.05 444
632 632 0.03 0.01 - 634

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6/26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Off -Road 0.02

0.20 0.22
< 0.005

0.01 -

0.01 0.01
-

0.01 -
Equipmert
Dust -
-
-
-
-

0.01 0.01
-
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
From
Material
Movemen t
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Annual -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Off -Road < 0.005

0.04 0.04
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
< 0.005 -
Equipmert
Dust -
-
-
-
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
From
Material
Movemen t
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Offsite -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.03

0.03 0.41

0.00 0.00

0.10 0.10

0.00 0.02

0.02 -
Vendor 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Average -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker < 0.005
< 0.005

0.02 0.00

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Hauling 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Annual -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Worker < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
7/26

31.2 31.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 31.3

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 5.16

5.16 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

5.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

95.1 95.1
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 96.3

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

4.75 4.75
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 4.81

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.79 0.79
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.80 Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

3.3. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off -Road 3.50

29.9 36.6

0.07 1.31
-

1.31 1.20
-

1.20 -
Equipmert
Dust -
-
-

1.45 1.45
-

0.16 0.16 -
From
Material
Movement
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 3.50

29.9 36.6

0.07 1.31
-

1.31 1.20
-

1.20 -
Equipmert
Dust -
-
-
-
-

1.45 1.45
-

0.16 0.16 -
From
Material
Movemen r
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Average -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Off -Road 0.78

6.65 8.11

0.02 0.29
-

0.29 0.27
-

0.27 -
Equipmert

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R CO2e
7,644 7,644 0.31 0. 7,670

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7,644 7,644 0.31 0.06 -
7,670

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
1,696
1,696

0.07 0.01
- 1,702
8/26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Dust
-
-
-
-
-

0.32 0.32
-

0.03 0.03 -
From
Material
Movemen
t
Onsite

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Off -Road

0.14 1.21

1.48 < 0.005

0.05 -

0.05 0.05
-

0.05 -
Equipment
Dust
-

0.06 0.06
-

0.01 0.01 -
From
Material
Movement
Onsite

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Offsite
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Worker

0.16 0.15

2.69 0.00

0.00 0.49

0.49 0.00

0.11 0.11 -
Vendor
< 0.005

0.03 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker

0.15 0.16

2.04 0.00

0.00 0.49

0.49 0.00

0.11 0.11 -
Vendor
< 0.005

0.03 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker

0.03 0.04

0.47 0.00

0.00 0.11

0.11 0.00

0.03 0.03 -
Vendor
< 0.005

0.01 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
9/26

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 281
281

0.01 < 0.005 -
282

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
517
517

0.02 0.02

1.75 525

30.1 30.1
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.08 31.6

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
476
476

0.01 0.02

0.05 481

30.1 30.1
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

31.5 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 107
107
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.17 108

6.68 6.68
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 7.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

3.5. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual Onsite -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Off -Road 1.79

16.0 19.7

0.04 0.62
-

0.62 0.57
-

0.57 -
Equipmert
Dust -
-
-
-
-

0.62 0.62
-

0.07 0.07 -
From
Material
Movement
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Daily, -
-
-
Winter
(Max)
Average -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Off -Road 0.27

2.36 2.92

0.01 0.09
-

0.09 0.08
-

0.08 -
Equipmert
Dust -
-
-
-
-

0.09 0.09
-

0.01 0.01 -
From
Material
Movemen r
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Annual

17.7 17.7
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.03 17.9

1.11 1.11
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

1.16 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 4,089 4,089 0.17 0.03 - 4,103

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
605 605 0.02 < 0.005 - 607

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Off -Road

0.05 0.43

0.53 < 0.005

0.02 -

0.02 0.02
-

0.02 -
Equipmert
Dust
-
-
-
-
-

0.02 0.02
-
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
From
Material
Movemen
t
Onsite

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
truck
Offsite
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Worker

0.11 0.10

1.80 0.00

0.00 0.33

0.33 0.00

0.08 0.08 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Daily,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker

0.01 0.02

0.21 0.00

0.00 0.05

0.05 0.00

0.01 0.01 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.04 0.00

0.00 0.01

0.01 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Hauling

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

3.7. Linear, Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
100 100 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 101

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
345
345

0.01 0.01

1.17 350

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

47.5 47.5
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.07 48.1

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

7.86 7.86
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.01 7.97

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Onsite - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11 / 26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Summer
(Max)
Off -Road 0.81

7.53 11.7

0.02 0.30
-

0.30 0.28
-

0.28 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
Off -Road 0.06

0.56 0.86
< 0.005

0.02 -

0.02 0.02
-

0.02 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Annual -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Off -Road 0.01

0.10 0.16
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005 -
Equipment
Onsite 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.07

0.07 1.26

0.00 0.00

0.23 0.23

0.00 0.05

0.05 -
Vendor 0.01

0.32 0.10
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.09 0.09
< 0.005

0.02 0.03 -
Hauling 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 -
Daily, -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Winter
(Max)
Average -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Daily
Worker 0.01

0.01 0.07

0.00 0.00

0.02 0.02

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
12/26
1,768
1,768

0.07 0.01
- 1,774

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
131
131

0.01 < 0.005 -
131

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 21.7

21.7 < 0.005
< 0.005 -

21.7 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 241
241

0.01 0.01

0.82 245
301
301

0.01 0.05

0.82 316

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

16.6 16.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 16.8

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Vendor < 0.005 0.02

0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005

0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -
Annual - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005

0.01 0.00

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005

0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005 -
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005 -
Hauling 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 -

4. Operations Emissions
Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Total - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Total - - - -
Annual - - - -
Total - - - -

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

22.3 22.3
< 0.005
< 0.005

0.03 23.3

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

2.75 2.75
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

2.79 3.69

3.69 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005

3.86 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 CO2e
13/26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ered
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
d
Subtotal
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14/26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Sequest
ered
Subtotal
Remove
d
Subtotal
Annual — — — —
— —
— — —
— —
— — — — — —
Avoided — — — —
— —
— — —
— —
— — — — — —
Subtotal — — — —
— —
— — —
— —
— — — — — —
Sequest — — — —
— —
— — —
— —
— — — — — —
ered
Subtotal — — — —
— —
— — —
— —
— — — — — —
Remove — — — —
— —
— — —
— —
— — — — — —
d
Subtotal —
— —
— — —
— —
— — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
.M - MI
Days Per Week
Work Days per Phase
Linear, Grubbing & Land Linear, Grubbing & Land
1/1/2026
1/26/2026

5.00 18.0 —
Clearing Clearing
Linear, Grading & Linear, Grading &
1/27/2026
5/20/2026

5.00 81.0 —
Excavation Excavation
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, Linear, Drainage, Utilities, 5/21/2026
8/4/2026

5.00 54.0 —
& Sub -Grade & Sub -Grade
Linear, Paving Linear, Paving
8/5/2026
9/11/2026

5.00 27.0 —
15/26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025

5.2. Off -Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Linear, Grubbing &
Crawler Tractors
Diesel
Land Clearing
Linear, Grubbing &
Excavators
Diesel
Land Clearing
Linear, Grubbing &
Signal Boards
Electric
Land Clearing
Linear, Grading &
Crawler Tractors
Diesel
Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Excavators
Diesel
Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Graders
Diesel
Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Rollers
Diesel
Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Rubber Tired Loaders
Diesel
Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Scrapers
Diesel
Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Signal Boards
Electric
Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Tractors/Loaders/Back
Diesel
Excavation
hoes
Linear, Drainage,
Air Compressors
Diesel
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Generator Sets
Diesel
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Graders
Diesel
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Plate Compactors
Diesel
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average

1.00 2.00

0.00 1.00

3.00 2.00

2.00 1.00

2.00 0.00

4.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 16/26

8.00 8.00

8.00 8.00

8.00 8.00

8.00 8.00

8.00 8.00

8.00 8.00

8.00 8.00

8.00 87.0

36.0 6.00

87.0 36.0
148

36.0 150
423

6.00 84.0

37.0 14.0
148

8.00 0.43

0.38 0.82

0.43 0.38

0.41 0.38

0.36 0.48

0.82 0.37

0.48 0.74

0.41 0.43

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Linear, Drainage,
Pumps
Diesel
Average

1.00 8.00

11.0 0.74
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Rough Terrain Forklifts
Diesel
Average

1.00 8.00

96.0 0.40
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Scrapers
Diesel
Average

1.00 8.00
423

0.48 Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Signal Boards
Electric
Average

0.00 8.00

6.00 0.82
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Tractors/Loaders/Back
Diesel
Average

3.00 8.00

84.0 0.37
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
hoes
Linear, Paving
Pavers
Diesel
Average

1.00 8.00

81.0 0.42
Linear, Paving
Paving Equipment
Diesel
Average

1.00 8.00

89.0 0.36
Linear, Paving
Rollers
Diesel
Average

2.00 8.00

36.0 0.38
Linear, Paving
Signal Boards
Electric
Average

0.00 8.00

6.00 0.82
Linear, Paving
Tractors/Loaders/Back
Diesel
Average

3.00 8.00

84.0 0.37
hoes

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing
Worker

7.50 18.5
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing
Vendor

0.00 10.2

HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing
Hauling

0.00 20.0
HHDT
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing
Onsite truck
-
-
HHDT
Linear, Grading & Excavation
-
-
-
-
Linear, Grading & Excavation
Worker

37.5 18.5
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Grading & Excavation
Vendor

1.00 10.2

HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Grading & Excavation
Hauling

0.00 20.0
HHDT
17/26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Linear, Grading & Excavation Onsite truck
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & —
Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Worker
Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Vendor
Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Hauling
Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Onsite truck
Sub -Grade
Linear, Paving —
Linear, Paving Worker
Linear, Paving Vendor
Linear, Paving Hauling
Linear, Paving Onsite truck

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non -applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
HHDT

25.0 18.5
LDA, LDT1, LDT2

0.00 10.2

HHDT,MHDT

0.00 20.0
HHDT
HHDT

17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2

10.0 10.2 HHDT,MHDT

0.00 20.0 HHDT
— — HHDT
18/26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Linear, Grubbing & Land — — 100 0.00
Clearing
Linear, Grading & Excavation 100 0.00
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & 100 0.00
Sub -Grade

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Water Exposed Area 2 61 %

5.7. Construction Paving
Road Widening 100

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
2026

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
c
532

0.03 100%
61%
< 0.005
19/26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal -Adapt midcentury 2040-2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Temperature and Extreme Heat 26.3 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.75 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 11.3 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal -Adapt, 2040-2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about 1/4 an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal -Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal -Adapt (2040-2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIR005). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
20 / 26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Temperature and Extreme Heat
3 0
0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sea Level Rise
1 0
0 N/A
Wildfire
1 0
0 N/A
Flooding
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Drought
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Snowpack Reduction
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Air Quality Degradation
0 0
0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Temperature and Extreme Heat
3 1
1 3
Extreme Precipitation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sea Level Rise
1 1
1 2
Wildfire
1 1
1 2
Flooding
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Drought
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Snowpack Reduction
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Air Quality Degradation
1 1
1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
21 / 26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A
Exposure Indicators
AQ-Ozone
AQ-PM
AQ-DPM
Drinking Water
Lead Risk Housing
Pesticides
Toxic Releases
Traffic
Effect Indicators
CleanUp Sites
Groundwater
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators
Impaired Water Bodies
Solid Waste
Sensitive Population
Asthma
Cardio-vascular
Low Birth Weights
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators
score (i.e.. areater than 50) reflects a hiaher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

71.7 28.9

71.4 36.9

14.2 41.6

10.0 74.2

0.00 0.00

77.2 83.0

0.00 20.8

72.8 57.1
22 / 26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Education
Housing
Linguistic
Poverty
Unemployment

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A
Economic
Above Poverty
Employed
Median HI
Education
Bachelor's or higher
High school enrollment
Preschool enrollment
Transportation
Auto Access
Active commuting
Social
2-parent households
Voting
Neighborhood
Alcohol availability
Park access
Retail density
Supermarket access

25.1 53.1

15.6 46.4

84.6 score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions

69.03631464

27.87116643

78.53201591

58.29590658

20.74939048

82.06082382

92.6344155

4.876170923

89.38791223

70.58899012

88.33568587

24.1498781

13.58911844

21.27550366
to other census tracts in the state.
23 / 26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Tree canopy

57.47465674
Housing
—
Homeownership

85.25599897
Housing habitability

58.96317208
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden

12.47273194
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden

38.95803927
Uncrowded housing

75.52932119
Health Outcomes
—
Insured adults

49.96791993
Arthritis

8.2 Asthma ER Admissions

89.6 High Blood Pressure

12.4 Cancer (excluding skin)

13.2 Asthma

34.7 Coronary Heart Disease

17.4 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

22.0 Diagnosed Diabetes

54.0 Life Expectancy at Birth

38.3 Cognitively Disabled

50.3 Physically Disabled

45.1 Heart Attack ER Admissions

48.9 Mental Health Not Good

50.5 Chronic Kidney Disease

35.4 Obesity

39.2 Pedestrian Injuries

19.6 Physical Health Not Good

46.9 Stroke

34.3 Health Risk Behaviors
—
24 / 26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
Binge Drinking

38.6 Current Smoker

47.6 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity

59.9 Climate Change Exposures
—
Wildfire Risk

0.0 SLR Inundation Area

0.0 Children

83.0 Elderly

43.3 English Speaking

75.1 Foreign -born

17.5 Outdoor Workers

63.0 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity
—
Impervious Surface Cover

87.5 Traffic Density

71.0 Traffic Access

23.0 Other Indices
—
Hardship

31.1 Other Decision Support
—
2016 Voting

78.4 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 47.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 65.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low -Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No 25 / 26

Ynez Road Widening Detailed Report, 7/11/2025
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Construction: Trips and VMT Vendor trips included in paving for asphalt delivery 26 / 26

EE M T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
❑� CONSULTING Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
Appendix B-1
Habitat Assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis for the Ynez Road Improvements — Phase 1 Project Located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California
ELMT Consulting
(Updated) November 2025

ELMT
FYI 7 CON`>UI IINC;
Updated November 2025

TK CONSULTING
Contact: Kim Berry
2082 Michelson Drive, 4th Floor
Irvine, California 92651
SUBJECT: Habitat Assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis for the Ynez Road Improvements — Phase 1 Project Located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California Introduction
This report contains the findings of ELMT Consulting's (ELMT) habitat assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) consistency analysis for the proposed Ynez Road Improvements — Phase 1 Project located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The field investigation was conducted by biologist Travis J. McGill on April 19, 2023 to document baseline conditions and assess the potential for special -status 1 plant and wildlife species to occur within the proposed project site that could pose a constraint to implementation of the proposed project. Special attention was given to the suitability of the on -site habitat to support burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and several other special -status species identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and other electronic databases as potentially occurring on or within the general vicinity of the project site.

In addition, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) MSHCP Information Map was queried to determine if the MSHCP identifies any potential survey requirements for the project.

Further, the project site was reviewed against the MSHCP to determine if the site is located within any MSHCP areas including Criteria Cells (core habitat and wildlife movement corridors) or areas proposed for conservation. Based on the RCA MSHCP Information Map query and review of the MSHCP, it was determined that the project site is located within the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP and is partially located within Criteria Cell 7079.

Project Location
The project site is generally located east of Interstate 15, south and north of State Route 79, and west of Margarita Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The site is depicted on both the Murrieta and Temecula quadrangles of the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map series in Section 12 of Township 8 South, Range 3 West. Specifically, the project site is located adjacent to, and encompassing a portion of Ynez Road between Rancho Vista Road and Tierra Vista Road. Refer to Exhibits 1-3 in Attachment A.
1 As used in this report, "special -status" refers to plant and wildlife species that are federally, State, and MSHCP listed, proposed, or candidates; plant species that have been designated with a California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank; wildlife species that are designated by the CDFW as fully protected, species of special concern, or watch list species; and specially protected natural vegetation communities as designated by the CDFW. 2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 1 Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 1 (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsulting.co

November 2025

The project consists of approximately 1,763 linear feet of Ynez Road. The site is bounded to the northwest by Temecula Duck Pond and Park, to the southeast and southwest by residential development, and to the northeast by undeveloped vacant land with commercial development beyond.

Proiect Description
The City is proposing to improve 1,763 linear feet of the eastern half of Ynez Road between Tierra Vista Road to Rancho Vista Road in order to match the four -lane configuration and infrastructure that exists along Ynez Road north and south of this segment. Improvements will include the following and are depicted in Appendix B, Site Plans.
• Remove the existing asphalt curb and earthen shoulder, approximately 28 feet. • Remove existing road striping in all lanes
• Sawcut and grind existing pavement on the north bound direction of the Ynez Road • Grading the slope and installation of a retaining wall along the road slope (within APNs 944-290- 017 and 944-290-016). The slope grading would occur along 927 linear feet, varying from 0 feet wide by 68 feet wide, and involve approximately 6,020 cubic yards. • Removal of 10 trees and pruning of one tree. The trees to be removed and pruned are located along Ynez Road at the location of the proposed slope and retaining wall. • Install the slope grading, retaining wall, and a maintenance access road at Rancho Vista Road/Ynez Road intersection, which would remove approximately 0.22 acre of riparian/riverine resources • Install a guardrail and tubular steel fence along the north side of Ynez Road • Add pavement section that would vary between 28 feet and 46 feet wide • Construct a concrete raised median to delineate the turn pocket for Tierra Vista Road, and striped median for the turn pocket at Rancho Vista
• Stripe the new roadway for four lanes with turn pockets and Class II Bike Lanes on both the east and west sides of the road
• Installing new curbs and gutters and sidewalk along the east side of the road • Install new streetlights on east side of the roadway
• Relocating utilities that conflict with the planned improvements • Provide ADA compliant access ramp at the northeast corner of the Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road Intersection.
• Slurry sealing the south bound direction.

The project will result in approximately 2.50 acres of permanent impacts. Since the side slopes will be graded rather than restored to existing site conditions (manufactured slope), all project -related impacts are considered permanent. No temporary or offsite impacts are proposed. Please refer to the table below for a breakdown of the permanent and temporary impacts within the Criteria Cell and outside of the Criteria Cell.

Table 1: Project Impacts
Area
Inside
Outside
Project Impacts
(Acres)
Criteria Cell
Criteria Cell
Permanent Impacts

2.50 0.63

1.87 Total

2.50 0.63

1.87 Ynez Road Expansion Project ©o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

Methodology
Literature Review
The first step in determining if a project is consistent with the above listed sections of the MSHCP is to conduct a literature review and records search for special -status biological resources potentially occurring on or within the vicinity of the project site. Previously recorded occurrences of special -status plant and wildlife species and their proximity to the project were determined through a query of the CDFWs CNDDB Rarefind 5, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, Calflora Database, compendia of special -status species published by CDFW, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species listings, and species covered within the MSHCP and associated technical documents.

All available reports, survey results, and literature detailing the biological resources previously observed on or within the vicinity of the project site were reviewed to understand existing site conditions and note the extent of any disturbances that have occurred on the project site that would otherwise limit the distribution of special -status biological resources. Standard field guides and texts were reviewed for specific habitat requirements of special -status and non -special -status biological resources, as well as the following resources:
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program "My Waters" data layers • Google Earth Pro historic aerial imagery (1984-2023); • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Soil Survey2;
• USFWS Critical Habitat designations for Threatened and Endangered Species; • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI);
• Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan;
• Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) MSHCP Information Map; and
• 2006 Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area.

The literature review provided a baseline from which to inventory the biological resources potentially occurring on the project site. The CNDDB database was used, in conjunction with ArcGIS software, to locate the nearest recorded occurrences of special -status species and determine the distance from the project.

Field Investikation
Following the literature review, biologist Travis J. McGill initially inventoried and evaluated the condition of the habitat within the project site on April 19, 2023. Plant communities identified on aerial photographs during the literature review were verified by walking meandering transects through the plant communities and along boundaries between plant communities. In addition, aerial photography was reviewed prior to the site investigation to locate potential natural corridors and linkages that may support the movement of 2 A soil series is defined as a group of soils with similar profiles developed from similar parent materials under comparable climatic and vegetation conditions. These profiles include major horizons with similar thickness, arrangement, and other important characteristics, which may promote favorable conditions for certain biological resources.

Ynez Road Expansion Project ©o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

wildlife through the area. These areas identified on aerial photography were then walked during the field survey.

All plant and wildlife species observed, as well as dominant plant species within each plant community, were recorded. Plant species observed during the field survey were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field. Unusual and less familiar plant species were photographed during the field survey and identified in the laboratory using taxonomical guides. Wildlife detections were made through observation of scat, trails, tracks, burrows, nests, and/or visual and aural observation. In addition, site characteristics such as soil condition, topography, hydrology, anthropogenic disturbances, indicator species, condition of on -site plant communities, and presence of potential jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were noted.

Soil Series Assessment
On -site and adjoining soils were researched prior to the field survey using the USDA NRCS Soil Survey for Western Riverside Area, California. In addition, a review of the local geological conditions and historical aerial photographs was conducted to assess the ecological changes that the project site has undergone.

Plant Communities
Plant communities were mapped using 7.5-minute USGS topographic base maps and aerial photography.

The plant communities were delineated on an aerial photograph, classified in accordance with those described in the MSHCP, and then digitized into GIS Arcview. The Arcview application was used to compute the area of each plant community in acres.

Plants
Common plant species observed during the field survey were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook. Unusual and less -familiar plants were photographed in the field and identified in the laboratory using taxonomic guides. Taxonomic nomenclature used in this study follows the 2012 Jepson Manual (Hickman 2012). In this report, scientific names are provided immediately following common names of plant species (first reference only).

Wildli e
Wildlife species detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign were recorded during surveys in a field notebook. Field guides were used to assist with identification of wildlife species during the survey included The Sibley Field Guide to the Birds of Western North America (Sibley 2003), A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003), and A Field Guide to Mammals of North America (Reid 2006). Although common names of wildlife species are fairly well standardized, scientific names are provided immediately following common names in this report (first reference only).

Jurisdictional Drainages and Wetlands
Aerial photography was reviewed prior to conducting a field investigation in order to locate and inspect any potential natural drainage features, ponded areas, or water bodies that may fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Ynez Road Expansion Project 0 E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

Board), or CDFW. In general, surface drainage features indicated as blue -line streams on USGS maps that are observed or expected to exhibit evidence of flow are considered potential riparian/riverine habitat and are also subject to state and federal regulatory jurisdiction. In addition, ELMT reviewed jurisdictional waters information through examining historical aerial photographs to gain an understanding of the impact of land -use on natural drainage patterns in the area. The USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program "My Waters" data layers were also reviewed to determine whether any hydrologic features and wetland areas have been documented on or within the vicinity of the project site.

Topography and Soils
The project site ranges in elevation from approximately 1,052 feet to 1,132 feet above mean sea level, and slopes generally from southeast to northwest. A drainage transverses the site from the southeast to the northwest and forms a depression within the topography of the project site. Based on the NRCS USDA Web Soil Survey, the project site is underlain by Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loam (15 to 35 percent slopes, severely eroded), Hanford coarse sand loam (8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded), Hanford sandy loam (2 to 15 percent slopes), Ramona sandy loam (2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded), and Ramona and Buren sandy loams (15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded). Refer to Exhibit 4, Soils, in Attachment A. Soils on -site range from undisturbed, to severely disturbed and heavily compacted from historic and ongoing development.

Existing Site Condition
At present, the site is located within Ynez Road and along and adjacent to the northeastern shoulder, with vacant land beyond to the northeast, residential development to the southeast and southwest, and commercial development to the northwest. The site terrain is composed of paved asphalt, and compacted and graded soil which gives way to grassland and buckwheat scrub plant communities and a large unnamed drainage.

Vegetation
The project site, outside of the road right-of-way supports buckwheat scrub, non-native grassland, and riparian plant communities. Refer to Attachment C, Site Photographs, for representative site photographs.

Table 2: Vegetation/Land Use Types
Vegetation/Land Used Type
dk
Inside Criteria Cells
(Acres)
Outside Criteria Cells
(Acres)
Total
Area
(Acres)
Area
Impacts
Area
Impacts
Riparian Scrub

0.00 0.00

0.21 0.21

0.21 Buckwheat Scrub

0.00 0.00

0.13 0.13

0.13 Non -Native Grassland

0.32 0.32

0.72 0.72

1.04 Disturbed

0.1 0.1

0.26 0.26

0.36 Developed

0.21 0.21

0.55 0.55

0.76 Total

0.63 0.63

1.87 1.87

2.50 Ynez Road Expansion Project ©o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

The project site, outside of the existing paved road right-of-way supports one (3) plant communities: non- native grassland, buckwheat scrub, and riparian. In addition, the site supports two (2) land cover types that would be classified as developed and disturbed (refer to Exhibit 5, Vegetation). The majority of the project site, outside of the existing paved road right-of-way, supports a non-native grassland community. Species present within this community consist of non-native grasses and invasive and/or early successional weedy species such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), fescue (Festuca sp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), black mustard (Brassica nigra), and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis).

The non-native grassland community transitions into a buckwheat scrub community moving east from Ynez Road. This area of the project site is composed almost entirely of a monoculture of California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Additionally, the project site supports a riparian plant community associated with the unnamed drainage which transverses the eastern boundary of the site. Species present within the riparian plant community include canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black willow (Salix nigra), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), and coyotebrush (Baccharis pilularis).

Developed areas primarily include the existing paved road right-of-way, and disturbed areas are areas along the road shoulder that are primarily composed of compacted soil.

Wildlife
Plant communities provide foraging habitat, nesting/denning sites, and shelter from adverse weather or predation. This section provides a discussion of those wildlife species that were observed or are expected to occur within the project site. The discussion is to be used a general reference and is limited by the season, time of day, and weather conditions in which the field survey was conducted. Wildlife detections were based on calls, songs, scat, tracks, burrows, and direct observation.

Fish
The MSHCP does not identify any covered or special -status fish species as potentially occurring within the project site. Further, no fish or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for fish were observed on or within the vicinity of the site. Therefore, no fish are expected to occur and are presumed absent.

Amphibians
The MSHCP does not identify any covered or special -status amphibian species as potentially occurring within the project site. Further, no amphibians or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for amphibian species were observed on or within the vicinity of the site. Therefore, no amphibians are expected to occur.

Reptiles
The MSHCP does not identify any covered or special -status reptilian species as potentially occurring within the project site. The site provides a limited amount of habitat for reptile species adapted to a high degree of human disturbance. The only reptilian species observed on site was Great Basin fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes). Additional common reptilian species that could be expected to occur on -site include Ynez Road Expansion Project ©o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

common side -blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana elegans). Due to the high level of anthropogenic disturbances and surrounding development, no special -status reptilian species are expected to occur within project site.

Birds
The project site provides limited foraging habitat for bird species adapted to a high degree of human disturbance. Additionally, the unnamed drainage within the project site provides suitable habitat for foraging and nesting. Bird species detected during the field survey include white -crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), Ana's hummingbird (Calypte anna), ruby crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), yellow rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), red -winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), red tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), Cassin's kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans).

Mammals
The MSHCP does not identify any covered or special -status mammalian species as potentially occurring within the project site. The site provides limited foraging and cover habitat for mammalian species adapted to a high degree of human disturbance. Mammalian species detected during the field investigation include domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris), racoon (Procyon lotor), coyote (Canis latrans), and pocket gopher (Geomyidae sp.). No bat species are expected to occur due to a lack of suitable roosting habitat (i.e., trees, crevices).

Nesting Birds and Raptors
No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field survey, which was conducted outside of the breeding season. The vegetation present within the drainage onsite has the potential to provide suitable nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area and are adapted to urban environments. Additionally, the disturbed portions of the site have to potential to support ground -nesting birds such as killdeer.

Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31 st, a pre -construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction.

Migratory Corridors and Linkages
Habitat linkages provide connections between larger habitat areas that are separated by development.

Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. It is possible for a habitat corridor to be adequate for one species yet still inadequate for others. Wildlife corridors are features that allow for the dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging of a variety of wildlife species. Additionally, open space can provide a buffer against both human disturbance and natural fluctuations in resources.

The project site has not been identified as occurring in a wildlife corridor or linkage by the MSHCP.

Ynez Road Expansion Project D O E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

However, Murietta Creek, which occurs approximately 0.5 miles to the west of the project site, provides local wildlife movement opportunities through the area. The project site is separate from Murrieta Creek by existing residential and commercial developments and Interstate 15. The project will primarily be confined to existing areas that have been heavily disturbed and or developed and is not expected to impact wildlife movement opportunities.

Jurisdictional Areas
There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The Corps Regulatory Branch regulates discharge of dredge or fill materials into "waters of the United States" pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the CDFW regulates alterations to streambed and bank under Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 1600 et seq., and the Regional Board regulates discharges into surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

One (1) unnamed ephemeral drainage occurs within the proposed limits of disturbance. Refer to Exhibit 6, Jurisdictional Areas and Impacts. This drainage runs from southeast to northwest along the northeastern side of Ynez Road and is fed largely by a culvert which runs beneath Rancho Vista Road to the southeast and serves to divert storm water away from the surrounding residential communities. This drainage features will eventually flow into Murrieta Creek west of the project site after flowing through several culverts and flood control channels.

The onsite ephemeral drainage feature is not relatively permanent, standing, or a continuously flowing body of water and, therefore, will not qualify as waters of the United States under the regulatory authority of the Corps (Sackett v. EPA (2022) 143 S. Ct. 1322, 1336). However, the onsite drainage feature will qualify was waters of the State and fall under the regulatory authority of the Regional Board and CDFW. The table below identifies the on -site jurisdictional including the total acreage of jurisdiction and anticipated impacts for each regulatory agency within the boundaries of the project site. Based on the proposed site plan approximately 0.22 acre of impacts to CDFW jurisdiction will occur from project implementation.

Table 3: Jurisdictional Area and Impact Analysis
CDFW Jurisdictional
Regional Board Jurisdiction
Streambed/Riparian Habitat
Jurisdictional
Jurisdictional
Jurisdictional
Feature
Jurisdictional Area
Impacts
Jurisdictional Area
Impacts
Acreage (Linear
Acreage (Linear
Acreage (Linear Feet)
Acreage
Feet)
Feet)
(Linear Feet)
Drainage 1

0.27 (1,970)
0 1.62 (1,970)

0.22 TOTAL

0.27 (1,970)
0 1.62 (1,970)

0.22 Special -Status Biological Resources
The CNDDB was queried for reported locations of special -status plant and wildlife species as well as natural communities of special concern in the Temecula and Murietta USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. A search of published records within this quadrangle was conducted using the CNDDB Rarefind 5 online software and the CDFW BIOS database and the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California that Ynez Road Expansion Project D O E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

supplied information regarding the distribution and habitats of vascular plants in the vicinity of the project site. The habitat assessment evaluated the conditions of the habitat(s) within the boundaries of the project site to determine if the existing plant communities, at the time of the survey, have the potential to provide suitable habitat(s) for special -status plant and wildlife species.

The literature search identified forty-five (45) special -status plant species, forty-five (45) special -status wildlife species, and four (4) special -status plant communities as having potential to occur within the Temecula and Murrieta quadrangles. Special -status plant and wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the project site based on habitat requirements, availability, and quality of suitable habitat, and known distributions.

Special -Status Plants
According to the CNDDB and CNPS, forty-five (45) special -status plant species have been recorded in the Temecula and Murrieta quadrangles. No special -status plants were observed on the project site during the field investigation. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on -site habitats, it was determined that the project site has a low potential to support smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis) and particulate tarplant (Deinandra paniculate). It was further determined that the project site does not have potential to support any of the other special -status plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the site and all are presumed absent.

The proposed project will primarily be confined to existing developed and heavily disturbed areas that have been subject to anthropogenic disturbances and development, and the site is isolated from known occupied areas. As such, if smooth tarplant and/or particulate tarplant were to be observed onsite, their small populations are not expected to make a meaningful contribution to the conservation of the species, if present. No additional surveys are recommended. Therefore, no impacts to any special -status plant species will occur from implementation of the proposed project and mitigation will not be required.

Special -Status Wildlife
According to the CNDDB, forty-five (45) special -status wildlife species have been reported in the Temecula and Murietta quadrangles. No special -status wildlife species were observed on the project site during the field investigation. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on -site habitats, it was determined that the project site has a moderate potential to support Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), sharp -shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Costa's hummingbird (Calypte costae); and a low potential to support Lawrence's goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei). It was further determined that the project site does not have potential to support any of the other special -status wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the site and all are presumed absent.

None of the aforementioned special -status wildlife species are state or federally listed as threatened or endangered. In order to ensure impacts to these avian species do not occur from implementation of the proposed project, a pre -construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. With implementation of the pre -construction nesting bird clearance survey, impacts to special - status avian species will be less than significant and no mitigation will be required.

Special -Status Plant Communities
Ynez Road Expansion Project ©o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

The CNDDB lists four (4) special -status habitats as being identified within the Temecula and Murrieta quadrangles: Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, Southern Interior Basalt Flow Vernal Pool, Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland, and Valley Needlegrass Grassland. No CDFW special - status plant communities occur within the boundaries of the project site.

Critical Habitat
Under the federal Endangered Species Act, "Critical Habitat" is designated at the time of listing of a species or within one year of listing. Critical Habitat refers to specific areas within the geographical range of a species at the time it is listed that include the physical or biological features that are essential to the survival and eventual recovery of that species. Maintenance of these physical and biological features requires special management considerations or protection, regardless of whether individuals or the species are present or not. All federal agencies are required to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding activities they authorize, fund, or permit which may affect a federally listed species or its designated Critical Habitat. The purpose of the consultation is to ensure that projects will not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or adversely modify or destroy its designated Critical Habitat.

The designation of Critical Habitat does not affect private landowners, unless a project they are proposing is on federal lands, uses federal funds, or requires federal authorization or permits (e.g., funding from the Federal Highways Administration or a CWA Permit from the Corps). If there is a federal nexus, then the federal agency that is responsible for providing the funding or permit would consult with the USFWS.

The project site is not located with federally designated Critical Habitat. The nearest designated Critical Habitat is located approximately 0.73 miles southwest of the site for San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) and 2 miles south of the site for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica).

Refer to Exhibit 7, Critical Habitat, in Attachment A. Therefore, the loss or adverse modification of Critical Habitat will not occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project and consultation with the USFWS will not be required.

Western Riverside County MSHCP
The project site is located within the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP and is partially located within Criteria Cell 7079 (refer to Exhibit 8, MSHCP Criteria Area, in Attachment A). Additionally, the project site is partially located within designated road right-of-way and is also located within the MSHCP designated species survey area for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). • Amphibian Not in an amphibian survey area
• Burrowing Owls In burrowing owl survey area
• Criteria Area Species Not in a criteria area species survey area • Mammals Not in a mammal survey area
• Narrow Endemic Plants Not in a narrow endemic plant survey area The City of Temecula is a permittee under the MSHCP and, while the project is not specifically identified as a Covered Activity in the MSHCP, under Section 7.3.1, Public and Private Development Consistent with MSHCP Criteria, public and private development within the Criteria Area that is determined to be consistent with the Criteria is considered a Covered Activity. As such, to achieve coverage, the project must be consistent with the following policies of the MSHCP:

Ynez Road Expansion Project o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

Since the City is a permittee under the MSHCP and, while the project is not specifically identified as a Covered Activity under Section 7.1 of the MSHCP, public and private development that are outside of Criteria Areas and Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands are permitted under the MSHCP, subject to consistency with MSHCP policies that apply to area outside of Criteria Areas. As such, to achieve coverage, the project must be consistent with the following policies of the MSHCP:
• The policies for the protection of species associated with Riparian/Riverine areas and vernal pools as set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP;
• The policies for the protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP;
• Guidelines pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface intended to address indirect effects associated with locating Development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area as detailed in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP;
• The requirements for conducting additional surveys as set forth in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP; and
• A Habitat Evaluation Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) as set forth in Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP.

Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools
The MSHCP requires that an assessment be completed if impacts to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools could occur from construction of the proposed project. According to the MSHCP, the documentation for the assessment shall include mapping and a description of the functions and values of the mapped areas with respect to the species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools.

A field assessment was conducted to identify and evaluate potential riparian/riverine resources pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.2. The evaluation included both vegetated and unvegetated drainages, as well as features that may have been historically natural but are now altered or partially human -made. Field mapping was completed using aerial imagery, topographic data, and on -site verification to delineate any linear or depressional features that may support riparian/riverine functions or values.

Riparian/Riverine Areas
As identified in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, riparian/riverine areas are defined as areas dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent plants, or emergent mosses and lichens which occur close to or are dependent upon nearby freshwater, or areas with freshwater flowing during all or a portion of the year. Conservation of these areas is intended to protect habitat that is essential to a number of listed or special -status water -dependent fish, amphibian, avian, and plant species. If impacts to riparian/riverine habitat cannot be avoided, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) must be developed to address the replacement of lost functions of habitats in regard to the listed species. This assessment is independent from considerations given to "waters of the U.S." and "waters of the State" under the CWA and the California Fish and Game Code.

An unnamed ephemeral drainage occurs within the proposed limits of disturbance. Although the feature has been modified by historic grading and adjacent development, it retains the hydrologic and geomorphic Ynez Road Expansion Project o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

characteristics that meet the definition of an MSHCP riparian/riverine resource. As such, the drainage has been delineated and its extent quantified. The on -site portion of the drainage encompasses approximately

1.62 acre (1,970 linear feet) of earthen channel within the survey area. A DBESP was prepared under separate cover to address the loss of riparian/riverine habitat from development of the proposed project.

During the field survey, one unnamed ephemeral drainage was identified within the proposed limits of disturbance. This feature exhibits evidence of ephemeral flows following precipitation events, defined bed and bank characteristics, and a discernible flow path supporting limited riparian vegetation, including mulefat. Adjacent areas consist primarily of unvegetated sandy substrate and disturbed upland vegetation.

The drainage provides limited hydrologic connectivity and marginal habitat value for common wildlife species, though it does not support listed or sensitive riparian obligate species. The function of this resource is primarily ephemeral flow conveyance and limited sediment transport. The drainage feature enters the southeastern portion of the site via a culvert and conveys storm flows and urban runoff from the surrounding developed area in a northwest direction where the feature eventually connects into an underground storm drain system on the northwestern portion of the site.

The widening of Ynez road is not expected to have any impacts to the function or values of the drainage feature. The drainage feature will continue to function the same way it has been functioning, and no impacts to downstream riparian/riverine resources are expected to occur since the drainage flows into an underground storm drain system.

Proposed project activities would result in direct impacts to approximately 0.22 acre of MSHCP Section

6.1.2 riparian/riverine resources. Impacts will only occur to riparian plant species on the slopes of the drainage feature. No impacts to the bottom or low flow portion of the channel will occur. The feature is depicted on Exhibit 6 (the mapped riparian/riverine habitat is synonymous with CDFW jurisdiction).

Impacts and mitigation are described below and the DBESP Analysis.

The applicant will mitigate impacts to 0.22 acre of riverine habitat through the management (removal of non-native plant species) of 0.66 acre of habitat within a City owned parcel along Temecula Creek. The 0.66 acre of offsite mitigation area was established using a 3:1 mitigation ratio for permanent impacts to riparian/riverine habitat along the bank of Drainage 1. The City of Temecula will be responsible for implementing the proposed mitigation program at the 0.66-acre offsite mitigation area. The offsite mitigation site is located immediately adjacent to Temecula Creek in the City of Temecula to the southeast of the project site within Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 961-440-012.

The 0.66 acre of riverine/riparian habitat offsite currently supports invasive plant species (i.e., tacolote mustard, prickly lettuce, etc.) that will be removed to enhance the riparian/riverine habitat.

The overall habitat functions and values provided by existing habitat areas within the offsite conservation area would be enhanced by removing invasive, non-native plant species (Temecula Creek).

A conservation easement will be placed over the 0.66 acre of offsite riparian/riverine habitat in favor of a qualified habitat maintenance organization (an approved third party that both CDFW and the USFWS will get to review and approve), and the City will condition the project to submit a Ynez Road Expansion Project ©o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

HMMP for review by the Wildlife agencies at least 60 days before construction begins and will provide long-term funding (an endowment) for the maintenance for the selected organization to conduct ongoing maintenance in the conserved area. Additionally, a Long-term Management Plan will be prepared and approved by the aforementioned agencies.

Riparian Obligate Species
The composition of the riparian scrub supported on -site has been degraded and does not have a contiguous willow canopy. Due to incomplete canopy, limited acreage, and lack of riparian plant species diversity of the riparian scrub supported on -site, the habitat associated with the on -site drainages features does not provide suitable habitat for any of the riparian obligate species listed under the MSHCP that may occur within the regional vicinity, including the State- and federally -listed as endangered least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus [LBVI]), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), or yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus).

The highly degraded and inconsistent canopy of the disturbed southern willow scrub precludes nesting by LBVI, southwestern willow flycatcher, and yellow -billed cuckoo, as these species require dense, sprawling canopies to obscure nests from predators. Further, LBVI and southwestern willow flycatcher each require minimum nesting territories of 0.5 acres, which exceeds the available riparian habitats supported on -site.

In addition, the lack of native plant diversity reduces the availability of insect prey for these species. As a result, no focused surveys were conducted or are recommended, and no impacts to this species will occur from project implementation.

Vernal Pools
One of the factors for determining the suitability of the habitat for fairy shrimp would be demonstrable evidence of seasonal ponding in an area of topographic depression that is not subject to flowing waters.

These astatic pools are typically characterized as vernal pools. More specifically, vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas without a continual source of water. They have wetland indicators of all 3 parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetland indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. Obligate hydrophytes and facultative wetlands plant species are normally dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season. The determination that an area exhibits vernal pool characteristics and the definition of the watershed supporting vernal pool hydrology is made on a case -by -case basis. Such determinations should be considered the length of time the areas exhibit upland and wetland characteristics and the manner in which the area fits into the overall ecological system as a wetland. The seasonal hydrology of vernal pools provides for a unique environment, which supports plants and invertebrates specifically adapted to a regime of winter inundation, followed by an extended period when the pool soils are dry.

Vernal pools are seasonally inundated, ponded areas that only form in regions where specialized soil and climatic conditions exist. During fall and winter rains typical of Mediterranean climates, water collects in shallow depressions where downward percolation of water is prevented by the presence of a hard pan or clay pan layer (duripan) below the soil surface. Later in the spring when rains decrease and the weather warms, the water evaporates and the pools generally disappear by May. The shallow depressions remain relatively dry until late fall and early winter with the advent of greater precipitation and cooler temperatures.

Vernal pools provide unusual "flood and drought" habitat conditions to which certain plant and wildlife Ynez Road Expansion Project o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

species have specifically adapted as well as invertebrate species such as fairy shrimp.

The MSHCP lists two general classes of soils known to be associated with listed and special -status plant species; clay soils and Traver -Domino Willow association soils. The specific clay soils known to be associated with listed and special -status species within the MSHCP plan area include Bosanko, Auld, Altamont, and Porterville series soils, whereas Traver -Domino Willows association includes saline -alkali soils largely located along floodplain areas of the San Jacinto River and Salt Creek. Without the appropriate soils to create the impermeable restrictive layer, none of the special -status plant or wildlife species associated with vernal pools can occur on the project site.

The project site has not been mapped within any vernal pool -type soils. A review of recent and historic aerial photographs (1938-2023) of the project site did not provide visual evidence of an astatic or vernal pool conditions within the project site. No ponding was observed, further supporting the fact that the drainage patterns currently occurring on the project site do not follow hydrologic regimes needed for vernal pools. From this review of historic aerial photographs and observations during the field investigations, it can be concluded that there is no indication of vernal pools or suitable fairy shrimp habitat occurring within the proposed project site. Therefore, the project is consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.

Fairy Shrimp
Below is a summary of the fairy shrimp known to occur in Western Riverside County and their potential to occur on -site.

Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni)
Riverside fairy shrimp are restricted to deep seasonal vernal pools, vernal pool like ephemeral ponds, and stock ponds and other human modified depressions The prefer warm -water pools that have low to moderate dissolved solids, are less predictable, and remained filled for extended periods of time. Basins that support Riverside fairy shrimp are typically dry a portion of the year, but usually are filled by late fall, winter or spring rains, and may persist through May. Known habitat occur within annual grasslands, which may be interspersed through chaparral or coastal sage scrub vegetation. In Riverside County, Riverside fairy shrimp have been found in pools formed over the following soils: Murrieta stony clay loams, Las Posas series, Wyman clay loam, and Willows soils.

No soils that are known to support Riverside fairy shrimp occur on the project site. No ponding was observed during the field investigation. Therefore, the site was determined to provide suitable habitat for Riverside fairy shrimp and focused surveys were warranted.

Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae) Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp are restricted to seasonal southern basalt flow vernal pools with cool clear to milky waters that are moderately predictable and remain filled for extended periods of time and are known only from vernal pool on the Santa Rosa Plateau. Since the project site and off -site street improvement areas are not located within the known area where Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp have been documented, and no indicators of historic water ponding or astatic water conditions were observed on site, Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp are not expected to occur on -site. Therefore, the site was determined not to provide suitable habitat for Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp.

Ynez Road Expansion Project o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp are restricted to seasonal vernal pools (vernal pools and alkali vernal pools) and prefer cool -water pools that have low to moderate dissolved solids, are unpredictable, and often short lived.

The vernal pool fairy shrimp is known from four locations in Western Riverside County MSHCP Plan Area:

Skunk Hollow, the Santa Rosa Plateau, Salt Creek, and the vicinity of the Pechanga Indian Reservation.

Since the project site and off -site street improvement areas are not located within or adjacent to the four known populations, and no indicators of historic water ponding or astatic water conditions were observed on site. Therefore, the site was determined not to provide suitable habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp.

Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP, Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species, states that the MSHCP database does not provide sufficient detail to determine the extent of the presence/distribution of Narrow Endemic Plant Species within the MSHCP Plan Area. Additional surveys may be needed to gather information to determine the presence/absence of these species to ensure that appropriate conservation of these species occurs. Based on the RCA MSHCP Information Map query and review of the MSHCP, it was determined that the project site is not located within the designated survey area for Narrow Endemic Plant Species. Due to previous disturbance, the project site does not provide suitable habitat for Narrow Endemic Plant Species.

Therefore, no additional surveys or analysis are required.

Additional Survey Needs and Procedures
In accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, Additional Survey Needs and Procedures, additional surveys may be needed for certain species in order to achieve coverage for these species. The query of the RCA MSHCP Information Map and review of the MSHCP determined that the project site is located within the designated survey area for burrowing owl as depicted in Figure 6-4 within Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.

The project site is not located within any other MSHCP designated species survey areas. Since burrowing owl are known to occur within the surrounding area, a burrowing owl suitability assessment was conducted.

Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl is currently designated as a California Species of Special Concern. The burrowing owl is a grassland specialist distributed throughout western North America where it occupies open areas with short vegetation and bare ground within shrub, desert, and grassland environments. Burrowing owls use a wide variety of and and semi -arid environments with level to gently -sloping areas characterized by open vegetation and bare ground. The western burrowing owl (A.c. hypugaea), which occurs throughout the western United States including California, rarely digs its own burrows and is instead dependent upon the presence of burrowing mammals (i.e., California ground squirrels, coyotes, and badgers) whose burrows are often used for roosting and nesting. The presence or absence of colonial mammal burrows is often a major factor that limits the presence or absence of burrowing owls. Where mammal burrows are scarce, burrowing owls have been found occupying man-made cavities, such as buried and non-functioning drain pipes, stand -pipes, and dry culverts. They also require low growth or open vegetation allowing line -of -sight observation of the surrounding habitat to forage and watch for predators. In California, the burrowing owl breeding season extends from the beginning of February through the end of August.

Under the MSHCP burrowing owl is considered an adequately conserved covered species that may still Ynez Road Expansion Project o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

require focused surveys in certain areas as designated in Figure 6-4 of the MSHCP. The project site occurs within the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area and a habitat assessment was conducted for the species to ensure compliance with MSHCP guidelines for the species. In accordance with the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (2006), survey protocol consists of two steps, Step I — Habitat Assessment and Step II — Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls. The following section describes the methodology followed during the burrowing owl habitat assessment conducted for this project. • Step I — Habitat Assessment: Step 1 of the MSHCP habitat assessment for burrowing owl consists of a walking survey to determine if suitable habitat is present onsite. The habitat assessment was conducted on April 19, 2023. Upon arrival at the project site, and prior to initiating the assessment survey, binoculars were used to scan all suitable habitats on and adjacent to the property, including perch locations, to establish owl presence.

All suitable areas of the project site were surveyed on foot by walking slowly and methodically while recording/mapping areas that may represent suitable owl habitat onsite. Primary indicators of suitable burrowing owl habitat in western Riverside County include, but are not limited to, native and non-native grassland, interstitial grassland within shrub lands, shrub lands with low density shrub cover, golf courses, drainage ditches, earthen berms, unpaved airfields, pastureland, dairies, fallow fields, and agricultural use areas. Burrowing owls typically use burrows made by fossorial mammals, but they often utilize man-made structures, such as earthen berms, cement culverts, cement, asphalt, rock, wood debris piles, openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement. Burrowing owls are often found within, under, or in close proximity to man-made structures.

According to the MSHCP guidelines, if suitable habitat is present, the biologist should also walk the perimeter of the property, which consists of a 150-meter (approximately 500 feet) buffer zone around the project site boundary. If permission to access the buffer area cannot be obtained, the biologist shall not trespass, but visually inspect adjacent habitats with binoculars. In addition to surveying the entire Project Site all bordering natural habitats located immediately adjacent to the Project Site were assessed. Accordingly, if suitable habitat is documented onsite or within adjacent habitats, both Step II, focused surveys and the 30-day preconstruction surveys are required in order to comply with the MSHCP guidelines.
• Step II — Locating Burrows and Burrowing Concurrent with the initial habitat assessment, a detailed focused burrow survey was conducted and included documentation of appropriately sized natural burrows or suitable man-made structures that may be utilized by burrowing owl - as part of the MSHCP protocol, which is described below under Part A, Focused Burrow Survey. The MSHCP protocol indicates that no more than 100 acres should be surveyed per day/per biologist.

O Part A — Focused Burrow Survey: A systematic survey for burrows, including burrowing owl sign, was conducted by walking across all suitable habitats mapped within the project site on April 19, 2023. Pedestrian survey transects were spaced to allow 100% visual coverage of the ground surface. The distances between transect centerlines were no more than 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) apart, and owing to the terrain, often much smaller.

Transect routes were also adjusted to account for topography and in general ground surface visibility. Areas providing potential habitat for burrowing owls were surveyed for suitable Ynez Road Expansion Project ©o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

burrows, consisting of natural and non -natural substrates in areas with low, open vegetation. All burrows encountered were examined for shape, scat, pellets, white -wash, feathers, tracks, and prey remains. Suitable burrows/sites, including rock piles and non - natural substrates, were thoroughly examined for signs of presence.

Despite a systematic search of the project site, no burrowing owls or signs (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) were observed during the field investigation. Portions of the project site are vegetated with a variety of low -growing plant species that allow for minimal line -of -sight observation favored by burrowing owls. Further, no small mammal burrows that have the potential to provide suitable burrowing owl nesting habitat (>4 inches in diameter) were observed within the boundaries of the site. Further, the project site does not provide suitable burrows/sites, including rock piles and non -natural substrates that could be used as burrow surrogates. Additionally, the site is surrounded by tall trees and poles that provide perching opportunities for large raptors (i.e., red-tailed hawk) that can prey on burrowing owls. Based on this information, and as a result of current and historic on -site disturbances, and surrounding development, it was determined that burrowing owls do not have potential to occur on -site, and no focused surveys are recommended.

Being that no appropriate burrows or burrowing owl habitat was found, Part B-Focused Burrowing Owl surveys were not required. Therefore, the project is consistent with Section 6.3.2. However, out of an abundance of caution a pre -construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities.

Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines
Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface, is intended to address indirect effects associated with development in proximity to MSHCP Conservation Areas. The Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines are intended to ensure that indirect project -related impacts to the MSHCP Conservation Area, including drainage, toxics, lighting, noise, invasive plant species, barriers, and grading/land development, are avoided or minimized. Portions of the project site are located within Criteria Cell 7079. As a result, the Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines, as discussed below, will be incorporated into the project to ensure that indirect project -related impacts, including drainage, toxics, lighting, noise, invasive plant species, barriers, and grading/land development, are avoided or minimized.

Drainage
During project construction, the project's stormwater should be directed away from the unnamed drainage which transverses the project site from the southeast to the northwest and lies to the northeast of Ynez Road.

These measures will ensure that the project stormwater discharges are no greater in volume and velocity than current undeveloped conditions and that the water leaving the site complies with all applicable water quality standards. No drainage/runoff from the site shall flow into this drainage.

Toxics
According to the MSHCP, measures shall be incorporated to ensure that application of chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. During the construction of the project, construction activities have the potential to cause release of toxins that could impact areas downstream of the unnamed drainage located onsite. To address these potential short-term impacts, the project is required to stage Ynez Road Expansion Project o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

construction operations as far away from mapped drainages to the maximum extent feasible.

Lighting
The proposed project is not anticipated to significantly increase lighting and glare. However, if light sources are installed, they should be designed with internal baffles to direct the lighting towards the ground and the developed areas and have a zero -side angle cut off to the horizon.

Noise
Under the MSHCP, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. The proposed project is a road expansion that is not expected to increase noise levels beyond existing levels. However, the project site is located in a highly -trafficked area and is surrounded by a mix of residential and commercial development, including Interstate 15. Therefore, project implementation are not likely to impact wildlife within an MSHCP conservation area.

Invasive Plant Species
No landscaping is proposed as part of the project.

Barriers
Barriers would restrict direct access to the adjacent undeveloped open space from the project site by unauthorized public access. Under the MSHCP, suitable barriers include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms. No barriers are anticipated to be needed.

Grading/Land Development
No manufactured slopes are anticipated to be constructed within the MSHCP Conservation Area. Should manufactured slopes be necessary, they will be kept within the boundaries of the development footprint and not encroach into the drainage.

Best Management Practices
The project is located within Criteria Cell 7079; therefore, applicable best management practices specified in Appendix C of the MSHCP will be followed. These measures are as follows:
a. A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. b. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements.

Ynez Road Expansion Project ©o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

c. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. d. The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work.
e. Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern.
f. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian species identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7.
g. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments offsite. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream. h. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project -related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, USFWS, CDFW, and RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas. i. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into watercourses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. j. The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint.
k. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The manufacture slopes will either be hydroseeded or seeded by hand broadcasting of native seeds to stabilize the slopes above Drainage 1.

1. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible.
in. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s).

Ynez Road Expansion Project o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

n. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen.

Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities.

Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas. o. The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions including these BMPs
Reserve Assembly Analysis
Proposed development within a Criteria Cell is subject to review under the HANS process under Section

6.1.1 of the MSHCP. Project applicants whose site's fall within Criteria Areas are required to file a habitat assessment of their project site to determine if all or part of the property is necessary for inclusion in any MSHCP Conservation Areas.

If it is determined by the Western Riverside County RCA and/or the Joint Project Review, the County, Cities, or various State and Federal Agencies that all or part of the property is needed for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area, the property owner will enter into negotiations with such agencies to determine the extent of development allowed within the project site that will not significantly impact the function of the conservation areas in question.

Relationship of the Proposed Project to the MSHCP Conservation Criteria The project site is located within the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP and is partially located within Criteria Cell 7079 (refer to Exhibit 8, MSHCP Criteria Area, in Attachment A), that contributes to the assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13.

Proposed Constrained Linkage 13
Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 consists of Murrieta Creek, located in the southwestern region of the Plan Area. This Constrained Linkage connects Existing Core F (Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve) in the north to Proposed Linkage 10 in the south. This Linkage is constrained along most of its length by existing urban Development and agricultural use and the planned land use surrounding the Linkage consists of city (Murrieta and Temecula). Therefore, care must be taken to maintain high quality riparian Habitat within the Linkage and along the edges for species such as yellow warbler, yellow -breasted chat, and least Bell's vireo, which have key populations located in or along the creek. Maintenance of existing floodplain processes and water quality along the creek is also important to western pond turtle and arroyo chub in this area. Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics, and domestic predators must be adhered to.

Criteria Cell 7079
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 Ynez Road Expansion Project o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

proposed for conservation in Cell 7078 to the west and to grassland, riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell 7166 to the south. Conservation within this Cell will range from 5%-15% of the Cell focusing on the southwestern portion of the Cell.

Covered Road
Under Section the MSHCP, Ynez Road is considered a Major Road with a 118 foot right-of-way, and Rancho Vista Road is considered a Secondary Road with 100 foot right-of-way.

Table 4: Covered Roads
MSHCP
Covered Roads
MSHCP Road Type
Road Width
Ynez Road
Major Road
118'
Rancho Vista Road
Secondary Road
100,
Based on the proposed project footprint, approximately 0.26 acre of impacts from grading of the slopes east of the existing roadway, above and outside of Drainage 1, will occur outside of the covered road right-of- way associated with the access ramp.

The proposed Covered Road impact footprint accounts for all project components (e.g., landscaping, safety requirements, curb and gutter, manufactured slopes, fuel modification zones, etc.). Permanent impacts associated with the roadway, shoulders, and median are required to remain within the allowable width. Cut and fill slopes or other construction activities required for the roadway construction do not need to be confined to the allowable width.

All road improvements will occur within the respective road rights -of -way for the aforementioned roads.

Further, off -site improvements will be consistent with Sections 7.5.1 and 7.5.3 of the MSHCP as discussed below:

Section 7.5.1 — Guidelines for Siting and Design of Planned Roads Within Criteria Area and Public/Quasi Public Lands
Section 7.5.1 of the MSHCP only refers to the northern portion of the project site within Criteria Cell 7079.

The following guidelines for planned roadways that are Covered Activities within the Criteria Area and Public/Quasi-Public Lands provide suggestions to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive species and Habitats known to occur in the vicinity of the planned roadway. The alignment and design followed the following design, siting and construction guidelines:
• The proposed project is located in the least environmentally sensitive location within the disturbed road shoulder. The widening will follow existing roads, easements, right-of-ways, and disturbed areas, which will minimize habitat fragmentation.
• The proposed project was designed to avoid, to the greatest extent feasible, impacts to covered species and wetlands. No impacts to covered species will occur. Additionally, no impact to wetlands will occur. However, approximately 0.22 acre of impact will occur to riparian/riverine habitat associated with Drainage 1 as previously discussed.

Ynez Road Expansion Project ©� r n n
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis t I �/

November 2025

• The proposed project will not impact wildlife movement. • The project site is not located within the designated survey area for Narrow Endemic Plant Species.

Due to previous disturbance, the project site does not provide suitable habitat for Narrow Endemic Plant Species. Therefore, no additional surveys or analysis are required and not mitigation is required.
• To the extent feasible, construction, maintenance and operation activities that involves clearing of natural vegetation will be conducted outside the active breeding season (March 1 through June 30).

If the active breeding season cannot be avoided, a pre -construction clearance survey will be conducted.
• This report was prepared to analyze biological resources within the project site.

Section 7.5.3 — Construction Guidelines
The following guidelines will be followed for project construction:
• Plans for water pollution and erosion control will be prepared for all Discretionary Projects involving the movement of earth in excess of 50 cubic yards. The plans will describe sediment and hazardous materials control, dewatering or diversion structures, fueling and equipment management practices, use of plant material for erosion control. Plans will be reviewed and approved by the County of Riverside and participating jurisdiction prior to construction. • Timing of construction activities will consider seasonal requirements for breeding birds and migratory non-resident species. Habitat clearing will be avoided during species active breeding season defined as March 1 to June 30.
• Sediment and erosion control measures will be implemented until such time soils are determined to be successfully stabilized.
• Short-term stream diversions will be accomplished by use of sand bags or other methods that will result in minimal instream impacts. Short-term diversions will consider effects on wildlife. • Silt fencing or other sediment trapping materials will be installed at the downstream end of construction activities to minimize the transport of sediments off -site. • Settling ponds where sediment is collected will be cleaned in a manner that prevents sediment from re-entering the stream or damaging/disturbing adjacent areas. Sediment from settling ponds will be removed to a location where sediment cannot re-enter the stream or surrounding drainage area.

Care will be exercised during removal of silt fencing to minimize release of debris or sediment into streams.
• No erodible materials will be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other debris material will not be stockpiled within stream channels or on adjacent banks. • The footprint of disturbance will be minimized to the maximum extent Feasible. Access to sites will occur on pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. • Equipment storage, fueling and staging areas will be sited on non -sensitive upland Habitat types with minimal risk of direct discharge into riparian areas or other sensitive Habitat types. • The limits of disturbance, including the upstream, downstream and lateral extents, will be clearly defined and marked in the field. Monitoring personnel will review the limits of disturbance prior to initiation of construction activities.
• During construction, the placement of equipment within the stream or on adjacent banks or adjacent upland Habitats occupied by Covered Species that are outside of the project footprint will be avoided.

Ynez Road Expansion Project o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

• Exotic species removed during construction will be properly handled to prevent sprouting or regrowth.
• Training of construction personnel will be provided.
• Ongoing monitoring and reporting will occur for the duration of the construction activity to ensure implementation of best management practices.
• When work is conducted during the fire season (as identified by the Riverside County Fire Department) adjacent to coastal sage scrub or chaparral vegetation, appropriate fire -fighting equipment (e.g., extinguishers, shovels, water tankers) shall be available on the site during all phases of project construction to help minimize the chance of human -caused wildfires. Shields, protective mats, and/or other fire preventative methods shall be used during grinding, welding, and other spark -inducing activities. Personnel trained in fire hazards, preventative actions, and responses to fires shall advise contractors regarding fire risk from all construction -related activities. • Active construction areas shall be watered regularly to control dust and minimize impacts to adjacent vegetation.
• All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, or any other toxic substances shall occur only in designated areas within the proposed grading limits of the project site. These designated areas shall be clearly marked and located in such a manner as to contain run- off.
• Waste, dirt, rubble, or trash shall not be deposited in the Conservation Area or on native habitat.

Anticipated Impacts
Based on the graphic depiction shown in Exhibit 8, the proposed project site is not located within the targeted conservation area and project implementation would not conflict with the conservation goals for Criteria Cell 7079 or the assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13.

Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan
Separate from the consistency review against the policies of the MSHCP, Riverside County established a boundary in 1996 for protecting the Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), a federally endangered and state threatened species. The Stephens' kangaroo rat is protected under the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (County Ordinance No. 663.10; SKR HCP). As described in the MSHCP Implementation Agreement, a Section 10(a) Permit, and California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 Management Authorization were issued to the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) for the Long -Term SKR HCP and was approved by the USFWS and CDFW in August 1990 (RCHCA 1996). Relevant terms of the SKR HCP have been incorporated into the MSHCP and its Implementation Agreement. The SKR HCP will continue to be implemented as a separate HCP; however, to provide the greatest conservation for the largest number of Covered Species, the Core Reserves established by the SKR HCP are managed as part of the MSHCP Conservation Area consistent with the SKR HCP. Actions shall not be taken as part of the implementation of the SKR HCP that will significantly affect other Covered Species. Take of Stephens' kangaroo rat outside of the boundaries but within the MSHCP area is authorized under the MSHCP and the associated permits.

The project site is located within the Mitigation Fee Area of the SKR HCP. Therefore, the applicant will be required to pay the SKR HCP Mitigation Fee prior to development of the project site.

Ynez Road Expansion Project ©o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

Tree Ordinance
Trees subject to City Heritage Tree permit requirements include those defined by Section 8.48.160 (Designation of Heritage Trees) of the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance: Designated Species. Any specimen of the following species that has been identified in a tree inventory in connection with the submittal of an application for a discretionary permit and has reached the required diameter is a Heritage Tree:
• Oak trees of the genus Quercus including, but not limited to, California or Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Coastal Sage Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa), Engelman Oak (Quercus engelmannii), Scrub Oak (Quercus berberidifolia), and Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) more than eighteen inches in diameter when measured at a point four feet above the natural grade at the base of the tree; • Platanus racemosa, (California Sycamore) more than twelve inches in diameter when measured at a point four feet above the natural grade at the base of the tree; • Umbellularia californica, (California Bay Laurel) more than twelve inches in diameter when measured at a point four feet above the natural grade at the base of the tree; • Juglans californica, (California Black Walnut) more than twelve inches in diameter when measured at a point four feet above the natural grade at the base of the tree; • Heteromeles (Photinia) arbutafolia, (California Holly) or (Toyon) more than twelve inches in diameter when measured at a point four feet above the natural grade at the base of the tree. • Trees of the above listed species with multiple trunks are deemed to have reached the required diameter if the sum of the diameters of the multiple trunks exceeds the diameter required for a single trunk tree by two inches.

Based on the location of each of the trees and their position within the landscape, ten trees will require removal to accommodate the proposed project. Of the ten trees, four are considered Heritage Trees.

Furthermore, one tree will require pruning to minimize construction -related damage and meet California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) clearance standards. The single tree requiring pruning is considered a Heritage Trees. The remaining trees, including four heritage trees, will be preserved in place.

Based on Section 8.48.210 of the city ordinance, a tree permit will not be required since the City is exempt per Section 8.48.210 B6, B7, and B8.

Consistent with the requirements of the city's Heritage Tree Ordinance, it is recommended that the four removed Heritage Trees be replaced, on site, with six 48-inch box coast live oak trees and two 48-inch California sycamore trees. Should it be found that the eight trees cannot be accommodated on site, it is recommended that the City identify alternative planting locations.

Conclusion
Based on the literature review and field survey, implementation of the project will have no significant impacts on federally, State, or MSHCP listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the project site. Additionally, the project will have no effect on designated Critical Habitat because none exists within the area. A single unnamed drainage was observed on the project site during the field investigation. No further surveys are recommended.

With completion of the recommendations provided below and listed in the Urban/Wildlands Interface Ynez Road Expansion Project ©o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

Guidelines above, and payment of the SKR HCP mitigation fee and MSHCP mitigation fee, development of the project site is fully consistent with the Western Riverside County MSHCP.

Recommendations
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code Compliance Vegetation within and surrounding the project site has the potential to provide refuge cover from predators, perching sites and favorable conditions for avian nesting that could be impacted by construction activities associated with the project. Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.3, 3511, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). In order to protect migratory bird species, a nesting bird clearance survey should be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that may disrupt the birds during the nesting season. Consequently, if avian nesting behaviors are disrupted, such as nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort, it is considered "take" and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.

If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31 ", a pre -construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey should document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre -construction clearance survey, construction activities should stay outside of a no -disturbance buffer. The size of the no -disturbance buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor should be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur.

Burrowing Owl Pre -Construction Clearance Survey
A 30-day pre -construction burrowing owl survey shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbing activities to avoid direct take of burrowing owls, in accordance Objectives 6 of the Species Account for the Burrowing Owl included in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).

Re ul�atoty Approvals
It should be noted that a CDFW Section 1602 Permit was previously prepared and processed (EPIMS-RIV- 49479-R6). However, design changes to the project resulted in an access road being installed near the intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road, which resulted in an increase in impacts to CDFW jurisdiction. As a result, the project applicant will need to prepare and process a new CDFW Section 1602 permit for impacts to CDFW jurisdictional areas and new mitigation approach.

Ynez Road Expansion Project ©o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

November 2025

The proposed project will not impact Corps or Regional Board jurisdictional areas.

Please do not hesitate to contact Tom McGill at (951) 285-6014 or tmcgill(&elmtconsulting com or Travis McGill at (909) 816-1646 or travismcgillgelmtconsulting com should you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D.

Managing Director
Attachments:

CIZA-9-1114-1—
Travis J. McGill
Director
A. Project Exhibits
B. Site Plan
C. Site Photographs
D. Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources E. Regulations
Ynez Road Expansion Project ©o E L M T
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

Attachment A
Project Exhibits

Niguel
Sai{ Clemente
..-iIII . 4 .-I. fl-.f..I,
10, 1111.. - il. 1
Oc
fAurri
ILI—V�
rIt
131041Mont g ni►�
o VaRey
t
2-3-' r �°
"!
Hemet
Idyll wil d
Sun City
ar
sr
t•
is
_ I
Fallbrook
t
r_
7ii ae�...A�7
r r� ,3j ►j'�.
er '
Vistasb ad
San Marc 7/ r
Escondido A7
Encinitas r , `,�- Ramona
44 0 2.5 5 10 YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
019 ELMT © Miles Regional Vicinity
Source: World Street Map, Riverside County Exhibit 1

Legend
Project Footprint
c
y o °PG
_ � o
c
ancliu
�iifprns�;\ =
,irport �+ •�
J
�ir. IAF
�AW p �1
• V
r ti~ tiv; tit _ _QNTJA
•mo
-` ''�' � ^ E � 1 � A •o �� T f`'4-
1 r N T
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
0o ELMT © Feet Site Vicinity
OC:� _
Source: USA Topographic Map, Riverside County Exhibit 2

m
`
v
S
�
�
a
00 ol-77,
y.

S
P•0�` c oc �
P°
Legend
Project Footprint (2.50 acres)
. f ..
�`• Permanent Project Impacts (2.50 acres)
s
_ r
- s
a - k
'3
� 4 �'� ct 4 ,�,���� T yr��• . ��a r
7079
f A -
�B o Or
A
rr
AdL-
r s
Y -A �. w.

Leg
AtF3: Arlington and Greenfield sandy loams, 15 to 35% slopes HcD2: Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes
01 n:46 HfD: Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 15% slopes
je RaB2: Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5% slopes
H
�, 1 '_ �� • _ � RmE3: Ramona and Buren sandy loams, 15 to 25% slopes ARE •;;��' . - - • r
Ai
ri
- _ - - r• _ } � '�,• a ;y.c
Yq r
707
40 HfD
10 ville
� � �11� ❑ . �� Cal ' k ..
•D� �g0ti 4 �� a � - � ,.

V
Legend
i�' + = .••- �, � Project Footprint Buckwheat Scrub (0.13 ac) CriteriaCells Non -Native Grassland (1.04 ac)
Riparian Scrub (0.22 ac) Disturbed (0.36 ac)
a e - Developed (0.76 ac)
n
_ y:' • - N
46 7079
/ �•
Ada �1
,e
a;� i �► ..y-
R sciry �.

D g0ti -
1 A'
A,' r i'1 fie•
.�
Rr
P

0 0.25 0.5 1 YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
0W C LMT © Miles Critical Habitat
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, USFWS Critical Habitat, Riverside County Exhibit 7

K.rsrr .__ �ac�s�s.ser
lot
Legend
Project•• •rint MSHCP Covered Roads
r ARTERIAL
Criteria Cells
Grading Outside of Road Width COLLECTOR
MAJOR

SECONDARY
` I URBAN 1 1L]
a
ti �' Sam , Q. pgen9
44 s � � . r c ,e■
r ,e
0 `1 �' � G• 'pew .' a . ;'�'P,t `�1'1 `r '� •
IL
'� ■ 7079 � .,,rmai `�� ,� :J. yr
1 4 yL
4 7166
j r
r 7079,,
p r
Ilk
❑A 19 E L M T A° 1,250 2,500
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, Riverside County

YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
5'°°°
Feet MSHCP Criteria Area
Exhibit 8

Attachment B
Site Plan

YNEZ ROAD PHASE 1 STREET IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT
APN 944-331-026

R/W R/W

YNEZ ROAD ,
50 _ � _ 50 _
15'f
6'
lb,
18'f 12' I MEDIAN _ I 11 '
SIDEWALK L �
EX. AC

PA VEMEN T

SECTION A
N. T S.
5'
11' I B.L.I 11'

2. 0Z
7'

PROPOSED

TUBULAR

STEEL FENCE
2%
TMAX.
` 2 EXISTING
GROUND

PROPOSED
SLOPE
R/W

YNEZ ROAD RIW
EX. 6
SIDEK
LEGEND
PUBLIC RIGHT—OF—WAY

PROPOSED GRADING LIMITS

PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENTS
R/W

YNEZ ROAD
50'
6'
13' B. L. 11, 11, 10'

LEFT TURN
POCKET
>ED
R
= ENCE
EX. 6' EX. AC�

SIDEWALKJ PA VEMEN T
9POSED
)PE
ExIsriNc
GROUND

SEC TION C
N. T S
SCALE 1 "=50'
0 50 100 150 200
R/W
44'
6'
11 ' 11, B.L. 15'

PROPOSED

TUBULAR

STEEL FENCE
27 MAX.
15'

PROPOSED PROPOSED RAMP EXISTING
SLOPE � GROUND

PROPOSED
SLOPE
0 r
m
E
m
co
N
O
N
Q
N
0 a

Attachment C
Site Photographs

Attachment C — Site
Photograph 1: From the southern boundary of the proposed project site at the northeast corner of the intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road, looking northwest along Ynez Road.

Photograph 2: From Rancho Vista Road, looking southwest at the intersection of Rancho Vista Road and Ynez Road and the southern boundary of the proposed project site. 0® E L�MT

Attachment C — Site
Photograph 3: From the eastern shoulder of Ynez Road looking southeast along the proposed project site through existing vegetation.

Photograph 4: Adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site, looking northwest along Ynez Road and existing vegetation.
0® E L�MT

Attachment C — Site
Photograph 5: Depicting a drainage (and associated vegetation) which runs parallel to the eastern boundary of the proposed project site.

Photograph 6: From the middle of the eastern boundary of the project site, looking southeast along the eastern shoulder of Ynez Road.
0® E L�MT

Attachment C — Site
�';WK, ,
i
Photograph 7: From the middle of the eastern boundary of the project site, looking northwest along the eastern shoulder of Ynez Road.

Photograph 8: From inside the drainage which runs parallel to the eastern boundary of the project site, looking southeast.
0® E L�MT

Attachment C — Site
Photograph 9: From the eastern boundary of the project site, looking northwest through an area of active construction.

Photograph 10: From an area of active construction adjacent to the project site, looking northwest at the northern boundary of the project site at the intersection of Ynez Road and Tierra Vista Road. 0® E L�MT

Attachment D
Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources

Attachment D — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name
Covered
Observed
Status
Habitat
by
Potential to Occur
Common Name
MSHCP
On -site

SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIE
Moderate
Generally found in forested areas up to 3,000 feet in elevation, Accipiter cooperii
Fed: None
especially near edges and rivers. Prefers hardwood stands and Suitable foraging habitat is
present on -site. This
Cooper's hawk
CA: WL
mature forests but can be found in urban and suburban areas where there are tall trees for nesting. Common in open areas during nesting Yes
No
species is adapted to urban
season.
environments and occurs
commonly.

Moderate
Found in pine, fir and aspen forests. They can be found hunting in Suitable foraging habitat is
Accipiter striatus
Fed: None
forest interior and edges from sea level to near alpine areas. Can also present on -site. This
species does not nest in
be found in rural, suburban and agricultural areas, where they often Yes
No
sharp -shinned hawk
CA: WL
hunt at bird feeders. Typically found in southern California in the southern California. This
winter months.
species is adapted to urban
environments and occurs
commonly.

Aimophila ruficeps
Breed in sparsely vegetated scrubland on hillsides and canyons.

Presumed absent
canescens
Fed: None
Prefers coastal sage scrub dominated by California sagebrush No suitable habitat is
(Artemisia californica), but they can also be found breeding in Yes
No
southern California rufous-
CA: WL
coastal bluff scrub, low -growing serpentine chaparral, and along the present within adjacent
crowned sparrow
edges of tall chaparral habitats.
to the project site.

Typically found in sandy and/or gravelly washes and creeks with moderate in -stream vegetation dominated by willows (Salix sp.) and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). Will forage along the bases of in- Presumed absent
An rus f ornicus
�1' cal
Fed: END
stream vegetation or at the bases of trees, including California No suitable habitat is
.f
arroyo toad
CA: SSC
sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Fremont cottonwood (Populus Yes
No
present within adjacent
fremontii), or oaks (Quercus spp.). Typically breeds in waters that are still or slowly moving, generally around six to eight inches in to the projecc t site.
depth. Burrows along sandy terraces but may in some cases burrow directly in streambeds.

Occupies nearly all terrestrial habitats of the western states except None
densely forested areas. Favors secluded cliffs with overhanging Presumed absent
Aquila chrysaetos
Fed:
ledges and large trees for nesting and cover. Hilly or mountainous Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
golden eagle
CA: WI
country where takeoff and soaring are supported by updrafts is present within or adjacent
generally preferred to flat habitats. Deeply cut canyons rising to open to the project site.
mountain slopes and crags are ideal habitat.

R� E L �M T

Attachment D — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name
Covered
Observed
Status
Habitat
by
Potential to Occur
Common Name
MSHCP
On -site
Yearlong resident throughout California, except for the high Presumed absent
Ardea alba
Fed: None
mountains and deserts. Feeds and rests in fresh, and saline emergent No suitable habitat is
wetlands, along the margins of estuaries, lakes, and slow -moving No
No
great egret
CA: None
streams, on mudflats and salt ponds, and in irrigated croplands and present within adjacent
pastures.
to the project site.

Presumed absent
Ardea herodias
Fed: None
Forages along streams, marshes, lakes, and meadows. Nests No suitable habitat is
colonially in tall trees (typically Eucalyptus sp.), on cliffsides, or in Yes
No
great blue heron
CA: None
isolated spots in marshes.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Arizona elegans
Presumed absent
occidentalis
Fed: None
Inhabits and scrub, rocky washes, grasslands, and chaparral habitats.

No
No
No suitable habitat is
California glossy snake
CA: None
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Presumed absent
Artemisiospiza belli belli
Fed: None
Generally, prefers semi -open habitats with evenly spaced shrubs 1 — No suitable habitat is
2 meters in height. Dry chaparral and coastal sage scrub. Less Yes
No
Bell's sparrow
CA: WL
common in tall dense, old chaparral.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Suitable habitats include salt and freshwater marshes, irrigated Presumed absent
Asio flammeus
Fed: None
alfalfa, or grain fields, and ungrazed grasslands and old pastures.

No
No
No suitable habitat is
short -eared owl
CA: SSC
Tule marsh or tall grasslands with cover 30 to 50 cm in height can present within or adjacent
support nesting pairs.
to the project site.

Presumed absent
Aspidoscelis hyperythra
Fed: None
Semi -arid brushy areas typically with loose soil and rocks, including Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
orangethroat whiptail
CA: WL
washes, streamsides, rocky hillsides, and coastal chaparral. present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Aspidoscelis tigris
Presumed absent
stejFed:

None
Found in a vane of ecosystems, primarily hot and open areas variety Y p Y �'Y p
Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
CA: SCC
with sparse foliage - chaparral, woodland, and riparian areas.

P g P P
resent within or adjacent
p j
coastgeri
coastal whiptail
to the project site.

Presumed absent
Athene cunicularia
Fed: None
Occurs in open, annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and No suitable habitat is
scrublands characterized by low -growing vegetation. Dependent Yes (c)
No
burrowing owl
CA: SSC
upon fossorial mammals for burrows, most notable ground squirrels. present within adjacent
to the project site.

R� E L �M T

Attachment D — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name
Covered
Observed
Status
Habitat
by
Potential to Occur
Common Name
MSHCP
On -site
Colonial species that lives almost exclusively from coastal California east towards the Sierra -Cascade Crest and can be found uncommonly in western Nevada and south through Baja California. Inhabits Presumed absent
Bombus crotchii
Fed: None
grassland and scrub habitats in hotter and drier climates than most No
No
No suitable habitat is
Crotch's bumble bee
CA: None
other bumblebee species and is only capable of tolerating a narrow present within or adjacent
range of climatic conditions. Feeds on a variety of annual and to the project site.
perennial plant species, classifying it as a dietary generalist. This species usually nests underground, often in abandoned rodent dens Historically present in most of the lower 48 states, but more common in the south from Florida, west to Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico.

Presumed absent
Bombus pensylvanicus
Fed: None
Found in open habitat like farmland. Nests on surface of ground and No
No
No suitable habitat is
American bumblebee
CA: None
forages in a variety of large open fields with prominent vetch (Vicia present within or adjacent
sp.), clover (Trefoilium sp.), and goldenrod (Solidago sp.) to the project site.
populations.

Occurs primarily in open grasslands and fields, but may be found in Presumed absent
Buteo regalis
Fed: None
sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills, or along the edges of Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
ferruginous hawk
CA: WL
pinyon juniper woodland. Feeds primarily on small mammals and present within or adjacent
typically found in agricultural or open fields.
to the project site.

Typical habitat is open desert, grassland, or cropland containing Presumed absent
Buteo swainsoni
Fed: None
scattered, large trees or small groves. Breeds in stands with few trees No suitable habitat is
in juniper -sage flats, riparian areas, and in oak savannah in the Yes
No
Swainson's hawk
CA: THR
Central Valley. Forages in adjacent grassland or suitable grain or present within adjacent
alfalfa fields or livestock pastures.
to the project site.

Moderate
Desert and semi -desert, and brushy foothills and chaparral. A desert Calypte costae
Fed: None
hummingbird that breeds in the Sonoran and Mojave Deserts.

Suitable nesting and
Costa's hummingbird
CA: None
Departs desert heat moving into chaparral, scrub, and woodland No
No
foraging habitat observed
habitats.
within and adjacent to the
project site.

Chaetodipus californicus
Presumed absent
femoralis
Fed: None
Found most often in grass -chaparral edges but may also be found in � p g y
No
No
No suitable habitat is
Dulzura pocket mouse
CA: SSC
coastal scrub or other habitats, primarily in San Diego County. present within or adjacent
to the project site.

R� E L �M T

Attachment D — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name
Covered
Observed
Status
Habitat
by
Potential to Occur
Common Name
MSHCP
On -site
Occurs in desert and coastal habitats in southern California, Mexico, Chaetoand
northern Baja California, from sea level to at least 1,400 meters.

Presumed absent
northwestern
northwestern San Diego
stern San Diego
Fed: None
Found in a variety of temperate habitats ranging from chaparral and Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
CA: SSC
grasslands to scrub forests and deserts. Requires low growing present within or adjacent
pocket mouse
vegetation or rocky outcroppings, as well as sandy soils for to the project site.
burrowing.

It can be found from the desert, through dense chaparral in the foothills (it avoids the mountains above around 4,000 feet), to warm inland mesas and valleys, all the way to the cool ocean shore. It is most commonly associated with heavy brush with large rocks or Presumed absent
Crotalus ruber
Fed: None
boulders. Dense chaparral in the foothills, cactus or boulder No
No
No suitable habitat is
red -diamond rattlesnake
CA: SSC
associated coastal sage scrub, oak and pine woodlands, and desert present within or adjacent
slope scrub associations are known to carry populations of the to the project site.
northern red -diamond rattlesnake; however, chamise and red shank associations may offer better structural habitat for refuges and food resources for this species than other habitats.

Occur in and and semi -arid habitats with some grass or brush. Prefer Presumed absent
Dipodomys stephensi
Fed: END
open habitats with less than 50% protective cover. Require soft, well- Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
Stephens' kangaroo rat
CA: THR
drained substrate for building burrows and are typically found in present within or adjacent
areas with sandy soil.
to the project site.

Presumed absent
Elanus leucurus
Fed: None
Occurs in low elevation, open grasslands, savannah -like habitats, No suitable habitat is
agricultural areas, wetlands, and oak woodlands. Uses trees with Yes
No
white-tailed kite
CA: FP
dense canopies for cover.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Occurs in riparian woodlands in southern California. Typically Presumed absent
Empidonax traillii
Fed: None
requires large areas of willow thickets in broad valleys, canyon No
No
No suitable habitat is
willow flycatcher
CA: END
bottoms, or around ponds and lakes. These areas typically have present within or adjacent
standing or running water or are at least moist.
to the project site.

Found in ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, marshes, and irrigation ditches, with abundant vegetation, either rocky or muddy bottoms, in Presumed absent
Emys marmorata
Fed: None
woodland, forest, and grassland. In streams, prefers pools to Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
western pond turtle
CA: SSC
shallower areas. Logs, rocks, cattail mats, and exposed banks are present within or adjacent
required for basking. May enter brackish water and even seawater. to the project site.

Found at elevations from sea level to over 5,900 feet (1,800 m).

R� E L �M T

Attachment D — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name
Covered
Observed
Status
Habitat
by
Potential to Occur
Common Name
MSHCP
On -site
Generally found in shortgrass prairies, grasslands, disturbed fields, Presumed absent
Eremo hila al estris actia
p p
Fed: None
or similar habitat types along the coast or in deserts. Trees are shrubs No suitable habitat is
are usually scarce or absent. Generally rare in montane, coniferous, Yes
No
California horned lark
CA: WL
or chaparral habitats. Forms large flocks outside of the breeding present within adjacent
to the project site.
season.

Primarily a cliff -dwelling species, roost generally under exfoliating rock slabs. Roosts are generally high above the ground, usually Presumed absent
Eumops perotis
Fed: None
allowing a clear vertical drop of at least 3 meters below the entrance californicus
for flight. In California it is most frequently encountered in broad No
No
No suitable habitat is
western mastiff bat
CA: SSC
open areas. Its foraging habitat includes dry desert washes, flood present within adjacent
plains, chaparral, oak woodland, open ponderosa pine forest, to the project site.
grassland, and agricultural areas.

Warm streams of the Los Angeles Plain, which are typically muddy Presumed absent
Gila orcuttii
Fed: None
torrents during the winter, and clear quiet brooks in the summer, Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
arroyo chub
CA: SSC
possibly drying up in places. They are found both in slow -moving present within or adjacent
and fast-moving sections, but generally deeper than 40 cm. to the project site.

Primarily found in tall, dense, relatively wide riparian woodlands and thickets of willows, vine tangles, and dense brush with well- Presumed absent
Icteria virens
Fed: None
developed understories. Nesting areas are associated with streams, Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
yellow -breasted chat
CA: SSC
swampy ground, and the borders of small ponds. Breeding habitat present within or adjacent
must be dense to provide shade and concealment. It winters south the to the project site.

Central America.

Presumed absent
Lynx rufus pallescens
Fed: None
Most abundant in foothills, canyons, mesas, and plateaus, where No suitable habitat is
brush and woodland provide suitable habitat. Have also been found No
No
pallid bobcat
CA: None
in semidesert, urban edge, and swampland environments.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Occupies a variety of shrub and desert habitats, including Joshua tree, Presumed absent
Neotoma lepida
Fed: None
pinyon juniper, mixed and chamise-redshank chaparral, and No suitable habitat is
intermedia
sagebrush. Prefers large cactus patches, rock outcroppings and areas Yes
No
San Diego desert woodrat
CA: SSC
with Joshua trees. Elevation range is from sea level to approximately present within adjacent
8500 ft.
to the project site.

R� E L �M T

Attachment D — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name
Covered
Observed
Status
Habitat
by
Potential to Occur
Common Name
MSHCP
On -site
Fairly common, yearlong resident in lowlands and foothills throughout most of California, including the Salton Sea and Presumed absent
N cticorax n cticorax
Y Y
Fed: None
Colorado River areas, and very common locally in large nesting No suitable habitat is
colonies. Feeds along the margins of lacustrine, large riverine, and Yes
No
black -crowned night heron
CA: None
fresh and saline emergent habitats and rarely, on kelp beds in marine present within adjacent
sub tidal habitats. Nests and roosts in dense -foliaged trees and dense to the project site.
emergent wetlands.

Remain close to still or slow -moving bodies of water including Presumed absent
Pandion haliaetus
Fed: None
oceans, rivers, lakes, mangroves, coastal wetlands, lagoons, reefs, Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
osprey
CA: WL
estuaries and marshes. Generally, nest in high places, such as trees, present within or adjacent
power poles, or cliffs.
to the project site.

Perognathus
Occurs in lower elevation grasslands and coastal sage scrub Presumed absent
longimembris brevinasus
Fed: None
communities in and around the Los Angeles Basin. Prefers open Yes (c)
No
No suitable habitat is
Los Angeles pocket mouse
CA: SSC
ground with fine sandy soils. May not dig extensive burrows, but present within or adjacent
instead will seek refuge under weeds and dead leaves instead. to the project site.

Occurs in a wide variety of vegetation types including coastal sage scrub, annual grassland, chaparral, oak woodland, riparian woodland and coniferous forest. In inland areas, this species is restricted to Presumed absent
Phrynosoma blainvillii
Fed: None
areas with pockets of open microhabitat, created by disturbance (i.e.

Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
coast horned lizard
CA: SSC
fire, floods, roads, grazing, fire breaks). The key elements of such present within or adjacent
habitats are loose, fine soils with a high sand fraction; an abundance to the project site.
of native ants or other insects; and open areas with limited overstory for basking and low, but relatively dense shrubs for refuge.

Frequently found in marshes, swamps, ponds, rivers and irrigated Presumed absent
Plegadis chihi
Fed: None
land such as wet agricultural fields. Prefers to forage in very shallow Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
white-faced ibis
CA: WL
water. Prefers freshwater marsh habitat, but can sometimes be found present within or adjacent
in saltwater.
to the project site.

Obligate resident of sage scrub habitats that are dominated by Polioptila californica
California sagebrush (Artemisia californica). This species generally Presumed absent
calf ornica
f
Fed: THR
occurs below 750 feet elevation in coastal regions and below 1,500 No suitable habitat is
feet inland. Ranges from the Ventura County, south to San Diego Yes
No
coastal California
CA: SSC
County and northern Baja California and it is less common in sage present within or adjacent
gnatcatcher
scrub with a high percentage of tall shrubs. Prefers habitat with more to the project site.
low -growing vegetation.

R� E L �M T

Attachment D — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name
Covered
Observed
Status
Habitat
by
Potential to Occur
Common Name
MSHCP
On -site
Nests over all of California except the Central Valley, the Mojave Desert region, and high altitudes and the eastern side of the Sierra Presumed absent
Setophaga petechia
Fed: None
Nevada. Winters along the Colorado River and in parts of Imperial No
No
No suitable habitat is
yellow warbler
CA: SSC
and Riverside Counties. Nests in riparian areas dominated by present within or adjacent
willows, cottonwoods, sycamores, or alders or in mature chaparral. to the project site.

May also use oaks, conifers, and urban areas near stream courses.

Prefers open areas with sandy or gravelly soils, in a variety of Presumed absent
Spea hammondii
Fed: None
habitats including mixed woodlands, grasslands, coastal sage scrub, No suitable habitat is
chaparral, sandy washed, lowlands, river floodplains, alluvial fans, Yes
No
western spadefoot
CA: SSC
playas, alkali flats, foothills, and mountains. Rainpools which do not present within adjacent
contain bullfrogs, fish, or crayfish are necessary for breeding. to the projecc t site.

Low
Breeds locally in a variety of habitats including streamside trees, oak Spinus lawrencei
Fed: None
woodland, open pine woods, pinyon -juniper
uniper woods, chaparral. Often
Some foraging and nesting
Lawrence's goldfinch
CA: None
found close to water in fairly dry country. In migration and winter, No
No
habitat available onest
e.
occurs in weedy fields, farmland, brushy areas, stream sides.

Species has been observed
nearby.

Restricted to deep, long-lived vernal pools, ephemeral ponds, and Presumed absent
Streptocephalus woottoni
Fed: END
human -derived depressions such as drainage ditches. All known Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
Riverside fairy shrimp
CA: None
habitat lies within annual grasslands which may be interspersed with present within or adjacent
chaparral or coastal sage scrub vegetation.
to the project site.

Generally found in grassland, shrubsteppe, desert, dry forest, Presumed absent
Taxidea txus
Fed: None
parkland, and agricultural areas. Prefers open areas like plains, No suitable habitat is
prairies, and farmland, as well as the edges of woods. They require No
No
American badger
CA: SSC
soils that allow the excavation of den sites and support burrowing present within adjacent
prey species (such as ground squirrels).
to the projecc t site.

Inhabits streams and ponds in chaparral, oak woodland, and forest Presumed absent
Thamnophis hammondii
Fed: None
habitats up to 8,000 feet elevation. Semi -aquatic in nature, but can No
No
No suitable habitat is
two -striped gartersnake
CA: SSC
occur in a variety of habitats -including urban areas -where there is present within or adjacent
water present.
to the project site.

Primarily occupy Riverine riparian habitat that typically feature dense cover within 1 -2 meters of the ground and a dense, stratified canopy. Typically it is associated with southern willow scrub, Presumed absent
Vireo bellii pusillus
Fed: END
cottonwood -willow forest, mule fat scrub, sycamore alluvial Yes (a)
No
No suitable habitat is
least Be vireo
CA: END
woodlands, coast live oak riparian forest, arroyo willow riparian present within or adjacent
forest, or mesquite in desert localities. It uses habitat which is limited to the project site.
to the immediate vicinity of water courses, 2,000 feet elevation in the interior.

R� E L �M T

Attachment D — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name
Covered
Observed
Status
Habitat
by
Potential to Occur
Common Name
MSHCP
On -site
Uncommon yearlong resident of southern California throughout Presumed absent
Xanthocephalus
Fed: None
freshwater emergent wetlands, and moist, open areas along No suitable habitat is
xanthocephalus
agricultural areas, and mudflats of lacustrine habitats. Prefers to nest No
No
yellow -headed blackbird
CA: SSC
in dense wetland vegetation characterized by cattails, tules, or other present within adjacent
similar plant species along the border of lakes and ponds. to the project site.

IL SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT SPECIES
Abronia villosa var. aurita
Fed: None
CA:

Grows in sandy soils in coastal sage scrub and in chaparral habitats.

Presumed absent
No suitable habitat is
None
Grows in elevation from 262 to 5,249 feet. Blooming period ranges No
No
chaparral sand -verbena
CNPS 1B.1
from January to September.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Almutaster aucz lorus
P f
Fed: None
CA:

Grows in alkaline soils within meadows and seeps habitats. Found at Presumed absent
No suitable habitat is
None
elevations ranging from 785 to 2,625 feet. Blooming period is from No
No
alkali marsh aster
CNPS
2B.1
June to October.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Fed:

Occurs in freshwater wetland, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and END
CA.
valley grassland communities. Can be found growing on the upper Presumed absent
Ambrosia umila
p
None
terraces of rivers and drainages, and in more open areas of a p variety
Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
San Diego ambrosia
CNPS
1B.1
of communities. Occasionally found in areas adjacent to vernal- present within or adjacent
pools. Found at elevations ranging from 65 to 1,360 feet. Blooming to the project site.
period is from April to October.

Fed: None
Endemic to coastal Santa Monica Mountains and Santa Ynez Presumed absent
Amsinckia douglasiana
CA: None
Mountains of southern California. Found in foothill woodland and No
No
No suitable habitat is
Douglas' fiddleneck
CNPS
valley grassland communities. May be restricted to Monterey shale present within or adjacent
4 2
substrates generally on sloping sites. Blooms from March to May. to the project site.

Arctostaphylos
Fed: END
Presumed absent
rainbowensis
CA. END
Grows within chaparral habitats. Found at elevations ranging from No
No
No suitable habitat is
CNPS
675 to 2,200 feet. Blooming period is from December to March. present within or adjacent
Rainbow manzanita
IBA
to the project site.

Presumed absent
Found in only a few places in Riverside County and within the Fed: END
Cleveland and San Bernadino National Forests. Grows in rocky No suitable habitat is
Astragalus pachypus var.

CA:

None
(sometimes), sandy (sometimes) areas within chaparral, cismontane present within or adjacent
jaegeri
CNPS
Woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats.

Yes
No
to the project site. The
Jaeger's milk -vetch
1B.1
Found at elevations ranging from 1,200 to 3,200 feet. Blooming project site lies outside of
period is from December to June.
the known elevation range
for this species.

R� E L �M T

Attachment D — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name
Covered
Observed
Status
Habitat1W
by
Potential to Occur
Common Name
MSHCP
On -site
Atri lex arishii
Fed:

None
Habitat types include chenopod scrub, playas, and vernal pools.

Presumed absent
P P
CA:

None
Found at elevations ranging from 82 to 6,234 feet. Blooming period Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
Parish's brittlescale
CNPS
is from June to October.
present within or adjacent
1B.1
to the project site.

Occurs mostly on mesic, clay habitats and sometimes in serpentine Fed: None
soils. Usually found in vernal pools, valley and foothill grassland, Presumed absent
Brodiaea orcuttii
CA: None
closed -cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, chaparral, No
No
No suitable habitat is
Orcutt's brodiaea
CNPS
meadows and seeps, and other small drainages. Found at elevations present within or adjacent
1B.1
ranging from 98 to 5,561 feet. Blooming period ranges from May to to the project site.

July.

Can be found in the Santa Rosa basalt area of the Santa Ana Fed:
mountains in southern California. Grows in open grassland Presumed absent
Brodiaea santarosae
None
CA:
communities, sometimes in areas with abundant, tall, non-native No suitable habitat is
None
grasses in soils derived from the Santa Rosa basalt rock formation.

No
No
Santa Rosa Basalt brodiaea
CNPS 1B 2
Grows in a range of moisture conditions, from vernal pool edges to present within adjacent
relatively dry soils, and even disturbed roadside areas. Blooms from to the project site.

May to June.

Calochortus catalinae
Fed: None
CA:

Grows in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and Presumed absent.

No suitable habitat is
None
foothill grassland. Found at elevations ranging from 49 to 2,297 feet.

No
No
Catalina mariposa -lily
CNPS 4.2
Blooming period is from February to June.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Calochortus weedii var.

Fed: None
Presumed absent.
intermedius
CA. None
Found in coastal and peninsular ranges, Grows in heavy rocky soils Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
CNPS
from sea level to 6,200 feet. Blooms from June to July. present within or adjacent
intermediate mariposa -lily
1B.2
to the project site.

Caulanthus simulans
Fed: None
CA:

Occurs on granitic sandy soils in chaparral and coastal scrub habitats.

Presumed absent
No suitable habitat is
None
Found at elevations ranging from 295 to 7,218 feet. Blooming period Yes
No
Payson's jewelflower
CNPS 4.2
is from February to June.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.
ens P.

Centromadia un ss
P g
Fed:

None
Found in alkaline soils within chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, Low
Marginal habitat present
laevis
CA:

None
playas, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland habitats.

Yes d
�)
No
within and adjacent to the
CNPS
Found at elevations ranging from 0 to 2,100 feet. Blooming period is smooth tarplant
1B.1
from April to September.
project site. Species has
been observed nearby.

R� E L �M T

Attachment D — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name
Covered
Observed
Status
Habitat
by
Potential to Occur
Common Name
MSHCP
On -site
Presumed absent
Chaenactis glabriuscula
Fed:

None
CA:

Grows in cracks in limestone or roc soils of
�' f broken mountainous
No suitable habitat is
present within or adjacent
var. orcuttiana
None
CLAPS
terrain in desert scrub, grassland, and oak woodland communities at No
No
to the project site. The
Orcutt's pincushion
1B.1
elevations ranging from 5,200 to 6,000 feet. Blooms from January to project site lies outside of
August.
the known elevation range
for this species.

Chorizanthe parryi var.

Fed:

None
Occurs on sand and/or rock soils in chaparral, coastal sae scrub Y Y P g >
Presumed absent
parryi
CA: None
and sandy openings within alluvial washes and margins. Found at No
No
No suitable habitat is
Parry's spineflower
CNPS
IBA
elevations ranging from 951 to 3,773 feet. Blooming period is from elevations
present within or adjacent
to June.
to the project site.

Fed:

Typically found on clay lenses which are largely devoid of shrubs.

Presumed absent
Chorizanthe polygonoides
None
C
Can be found on the periphery of vernal pool habitat and even on the var, lon is ina
g p
None
periphery of montane meadows near vernal seeps. Grows in No
No
No suitable habitat is
long-spined spineflower
CNPS 1B 2
elevation from 98 to 5,020 feet. Blooming period ranges from April present within or adjacent
to July.
to the project site.

Clinopodium chandleri
Fed: None
CA:

Known to grow in shady areas of riparian habitat, but can also be Presumed absent
No suitable habitat is
None
found in coastal sage scrub, foothill woodland, chaparral, and valley No
No
San Miguel savory
CNPS 1B 2
grassland communities. Blooms from May to July.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Convulvus simulans
Fed:

None
Grows in clay soils within se entinite sees chaparral, coastal Y rp seeps, P
Presumed absent
small -flowered morning
CA:

None
scrub, valley and foothill grassland habitats. Found at elevations Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
CLAPS 4 2
ranging from 98 to 2,297 feet. Blooming period is from March to g g g p
present within or adjacent
glory
July.
to the project site.

Fed: None
Typically found in vernally mesic, sometimes sandy soils in coastal Low
Deinandra paniculata
CA: None
scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools. Found at No
No
Marginal habitat present
paniculate tarplant
CNPS
elevations ranging from 82 to 3,084 feet. Blooming period is from within and adjacent to the

4.2 April to November.
project site.

Fed: None
Presumed absent
Dudleya viscida
CA:

None
Grows in rocky areas within chaparral, cismontane woodland, No suitable habitat is
CNPS
coastal bluff scrub, and coastal scrub habitats. Fount at elevations No
No
sticky dudleya
1B.2
ranging from 35 to 1,805 feet. Blooming period is from May to June. present within adjacent
to the project site.

R� E L �M T

Attachment D — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name
Covered
Observed
Status
Habitat1W
by
Potential to Occur
Common Name
MSHCP
On -site
Eryngium aristulatum var.

Fed: END
Grows in clay soils and surface and non -surface hard pan. Restricted Presumed absent
parishii
CA. END
to vernal pools and areas adjacent to and around vernal pools.

Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
San Diego button -celery
CNPS
1B.1
Blooms from April to June.
p
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Presumed absent
Fed:

No suitable habitat is
Erythranthe diffusa
None
CA:

Grows in sandy or gravelly soils in chaparral and lower montane present within or adjacent
�
None
coniferous forest habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 4,003 to No
No
to the project site. Project
Palomar monkeyflower
CNPS 4.3
6,004 feet. Blooming period ranges from April to June.
site lies outside the known
elevation range for this
species.

Harpagonella palmeri
Fed: None
CA:

Occurs on clay soils in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and Presumed absent
No suitable habitat is
None
foothill grasslands habitats. Grows in elevation from 66 to 3,133 feet.

No
No
Palmer's grapplinghook
CNPS 4.2
Blooming period ranges from March to May.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Fed:

Presumed absent
Holocarpha virgata ssp.

None
CA'
Grows within chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and Project site is highly
elongata
None
valley and foothill grassland habitats. Found at elevations ranging No
No
fragmented and isolated
curving tarplant
CNPS 4.2
from 195 to 3,610 feet. Blooming period is from May to November. from areas of known
occurrence.

Fed:

None
Found in coastal dunes, coastal scrub, vernal pools, and valley and Presumed absent
Hordeum intercedens
CA:
foothill grassland habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 16 to Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
bobtail barleyNone
CNPS

3.2 3,281 feet. Blooming period is from March to June.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Fed:

Presumed absent
Juglans californica
CA: None
Occurs in alluvial soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal Project site is highly
southern California black
None
CNPS
scrub, and riparian woodlands. From 15 to 5,875 feet in elevation.

Yes
No
fragmented and isolated
walnut

4.2 Blooming period is from May to June.
from areas of known
occurrence.

Fed:

Presumed absent
Juncus acutus ssp.

None
CA.

Found in coastal dunes (mesic), meadows and seeps (alkaline seeps), leopoldii
None
and marshes and swamps (coastal salt). Found at elevations ranging No
No
No suitable habitat is
southwestern spiny rush
CNPS 4.2
from 0 to 3,115 feet. Blooming period is from May to July. present within or adjacent
to the project site.

R� E L �M T

Attachment D — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name
Covered
Observed
Status
Habitat
by
Potential to Occur
Common Name
MSHCP
On -site
Fed:

Occurs in wetland habitats within wetland and riparian communities.

Presumed absent.

Juncus luciensis
None
CA: None
Can be found in vernal pools, depressions in meadows, wet sandy No
No
No suitable habitat is
Santa Lucia dwarf rush
CNPS 1B 2
soil of seepage areas on sandstone, and stream banks at elevations present within or adjacent
ranging from 984 to 6,234 feet. Blooms from April to July. to the project site.

Lasthenia glabrata ssp.

Fed: None
Prefers playas, vernal pools, and coastal salt marshes and swamps.

Presumed absent.
coulteri
CA' None
Found at elevations ranging from 3 to 4,003 feet. Blooming period is Yes (d)
No
No suitable habitat is
Coulter's goldfields
CNPS 1B.1
from February to June.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Fed: None
Presumed absent.

Lathyrus splendens
CA:

Occurs in highly vegetated chaparral. Found at elevations to 3,444 No
No
No suitable habitat is
pride -of -California
CNPS 4.3e
feet. Blooming period is from March to June.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Le idium vir inicum var.
p $
Fed: None
Dry soils on chaparral and coastal sage scrub. Found at elevations Presumed absent
robinsonii
CA' None
ranging from 300 to 2,904 feet. Blooming period is from January to No
No
No suitable habitat is
Robinson's pepper -grass
CNPS
4 3
July.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Lilium humboldtii ssp.

Fed: None
openings p Occurs in o enin s within chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal Presumed absent
ocellatum
CA: None
scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, and riparian woodland.

No
No
No suitable habitat is
CNPS
Found at elevations ranging from 98 to 5,906 feet. Blooming period present within or adjacent
ocellated Humboldt lily
4•2
is from March to August.
to the project site.

Microseris douglasii ssp.

Fed: None
Found in claysoils within cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, Presumed absent
la car ha
P tJ' P
CA:

None
valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools. Found at elevations No
No
No suitable habitat is
small -flowered microseris
CNPS

4.2 ranging from 49 to 3,511 feet. Blooming period ranges from March present within or adjacent
to May.
to the project site.

Presumed absent
Fed:

No suitable habitat is
Mielichhoferia shevockii
CA: None
Generally found in cismontane woodland habitats in mesic, present within or adjacent
Shevock's copper
Pp moss
None
metamorphic, and rocky soils. Can also be found growing on rocks No
No
to the project site. The
CNPS 1B 2
along roadsides. Elevation ranges from 2,460 to 4,595 feet. project site lies outside the
known elevation range for
this species.

R� E L �M T

Attachment D — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name
Covered
Observed
Status
9 HabitatK:
by
Potential to Occur
Common Name
MSHCP
On -site
Myosurus minimus ssp.

CA: Fed: None
Occurs in alkaline soils in valley and foothill grassland and vernal Presumed absent
apus
None
pools. Found at elevations ranging from 66 to 2,100 feet. Blooming Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
little mousetail
CNPS

3.1 period is from March to June.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Navarretia ossalis
%
Fed: THR
CA:

Found in chenopod scrub, shallow freshwater marshes and swamps, Presumed absent
None
playas, and vernal pools. Grows in elevation from 98 to 2,149 feet in Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
spreading navarretia
CNPS 1B.1
elevation. Blooming period ranges from April to June.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Fed: END
Primarily restricted to the southern basaltic claypan vernal pools at Presumed absent
Orcuttia californica
CA: END
the Santa Rosa Plateau, and alkali vernal pools at Skunk Hollow, and Yes
No
No suitable habitat is
California Orcutt grass
CNPS 1B.1
at Salt Creek. Grows in elevations ranging from 45 to 2,165 feet present within or adjacent
above msl. Blooming period is from April to August.
to the project site.

Pol ala
yg cornuta var.

Fed: None
Occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and riparian woodland.

Presumed absent
fishiae
CA:

None
Found at elevations ranging from 328 to 3,281 feet. Blooming period No
No
No suitable habitat is
Fish's milkwort
CNPS

4.3 is from May to August.
y g
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Pseudognaphalium
Fed:

None
Grows in sand gravelly soils within chaparral, cismontane Y� � y p
Presumed absent
leucocephalum
CA: None
Woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodlands habitats. Grows in No
No
No suitable habitat is
white rabbit -tobacco
CNPS
elevation from 0 to 6,890 feet in elevation. Blooming period ranges present within or adjacent
2B•2
from (July) August to November (December).
to the project site.

Quercus engelmannii
Fed: None
CA:

Occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, and Presumed absent
None
valley and foothill grassland. Found at elevations ranging from 164 No
No
No suitable habitat is
Engelmann oak
CNPS 4.2
to 4,265 feet. Blooming period is from March to June.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Scutellaria bolanderi ssp.

Fed: None
Presumed absent
austromontana
CA:

Found mostly in wetland habitats within yellow forest foothill No suitable habitat is
None
woodland, chaparral, and wetland -riparian communities Blooms No
No
southern mountains
CNPS 1B 2
from June to August.
present within or adjacent
skullcap
to the project site.

Fed: None
Presumed absent
Sphaerocarpos drewiae
CA:

None
Endemic to San Diego and Riverside Counties. Grows in shady spots No
No
No suitable habitat is
bottle liverwort
CNPS
in coastal sage scrub communities. Prefers bare ground on hillsides. present within or adjacent
1B.1
to the project site.

R� E L �M T

Attachment D — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources Scientific Name
Covered
Observed
Status
Habitat
by
Potential to Occur
Common Name
MSHCP
On -site
Symphyotrichum
Fed. None
Grows in grassland and meadow habitats, as well as disturbed areas.

Presumed absent
defoliatum
CA: None
Prefers freshwater -marsh habitat in freshwater wetland coastal sage No
No
No suitable habitat is
CNPS
scrub, or southern oak woodland communities. Blooms from July to present within or adjacent
San Bernadino aster
113.2
November.
to the project site.

Tetracoccus dioicus
Fed: None
CA:

Grows within chaparral and coastal scrub habitats. Found at Presumed absent
None
elevations ranging from 492 to 3,281 feet. Blooming period is from No
No
No suitable habitat is
Parry's tetracoccus
CNPS 113.2
April to May.
present within or adjacent
to the project site.

Fed: None
Presumed absent
Tortula californica
CA: None
Grows in sandy soils within chenopod scrub and valley and foothill No
No
No suitable habitat is
California screw moss
CNPS
grassland habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 35 to 4,790 feet. present within or adjacent
1B.2
to the project site.

SPECIAL -STATUS HABITATS
Open to locally dense evergreen riparian woodlands dominated by Absent
Southern Coast Live Oak
CDFW
Quercus agrifolia. This type appears to be richer in herbs and poorer Habitat not observed within
Riparian Forest
Sensitive
in understory shrubs than other riparian communities. Bottomlands N/A
No
or adjacent to the
Habitat
and outer floodplains along larger streams, on fine-grained, rich project
alluvium. Canyons and valleys of coastal southern California. site.

Absent
Southern Interior Basalt
CDFW
Generally shallow depressions that hold water seasonally. This type aH
Habitat not observed within
a
Flow Vernal Pool
Sensitive
is characterized by their position on top of massive basalt flows, N/A
No
or adjacent to the project
Habitat
where soils are very thin over solid bedrock.
site.

Occurs below 2,000 meters in elevation, sycamore and alder often Absent
Southern Sycamore Alder
CDFW
Sensitive
occur along seasonally -flooded banks; cottonwoods and willows are N/A
No
Habitat not observed within
Riparian Woodland
p
Habitat
also often resent. Poison oak, mu wort, elderberry d wild p g �' an
or adjacent to the project
raspberry may be present in understory.
site.

CDFW
Characterized by continuous vegetative cover of common
Absent
Valley Needlegrass
Sensitive
needlegrass species (Nasella spp.). Occurs over a wide variety of N/A
No
Habitat not observed within
Grassland
Habitat
topographies, in dee soils with high clay content, loamy, sandy, or p g y y y
or adjacent to the project
silty derived mudstone, sandstone, or serpentine substrates. site.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife
California Department of Fish
California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
CNPS Threat Ranks
Western Riverside County MSHCP
Service (Fed) - Federal
and Wildlife (CA) - California
California Rare Plant Rank

0.1- Seriously
Yes- Fully covered
END- Federal
END- California Endangered
1 B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered
threatened in
No- Not covered
Endangered
THR- California Threatened
in California and Elsewhere
California
Yes (a)- May require surveys under
R� E L T
�M

Attachment D — Potentially Occurring Special -Status Biological Resources THR- Federal Candidate- Candidate for listing
2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered

0.2- Moderately
MSHCP Section 6.1.2
Threatened under the California
in California, But More Common
threatened in
Yes (b)- May require surveys under
Endangered Species Act
Elsewhere
California
MSHCP Section 6.1.3
FP- California Fully Protected
3 Plants About Which More Information is

0.3- Not very
Yes (c)- May require surveys under
SSC- Species of Special Concern
Needed — A Review List
threatened in
MSHCP Section 6.3.2
WL- Watch List
4 Plants of Limited Distribution — A
California
Yes (d)- May require surveys under
Watch List
MSHCP Section 6.3.2
Yes (e)- Conditionally covered
pending the achievement of species -
specific conservation measures
R� E L �M T

Attachment E
Regulations

Attachment E — Regulations
Special status species are native species that have been afforded special legal or management protection because of concern for their continued existence. There are several categories ofprotection at both federal and state levels, depending on the magnitude of threat to continued existence and existing knowledge of population levels.

Federal Regulations
Endangered Species Act of 1973
Federally listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats are protected under provisions of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 9 of the ESA prohibits "take" of threatened or endangered species. "Take" under the ESA is defined as to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any of the specifically enumerated conduct." The presence of any federally threatened or endangered species that are in a project area generally imposes severe constraints on development, particularly if development would result in "take" of the species or its habitat. Under the regulations of the ESA, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) may authorize "take" when it is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful act.

Critical Habitat is designated for the survival and recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Critical Habitat includes those areas occupied by the species, in which are found physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of an ESA listed species and which may require special management considerations or protection. Critical Habitat may also include unoccupied habitat if it is determined that the unoccupied habitat is essential for the conservation of the species.

Whenever federal agencies authorize, fund, or carry out actions that may adversely modify or destroy Critical Habitat, they must consult with USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA. The designation of Critical Habitat does not affect private landowners, unless a project they are proposing uses federal funds, or requires federal authorization or permits (e.g., funding from the Federal Highway Administration or a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)).

If USFWS determines that Critical Habitat will be adversely modified or destroyed from a proposed action, the USFWS will develop reasonable and prudent alternatives in cooperation with the federal institution to ensure the purpose of the proposed action can be achieved without loss of Critical Habitat. If the action is not likely to adversely modify or destroy Critical Habitat, USFWS will include a statement in its biological opinion concerning any incidental take that may be authorized and specify terms and conditions to ensure the agency is in compliance with the opinion.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S. Government Code [USC] 703) makes it unlawful to pursue, capture, kill, possess, or attempt to do the same to any migratory bird or part, nest, or egg of any such bird listed in wildlife protection treaties between the United States, Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the countries of the former Soviet Union, and authorizes the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to protect and regulate the taking of migratory birds. It establishes seasons and bag limits for hunted species and protects migratory birds, their occupied nests, and their eggs (16 USC 703; 50 CFR 10, 21). 41 EL�MT

Attachment E — Regulations
The MBTA covers the taking of any nests or eggs of migratory birds, except as allowed by permit pursuant to 50 CFR, Part 21. Disturbances causing nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (i.e., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may also be considered "take." This regulation seeks to protect migratory birds and active nests.

In 1972, the MBTA was amended to include protection for migratory birds of prey (e.g., raptors). Six families of raptors occurring in North America were included in the amendment: Accipitridae (kites, hawks, and eagles); Cathartidae (New World vultures); Falconidae (falcons and caracaras); Pandionidae (ospreys); Strigidae (typical owls); and Tytonidae (barn owls). The provisions of the 1972 amendment to the MBTA protects all species and subspecies of the families listed above. The MBTA protects over 800 species including geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds and many relatively common species.

State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides for the protection of the environment within the State of California by establishing State policy to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures for projects. It applies to actions directly undertaken, financed, or permitted by State lead agencies. If a project is determined to be subject to CEQA, the lead agency will be required to conduct an Initial Study (IS); if the IS determines that the project may have significant impacts on the environment, the lead agency will subsequently be required to write an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A finding of non -significant effects will require either a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration instead of an EIR. Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines independently defines "endangered" and "rare" species separately from the definitions of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Under CEQA, "endangered" species of plants or animals are defined as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy, while "rare" species are defined as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens.

California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
In addition to federal laws, the state of California implements the CESA which is enforced by CDFW. The CESA program maintains a separate listing of species beyond the FESA, although the provisions of each act are similar.

State -listed threatened and endangered species are protected under provisions of the CESA. Activities that may result in "take" of individuals (defined in CESA as; "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill") are regulated by CDFW. Habitat degradation or modification is not included in the definition of "take" under CESA. Nonetheless, CDFW has interpreted "take" to include the destruction of nesting, denning, or foraging habitat necessary to maintain a viable breeding population of protected species.

The State of California considers an endangered species as one whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy. A threatened species is considered as one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future in the 0- ELUMT

Attachment E — Regulations
absence of special protection or management. A rare species is one that is considered present in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens. State threatened and endangered species are fully protected against take, as defined above.

The CDFW has also produced a species of special concern list to serve as a species watch list. Species on this list are either of limited distribution or their habitats have been reduced substantially, such that a threat to their populations may be imminent. Species of special concern may receive special attention during environmental review, but they do not have formal statutory protection. At the federal level, USFWS also uses the label species of concern, as an informal term that refers to species which might be in need of concentrated conservation actions. As the Species of Concern designated by USFWS do not receive formal legal protection, the use of the term does not necessarily ensure that the species will be proposed for listing as a threatened or endangered species.

Fish and Game Code
Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 are applicable to natural resource management.

For example, Section 3503 of the Code makes it unlawful to destroy any birds' nest or any birds' eggs that are protected under the MBTA. Further, any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (Birds of Prey, such as hawks, eagles, and owls) are protected under Section 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code which makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy their nest or eggs. A consultation with CDFW may be required prior to the removal of any bird of prey nest that may occur on a project site. Section 3511 of the Fish and Game Code lists fully protected bird species, where the CDFW is unable to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take these species. Pertinent species that are State fully protected by the State include golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Section 3513 of the Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the MBTA.

Native Plant Protection Act
Sections 1900-1913 of the Fish and Game Code were developed to preserve, protect, and enhance Rare and Endangered plants in the state of California. The act requires all state agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve Endangered and Rare native plants. Provisions of the Native Plant Protection Act prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require notification of the CDFW at least ten days in advance of any change in land use which would adversely impact listed plants. This allows the CDFW to salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be destroyed.

California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Species Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the CNPS, but which have no designated status under FESA or CESA are defined as follows:

California Rare Plant Rank
1A- Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere 1B- Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere 0- EL�MT

Attachment E — Regulations
2A- Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, But More Common Elsewhere 213- Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere 3- Plants about Which More Information is Needed - A Review List 4- Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List
Threat Ranks
1- Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2- Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
3- Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known).

Local Policies
Western Riverside County MSHCP
The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi jurisdictional HCP focusing on conservation of species and their associated habitats in western Riverside County. The goal of the MSHCP is to maintain biological and ecological diversity within a rapidly urbanizing region.

The approval of the MSHCP and execution of the Implementing Agreement (IA) by the wildlife agencies allows signatories of the IA to issue "take" authorizations for all species covered by the MSHCP, including state- and federal -listed species as well as other identified sensitive species and/or their habitats. Each city or local jurisdiction will impose a Development Mitigation Fee for projects within their jurisdiction. With payment of the mitigation fee to the County and compliance with the survey requirements of the MSHCP where required, full mitigation in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), CESA, and FESA will be granted. The Development Mitigation Fee varies according to project size and project description. The fee for industrial development is $7,382 per acre (County Ordinance 810.2). Payment of the mitigation fee and compliance with the requirements of Section 6.0 of the MSHCP are intended to provide full mitigation under CEQA, NEPA, CESA, and FESA for impacts to the species and habitats covered by the MSHCP pursuant to agreements with the USFWS, the CDFW, and/or any other appropriate participating regulatory agencies and as set forth in the IA for the MSHCP.
41 EL�MT

Attachment E — Regulations
There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The Corps Regulatory Branch regulates activities pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the CDFG regulates activities under the Fish and Game Code Section 1600-1616, and the Regional Board regulates activities pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Federal Regulations
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
In accordance with the Revised Definition of "Waters of the United States"; Conforming (September 8, 2023), "waters of the United Sates" are defined as follows:
(a) Waters of the United States means:
(1) Waters which are:
(i) Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (ii) The territorial seas; or
(iii) Interstate waters;
(2) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section; (3) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; (4) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters:
(i) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or (ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters; (5) Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section (b) The following are not "waters of the United States" even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of this section:
(1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act;
(2) Prior converted cropland designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The exclusion would cease upon a change of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted 41 EL�MT

Attachment E — Regulations
cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA; (3) Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water;
(4) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased; (5) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing;
(6) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons; (7) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States; and
(8) Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow.
(c) In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) Wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
(2) Adjacent means having a continuous surface connection (3) High tide line means the line of intersection of the land with the water's surface at the maximum height reached by a rising tide. The high tide line may be determined, in the absence of actual data, by a line of oil or scum along shore objects, a more or less continuous deposit of fine shell or debris on the foreshore or berm, other physical markings or characteristics, vegetation lines, tidal gages, or other suitable means that delineate the general height reached by a rising tide. The line encompasses spring high tides and other high tides that occur with periodic frequency but does not include storm surges in which there is a departure from the normal or predicted reach of the tide due to the piling up of water against a coast by strong winds such as those accompanying a hurricane or other intense storm.
(4) Ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. 41 EL�MT

Attachment E — Regulations
(5) Tidal waters means those waters that rise and fall in a predictable and measurable rhythm or cycle due to the gravitational pulls of the moon and sun. Tidal waters end where the rise and fall of the water surface can no longer be practically measured in a predictable rhythm due to masking by hydrologic, wind, or other effects.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity which may result in any discharge to waters of the United States must provide certification from the State or Indian tribe in which the discharge originates. This certification provides for the protection of the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of waters, addresses impacts to water quality that may result from issuance of federal permits, and helps insure that federal actions will not violate water quality standards of the State or Indian tribe. In California, there are nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Board) that issue or deny certification for discharges to waters of the United States and waters of the State, including wetlands, within their geographical jurisdiction. The State Water Resources Control Board assumed this responsibility when a project has the potential to result in the discharge to waters within multiple Regional Boards.

State Regulations
Fish and Game Code
Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 et. seq. establishes a fee -based process to ensure that projects conducted in and around lakes, rivers, or streams do not adversely impact fish and wildlife resources, or, when adverse impacts cannot be avoided, ensures that adequate mitigation and/or compensation is provided.

Fish and Game Code Section 1602 requires any person, state, or local governmental agency or public utility to notify the CDFW before beginning any activity that will do one or more of the following:
(1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or
(3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake.

Fish and Game Code Section 1602 applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the State. CDFW's regulatory authority extends to include riparian habitat (including wetlands) supported by a river, stream, or lake regardless of the presence or absence of hydric soils and saturated soil conditions. Generally, the CDFW takes jurisdiction to the top of bank of the stream or to the outer limit of the adjacent riparian vegetation (outer drip line), whichever is greater. Notification is generally required for any project that will take place in or in the vicinity of a river, stream, lake, or their tributaries. This includes rivers or streams that flow at least periodically or permanently through a bed or channel with banks that support fish or other aquatic life and watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that support or have supported riparian vegetation. A Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required if impacts to identified CDFW jurisdictional areas occur.
41 EL�MT

Attachment E — Regulations
Porter Cologne Act
The California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act gives the State very broad authority to regulate waters of the State, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters. The Porter -Cologne Act has become an important tool in the post SWANCC and Rapanos regulatory environment, with respect to the state's authority over isolated and insignificant waters. Generally, any person proposing to discharge waste into a water body that could affect its water quality must file a Report of Waste Discharge in the event that there is no Section 404/401 nexus. Although "waste" is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, the Regional Board also interprets this to include fill discharged into water bodies.
41 EL�MT

EE M T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
❑� CONSULTING Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
Appendix B-2
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or
Superior Preservation Report
ELMT Consulting
November 2025

Determination of
Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation
Report
Ynez Road Improvements — Phase 1
Permittee Name
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Consultant Name
ELMT Consulting, Inc.
2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098
Santa Ana, California 92711
November 2025

DBESP Report
Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. 1 2 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Project Area................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Project Description..................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Existing Conditions..................................................................................................................... 4 3 RIPARIAN/RIVERINE MITIGATION (SECTION 6.1.2)................................................................. 6 3.1 Methods........................................................................................................................................6

3.2 Results/Impacts........................................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Mitigation and Equivalency....................................................................................................... 9 3.3.1 Direct Effects........................................................................................................................ 9 3.3.2 Indirect Effects...................................................................................................................... 9 4 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS (SECTION 6.3.2)....................................................................... 14 4.1 Burrowing Owl.......................................................................................................................... 14 4.1.1 Methods...............................................................................................................................14

4.1.2 Results/Impacts................................................................................................................... 15 4.1.3 Mitigation and Equivalency................................................................................................ 16 5 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................17

APPENDIX
Appendix A Project Exhibits
Appendix B Site Plan

DBESP Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report contains the results of the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) analysis to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for impacts to riparian/riverine resources. The proposed project would expand Ynez Road, extending from the existing northeastern shoulder of the road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California.

It should be noted that an approved DBESP was originally prepared in October of 2023 for the proposed project and a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Section 1602 Permit was prepared and processed. However, design changes to the project resulted in an access road being installed near the intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road, which resulted in an increase in impacts to riparian/riverine habitat. This DBESP covers the updates to the project design and increased impacts to riparian/riverine habitat, and new mitigation approach to compensate for the impacts.

One (1) unnamed drainage occurs within the boundaries of the proposed project site. This drainage is fed by a culvert leading from under Rancho Vista Road to a storm drain within a residential community to the southeast of the project site. The stormwaters conveyed by this drainage flow northwest through the project site and are directed to a box culvert in the northwest portion of the site leading under Tierra Vista Road.

In general, this drainage only conveys surface flow in direct response to precipitation or urban runoff.

Approximately 1.62 acres (1,970 linear feet) of riparian/riverine habitat was mapped within Drainage 1 in proximity to the project site. The riparian/riverine habitat is synonymous with the jurisdiction of CDFW.

Based on the proposed site plan approximately 0.22 acre of permanent impacts to riparian/riverine habitat will occur from project implementation. Since the side slopes will be graded rather than restored to existing site conditions (manufactured slope), all project -related impacts are considered permanent. No temporary or offsite impacts are proposed. No impacts to riparian/riverine habitat will occur within the Criteria Cell on the northern portion of the site.

The project was designed to avoid impacts to Drainage 1 to the greatest extent possible, with impacts only occurring to vegetation on the periphery of the drainage feature outside the bottom or low flow channel of Drainage 1. The table below provides a summary of the mapped riparian/riverine resources onsite and impacts.

Table 1: Summary of Riparian/Riverine Areas and Impacts Jurisdictional
Feature
Ri arian Riverine Habitat
Riparian/Riverine
Area
(Acreage)
Riparian/Riverine
Impacts
Permanent
Drainage 1

1.62 0.22
TOTAL

1.62 0.22

DBESP Report
The applicant will mitigate impacts to 0.22 acre of riverine habitat through the management (removal of non-native plant species) of 0.66 acre of habitat within a City owned parcel along Temecula Creek. The

0.66 acre of offsite mitigation area was established using a 3:1 mitigation ratio for permanent impacts to riparian/riverine habitat along the bank of Drainage 1. The City of Temecula will be responsible for implementing the proposed mitigation program at the 0.66 acre offsite mitigation area. The offsite mitigation site is located immediately adjacent to Temecula Creek in the City of Temecula to the southeast of the project site within Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 961-440-012.

A conservation easement will be placed over the 0.66 acre of offsite riparian/riverine habitat in favor of a qualified habitat maintenance organization (an approved third party that both CDFW and the USFWS will get to review and approve), and the City will condition the project to submit a Habitat Mitigation Monitoring Plan for review by the Wildlife agencies at least 60 days before construction begins and will provide long- term funding (an endowment) for the maintenance for the selected organization to conduct ongoing maintenance in the conservation area. Additionally, a Long-term Management Plan will be prepared and approved by the aforementioned agencies.

The 0.66 acre of riverine/riparian habitat offsite currently supports invasive plant species (i.e., tacolote mustard, prickly lettuce, etc.) that will be removed to enhance the riparian/riverine habitat. The overall habitat functions and values provided by existing habitat areas within the offsite conservation area would be enhanced by removing invasive, non-native plant species (Temecula Creek). Additionally, the manufacture slopes will either be hydroseeded or seeded by hand broadcasting of native seeds to stabilize the slopes above Drainage 1.

The above actions would result in a net increase in the function and ecological value of riparian/riverine habitat within the region by the preservation and enhancement of higher quality habitat within the same watershed through the uplift and establishment of a conservation easement by preserving/enhancing high quality habitat offsite within Temecula Creek on a parcel owned by the City. 2 DBESP Report
2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Project Area
The project site is generally located east of Interstate 15, south and north of State Route 79, and west of Margarita Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The site is depicted on both the Murrieta and Temecula quadrangles of the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map series in Section 12 of Township 8 South, Range 3 West. Specifically, the project site is located adjacent to, and encompassing a portion of Ynez Road between Rancho Vista Road and Tierra Vista Road. Refer to Exhibits 1-3 in Appendix A.

2.2 Project Description
The City is proposing to improve 1,763 linear feet of the eastern half of Ynez Road between Tierra Vista Road to Rancho Vista Road in order to match the four -lane configuration and infrastructure that exists along Ynez Road north and south of this segment. Improvements will include the following and are depicted in Appendix B, Site Plans.
• Remove the existing asphalt curb and earthen shoulder, approximately 28 feet. • Remove existing road striping in all lanes
• Sawcut and grind existing pavement on the north bound direction of the Ynez Road • Grading the slope and installation of a retaining wall along the road slope (within APNs 944-290- 017 and 944-290-016). The slope grading would occur along 927 linear feet, varying from 0 feet wide by 68 feet wide, and involve approximately 6,020 cubic yards. • Removal of 10 trees and pruning of one tree. The trees to be removed and pruned are located along Ynez Road at the location of the proposed slope and retaining wall. • Install the slope grading, retaining wall, and a maintenance access road at Rancho Vista Road/Ynez Road intersection, which would remove approximately 0.22 acre of riparian/riverine resources • Install a guardrail and tubular steel fence along the north side of Ynez Road • Add pavement section that would vary between 28 feet and 46 feet wide • Construct a concrete raised median to delineate the turn pocket for Tierra Vista Road, and striped median for the turn pocket at Rancho Vista
• Stripe the new roadway for four lanes with turn pockets and Class II Bike Lanes on both the east and west sides of the road
• Installing new curbs and gutters and sidewalk along the east side of the road • Install new streetlights on east side of the roadway
• Relocating utilities that conflict with the planned improvements • Provide ADA compliant access ramp at the northeast corner of the Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road Intersection.
0 Slurry sealing the south bound direction.

DBESP Report
The project will result in approximately 2.50 acres of permanent impacts. Since the side slopes will be graded rather than restored to existing site conditions (manufactured slope), all project -related impacts are considered permanent. No temporary or offsite impacts are proposed. Please refer to the table below for a breakdown of the permanent and temporary impacts within the Criteria Cell and outside of the Criteria Cell.

Table 2: Project Impacts
Area
Inside
Outside
Project Impacts
Acres
Criteria Cell
Criteria Cell
Permanent Impacts

2.50 0.63

1.87 Total

2.50 0.63

1.87 2.3 Existing Conditions
At present, the site is located within Ynez Road and along and adjacent to the northeastern shoulder, with vacant land beyond to the northeast, residential development to the southeast and southwest, and commercial development to the northwest. The site terrain is composed of paved asphalt, and compacted and graded soil which gives way to grassland and buckwheat scrub plant communities and a large unnamed drainage.

The project site, outside of the road right-of-way supports buckwheat scrub, non-native grassland, and riparian plant communities.

Table 3: Vegetation/Land Use Types
Vegetation/Land Used Type
Inside Criteria Cells
(Acres)
Outside Criteria Cells
(Acres)
Total
Area
(Acres)
Area
Impacts
Area
Impacts
Riparian Scrub

0.00 0.00

0.21 0.21

0.21 Buckwheat Scrub

0.00 0.00

0.13 0.13

0.13 Non -Native Grassland

0.32 0.32

0.72 0.72

1.04 Disturbed

0.1 0.1

0.26 0.26

0.36 Developed

0.21 0.21

0.55 0.55

0.76 Total

0.63 0.63

1.87 1.87

2.50 The project site, outside of the existing paved road right-of-way supports one (3) plant communities: non- native grassland, buckwheat scrub, and riparian. In addition, the site supports two (2) land cover types that would be classified as developed and disturbed (refer to Exhibit 5, Vegetation). The majority of the project site, outside of the existing paved road right-of-way, supports a non-native grassland community. Species present within this community consist of non-native grasses and invasive and/or early successional weedy species such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), fescue (Festuca sp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), black mustard (Brassica nigra), and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis).

DBESP Report
The non-native grassland community transitions into a buckwheat scrub community moving east from Ynez Road. This area of the project site is composed almost entirely of a monoculture of California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Additionally, the project site supports a riparian plant community associated with the unnamed drainage which transverses the eastern boundary of the site. Species present within the riparian plant community include canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black willow (Salix nigra), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), and coyotebrush (Baccharis pilularis).

Developed areas primarily include the existing paved road right-of-way, and disturbed areas are areas along the road shoulder that are primarily composed of compacted soil.

Jurisdictional Resources
Drainage 1
An unnamed ephemeral drainage occurs within the proposed limits of disturbance. This drainage runs from southeast to northwest along the northeastern side of Ynez Road and is fed largely by a culvert which runs beneath Rancho Vista Road to the southeast and serves to divert storm water away from the surrounding residential communities. This drainage features will eventually flow into Murrieta Creek west of the project site after flowing through several culverts and flood control channels.

Although the feature has been modified by historic grading and adjacent development, it retains the hydrologic and geomorphic characteristics that meet the definition of an MSHCP riparian/riverine resource.

This feature exhibits evidence of ephemeral flows following precipitation events, defined bed and bank characteristics, and a discernible flow path supporting limited riparian vegetation, including mulefat.

Adjacent areas consist primarily of unvegetated sandy substrate and disturbed upland vegetation.

The on -site portion of the drainage encompasses approximately 1.62 acre (1,970 linear feet) of earthen channel within the survey area. Based on the proposed site plan approximately 0.22 acre of permanent impacts to riparian/riverine habitat will occur from project implementation (refer to Table 1).

The drainage provides limited hydrologic connectivity and marginal habitat value for common wildlife species, though it does not support listed or sensitive riparian obligate species. The function of this resource is primarily ephemeral flow conveyance and limited sediment transport. The drainage feature enters the southeastern portion of the site via a culvert and conveys storm flows and urban runoff from the surrounding developed area in a northwest direction where the feature eventually connects into an underground storm drain system on the northwestern portion of the site.

2.4 Existing Conditions within the Offsite Conservation Area The off -site mitigation site is located in a City -owned parcel in Temecula Creek approximately one mile east of its confluence with Murrieta Creek/Santa Margarita River. The off -site mitigation site is currently undeveloped open space and is within the floodplain of Temecula Creek (refer to Exhibit 5 in Appendix A). The offsite conservation area supports a mix of willow riparian scrub habitats with an understory of ruderal herbaceous and non-native species.

DBESP Report
3 RIPARIAN/RIVERINE MITIGATION (SECTION 6.1.2)

3.1 Methods
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, identifies Riparian/Riverine resources as lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent vegetation, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from nearby fresh water sources, or areas with freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year. Riverine habitat includes all wetlands and deep -water habitats contained in natural or artificial channels periodically or continuously containing flowing water or which forms a connecting link between the two bodies of standing water. Riverine habitat is bounded on the landward side by upland, by the channel bank (including natural and man-made levees), or by wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, mosses, or lichens. In braided streams, the system is bounded by the banks forming the outer limits of the depression within which the braiding occurs. Springs discharging into a channel are considered part of the riverine habitat. The term riparian is used to define the type of wildlife habitat found along the banks of a river, stream, lake or other body of water. Riparian habitats are ecologically diverse and can be found in many types of environments including grasslands, wetlands and forests.

Based on the results of a Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters Report (ELMT, 2023) prepared under a separate cover, one (1) drainage feature, Drainage 1, was observed on the project site.

This feature will be considered riparian/riverine habitat under Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. The extent of the riparian/riverine habitat on the project site is synonymous with the jurisdiction of CDFW.

Riparian Obligate Species
The composition of the riparian scrub supported on -site has been degraded and does not have a contiguous willow canopy, and primarily supports non-native grasses. Due to incomplete canopy, limited acreage, and lack of riparian plant species diversity of the riparian scrub supported on -site, the habitat associated with the on -site drainages features does not provide suitable habitat for any of the riparian obligate species listed under the MSHCP that may occur within the regional vicinity, including the State- and federally -listed as endangered least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus [LBVI]), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), or yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus).

The highly degraded and inconsistent canopy of the disturbed southern willow scrub precludes nesting by LBVI, southwestern willow flycatcher, and yellow -billed cuckoo, as these species require dense, sprawling canopies to obscure nests from predators. Further, LBVI and southwestern willow flycatcher each require minimum nesting territories of 0.5 acres, which exceeds the available riparian habitats supported on -site.

In addition, the lack of native plant diversity reduces the availability of insect prey for these species. As a result, no focused surveys were conducted or are recommended, and no impacts to this species will occur from project implementation.

DBESP Report
As a result, no focused surveys were conducted or recommended, and no impacts to this species will occur from project implementation. The riparian scrub habitat onsite primarily supports oaks, and sycamores that do not provide suitable habitat for any of the aforementioned species.

Vernal Pools
One of the factors for determining the suitability of the habitat for fairy shrimp would be demonstrable evidence of seasonal ponding in an area of topographic depression that is not subject to flowing waters.

These astatic pools are typically characterized as vernal pools. More specifically, vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas without a continual source of water. They have wetland indicators of all 3 parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetland indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. Obligate hydrophytes and facultative wetlands plant species are normally dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season. The determination that an area exhibits vernal pool characteristics and the definition of the watershed supporting vernal pool hydrology is made on a case -by -case basis. Such determinations should be considered the length of time the areas exhibit upland and wetland characteristics and the manner in which the area fits into the overall ecological system as a wetland. The seasonal hydrology of vernal pools provides for a unique environment, which supports plants and invertebrates specifically adapted to a regime of winter inundation, followed by an extended period when the pool soils are dry.

Vernal pools are seasonally inundated, ponded areas that only form in regions where specialized soil and climatic conditions exist. During fall and winter rains typical of Mediterranean climates, water collects in shallow depressions where downward percolation of water is prevented by the presence of a hard pan or clay pan layer (duripan) below the soil surface. Later in the spring when rains decrease and the weather warms, the water evaporates and the pools generally disappear by May. The shallow depressions remain relatively dry until late fall and early winter with the advent of greater precipitation and cooler temperatures.

Vernal pools provide unusual "flood and drought" habitat conditions to which certain plant and wildlife species have specifically adapted as well as invertebrate species such as fairy shrimp.

The MSHCP lists two general classes of soils known to be associated with listed and special -status plant species: clay soils and Traver -Domino Willow association soils. The specific clay soils known to be associated with listed and special -status species within the MSHCP plan area include Bosanko, Auld, Altamont, and Porterville series soils, whereas Traver -Domino Willows association includes saline -alkali soils largely located along floodplain areas of the San Jacinto River and Salt Creek. Without the appropriate soils to create the impermeable restrictive layer, none of the special -status plant or wildlife species associated with vernal pools can occur on the project site. None of these soils have been documented within the project site.

A review of recent and historic aerial photographs (1985-2023) of the project site did not provide visual evidence of an astatic or vernal pool conditions within the project site. No ponding was observed, further supporting the fact that the drainage patterns currently occurring on the project site do not follow hydrologic regimes needed for vernal pools.

DBESP Report
Based on the historical aerial review, existing human disturbances, and current hydrologic regimes of the project site, it can be concluded that the project site lacks astatic conditions, and, therefore, would not provide suitable fairy shrimp habitat. Fairy shrimp require astatic conditions and a complete drying of occupied ponds so that the fairy shrimp cysts will not rot. As a result, none of the sensitive plant or wildlife species associated with vernal pools are expected to occur on the project site. Sensitive plant and wildlife species associated with vernal pools and clay soils, including fairy shrimp, are presumed absent from the project site.

3.2 Results/Impacts
The on -site drainage collectively perform the following functions within the local area of the watershed:
regulation of nuisance flows, energy dissipation, nutrient cycling, retention of particulates, nutrient/particulate uptake from off -site, upstream development, and connectivity with similar habitat upstream. In its current state, Drainage 1 can be considered to have limited resource value to local and migratory wildlife since is generally disturbed on the project site, and only receives flows from and conveys immediate flows from developed areas. Drainage 1, within the project footprint, will be considered riparian/riverine habitat under the MSHCP.

The widening of Ynez road is not expected to have any impacts to the function or values of the drainage feature. The drainage feature will continue to function the same way it has been functioning, and no impacts to downstream riparian/riverine resources are expected to occur since the drainage flows into an underground storm drain system.

Based on the proposed site plan approximately 0.22 acre of permanent impacts to riparian/riverine habitat will occur from project implementation outside of the Criteria Cell on the northern portion of the site.

Permanent impacts from the proposed project will primarily be to riparian vegetation, coast live oak trees, on the periphery of Drainage 1, outside the "active" channel. Since project activities will not impact the "active" channel of Drainage 1, and will only impact vegetation on the bank, no impacts to the water quality will occur.

Table 2: Impacts to Riparian/Riverine Habitat
Riparian/Riverine Habitat
Jurisdictional Feature On -Site Jurisdiction Jurisdictional Impacts Acreage (Linear Feet) Acreage (Linear Feet)
Drainage 1 1.62 (1,970) 0.22
TOTAL 1.62 (1,970) 0.22
8 DBESP Report

3.3 Mitigation and Equivalency

3.3.1 Direct Effects
Complete avoidance of riparian/riverine habitat within Drainage 1 is not possible due to the located of the oak trees on the side of the drainage between the existing road and edge of the drainage. The applicant will mitigate impacts to 0.22 acre of riverine habitat as follows:

The applicant will mitigate impacts to 0.22 acre of riverine habitat through the management (removal of non-native plant species) of 0.66 acre of habitat within a City owned parcel along Temecula Creek. The 0.66 acre of offsite mitigation area was established using a 3:1 mitigation ratio for permanent impacts to riparian/riverine habitat along the bank of Drainage 1. The City of Temecula will be responsible for implementing the proposed mitigation program at the 0.66-acre offsite mitigation area. The offsite mitigation site is located immediately adjacent to Temecula Creek in the City of Temecula to the southeast of the project site within Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 961-440-012.

The 0.66 acre of riverine/riparian habitat offsite currently supports invasive plant species (i.e., tacolote mustard, prickly lettuce, etc.) that will be removed to enhance the riparian/riverine habitat.

The overall habitat functions and values provided by existing habitat areas within the offsite conservation area would be enhanced by removing invasive, non-native plant species (Temecula Creek).

A conservation easement will be placed over the 0.66 acre of offsite riparian/riverine habitat in favor of a qualified habitat maintenance organization (an approved third party that both CDFW and the USFWS will get to review and approve), and the City will condition the project to submit a HMMP for review by the Wildlife agencies at least 60 days before construction begins and will provide long-term funding (an endowment) for the maintenance for the selected organization to conduct ongoing maintenance in the conservation area. Additionally, a Long-term Management Plan will be prepared and approved by the aforementioned agencies.

The above actions would result in a net increase in the function and ecological value of riparian/riverine habitat within the region by the preservation and enhancement of higher quality habitat within the same watershed through the uplift and establishment of a conservation easement by preserving/enhancing high quality habitat offsite within Temecula Creek on a parcel owned by the City.

3.3.2 Indirect Effects
The following minimization measures have been incorporated into the project design to ensure that all indirect project -related impacts to riparian/riverine habitat, including impacts from fugitive dust, toxics, invasive plant species, and grading/land development, are avoided or minimized to the greatest extent feasible.

DBESP Report
Fugitive Dust
During soil excavation, grading, or other subsurface disturbance within 100 feet of adjacent riparian/riverine habitat onsite, the construction superintendent shall supervise provision and maintenance of all standard dust control best management practices (BMPs) to reduce fugitive dust emissions, including but not limited to the following actions:
• Water any exposed soil areas a minimum of twice per day, or as allowed under any imposed drought restrictions. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the construction site, additional water shall be applied at a frequency to be determined by the on -site construction superintendent.
• Pave, periodically water, or apply chemical stabilizer to construction access/egress points. • Minimize the amount of area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations at all times.
• Operate all vehicles on graded areas at speeds less than 15 miles per hour. • Cover all stockpiles that will not be utilized within three days with plastic or equivalent material, to be determined by the on -site construction superintendent, or spray them with a non -toxic chemical stabilizer.

Runoff - Toxics
To address potential short-term impacts to water quality from construction runoff that may carry storm water pollutants downstream, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) shall be implemented by the construction contractor as required by the California General Construction Storm Water Permit pursuant to State Water Quality Control Board and Regional Board regulations. The SWPPP shall identify BMPs related to the control of toxic substances, including construction fuels, oils, and other liquids. These BMPs will be implemented by the Applicant's contractor prior to the start of any ground clearing activity, shall be subject to periodic inspections by the City and the project's hydrological consultant, and shall be maintained throughout the construction period and remain in place until all landscape and permanent BMPs are in place. BMPs shall be monitored and repaired if necessary to ensure maximum erosion, sediment, and pollution control.

Permittee shall prohibit the use of erosion control materials potentially harmful to fish and wildlife species, such as mono -filament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material, within and adjacent to CDFW jurisdictional areas.

All fiber roles 1, straw waddles, and/or hay bales utilized within and adjacent to the project site shall be free of non-native plant materials.
1 Fiber rolls or erosion control mesh shall be made of loose -weave mesh that is not fused at the intersections of the weave, such as jute, or coconut (coir) fiber, or other products without welded weaves. Non -welded weaves reduce entanglement risks to wildlife by allowing animals to push through the weave, which expands when spread. 10 DBESP Report
• Permittee shall comply with all litter and pollution laws. All contractors, subcontractors, and employees shall also obey these laws and it shall be the responsibility of Permittee to ensure compliance.
• Permittee shall not allow water containing mud, silt, or other pollutants from grading, aggregate washing, or other activities to enter a lake, streambed, or flowing stream or be placed in locations that may be subjected to high storm flows.
• Spoil sites shall not be located within a lake, streambed, or flowing stream or locations that may be subjected to high storm flows, where spoil shall be washed back into a lake, streambed, or flowing stream where it will impact streambed habitat and aquatic or riparian vegetation. • Raw cement/concrete or washings thereof, asphalt, paint, or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances which could be hazardous to fish and wildlife resources resulting from project related activities shall be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering the waters of the State. These materials, placed within or where they may enter a lake, streambed, or flowing stream by Permittee or any party working under contract or with the permission of Pennittee, shall be removed immediately.
• No equipment maintenance shall be done within or near any lake, streambed, or flowing stream where petroleum products or other pollutants from the equipment may enter these areas under any flow.

No broken concrete, cement, debris, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, rubbish, or washings thereof, oil or petroleum products, or other organic or earthen material from any construction or associated activity of whatever nature shall be allowed to enter into or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into waters of the State. When operations are completed, any excess materials or debris shall be removed from the work area. No rubbish shall be deposited within 150 feet of the edge of any lake, streambed, or flowing stream.

Accidental Encroachments During Construction
The following measures shall also be incorporated into the construction documents and specifications, and implemented by the contractor, to avoid potential construction -related impacts to adjacent riparian/riverine habitat outside of the approved disturbance limits:
• Construction worker training shall be provided by a qualified biologist at the first pre -construction meeting;
• Exclusionary fencing and signs shall be erected at the bottom of the manufactured slope adjacent to the riparian/riverine habitat to prevent accidental/unauthorized intrusions during construction; • No equipment shall be operated in areas of flowing water; • Construction access and staging areas for storage of materials and heavy equipment, and for fueling, cleaning, or maintenance of construction vehicles or equipment, shall be prohibited within 20 feet from the top of slope adjacent to riparian/riverine habitat; and • A qualified biologist shall be onsite during initial clearing/grubbing, grading, and/or construction activities within the riparian/riverine habitat that will be impacted within the onsite drainage features, or within 100 feet of the habitat to be avoided, and shall periodically monitor these activities to ensure they do not exceed the fenced construction limits. 11 DBESP Report
Post -Construction Human Disturbances
The project shall incorporate special edge treatments designed to minimize edge effects by providing a safe transition between developed areas the adjacent riparian/riverine habitat, and which would be compatible with project operation and the protection of the adjacent riparian/riverine habitat. Special edge treatments shall include native landscaping on manufactured slopes and fencing/signage near the top of slope adjacent to the riparian/riverine habitat to prevent unauthorized public access, vandalism, illegal dumping, and other adverse human disturbances. The manufacture slopes will either be hydroseeded or seeded by hand broadcasting of native seeds to stabilize the slopes above Drainage 1 on the manufactured slope.

Best Management Practices
The applicable best management practices specified in Appendix C of the MSHCP will be followed. These measures are as follows:
a. A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. b. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements.
c. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. d. The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work.
e. Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern.
f. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian species identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7.
g. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments offsite. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents 12 DBESP Report
the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream. h. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project -related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional City, CDFW, and RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas. i. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into watercourses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. j. The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint.
k. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The manufacture slopes will either be hydroseeded or seeded by hand broadcasting of native seeds to stabilize the slopes above Drainage 1.

1. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible.
m. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s).
n. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen.

Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities.

Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas. o. The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions including these BMPs
13 DBESP Report
4 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS (SECTION 6.3.2)

4.1 Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl is currently designated as a California Species of Special Concern. The burrowing owl is a grassland specialist distributed throughout western North America where it occupies open areas with short vegetation and bare ground within shrub, desert, and grassland environments. Burrowing owls use a wide variety of and and semi -arid environments with level to gently -sloping areas characterized by open vegetation and bare ground. The western burrowing owl (A.c. hypugaea), which occurs throughout the western United States including California, rarely digs its own burrows and is instead dependent upon the presence of burrowing mammals (i.e., California ground squirrels, coyotes, and badgers) whose burrows are often used for roosting and nesting. The presence or absence of colonial mammal burrows is often a major factor that limits the presence or absence of burrowing owls. Where mammal burrows are scarce, burrowing owls have been found occupying man-made cavities, such as buried and non-functioning drain pipes, stand -pipes, and dry culverts. They also require low growth or open vegetation allowing line -of -sight observation of the surrounding habitat to forage and watch for predators. In California, the burrowing owl breeding season extends from the beginning of February through the end of August.

4.1.1 Methods
Under the MSHCP burrowing owl is considered an adequately conserved covered species that may still require focused surveys in certain areas as designated in Figure 6-4 of the MSHCP. The project site occurs within the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area and a habitat assessment was conducted for the species to ensure compliance with MSHCP guidelines for the species. In accordance with the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (2006), survey protocol consists of two steps, Step I — Habitat Assessment and Step II — Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls. The following section describes the methodology followed during the burrowing owl habitat assessment conducted for this project. • Step I — Habitat Assessment: Step 1 of the MSHCP habitat assessment for burrowing owl consists of a walking survey to determine if suitable habitat is present onsite. The habitat assessment was conducted on April 19, 2023. Upon arrival at the project site, and prior to initiating the assessment survey, binoculars were used to scan all suitable habitats on and adjacent to the property, including perch locations, to establish owl presence.

All suitable areas of the project site were surveyed on foot by walking slowly and methodically while recording/mapping areas that may represent suitable owl habitat onsite. Primary indicators of suitable burrowing owl habitat in western Riverside County include, but are not limited to, native and non-native grassland, interstitial grassland within shrub lands, shrub lands with low density shrub cover, golf courses, drainage ditches, earthen berms, unpaved airfields, pastureland, dairies, fallow fields, and agricultural use areas. Burrowing owls typically use burrows made by fossorial mammals, but they often utilize man-made structures, such as earthen berms, cement culverts, cement, asphalt, rock, wood debris piles, openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement. Burrowing owls are often found within, under, or in close proximity to man-made structures. 14 DBESP Report
According to the MSHCP guidelines, if suitable habitat is present, the biologist should also walk the perimeter of the property, which consists of a 150-meter (approximately 500 feet) buffer zone around the project site boundary. If permission to access the buffer area cannot be obtained, the biologist shall not trespass, but visually inspect adjacent habitats with binoculars. In addition to surveying the entire Project Site all bordering natural habitats located immediately adjacent to the Project Site were assessed. Accordingly, if suitable habitat is documented onsite or within adjacent habitats, both Step Il, focused surveys and the 30-day preconstruction surveys are required in order to comply with the MSHCP guidelines.
• Step II — Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls: Concurrent with the initial habitat assessment, a detailed focused burrow survey was conducted and included documentation of appropriately sized natural burrows or suitable man-made structures that may be utilized by burrowing owl - as part of the MSHCP protocol, which is described below under Part A, Focused Burrow Survey. The MSHCP protocol indicates that no more than 100 acres should be surveyed per day/per biologist. o Part A — Focused Burrow Survey: A systematic survey for burrows, including burrowing owl sign, was conducted by walking across all suitable habitats mapped within the project site on April 19, 2023. Pedestrian survey transects were spaced to allow 100% visual coverage of the ground surface. The distances between transect centerlines were no more than 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) apart, and owing to the terrain, often much smaller.

Transect routes were also adjusted to account for topography and in general ground surface visibility. Areas providing potential habitat for burrowing owls were surveyed for suitable burrows, consisting of natural and non -natural substrates in areas with low, open vegetation. All burrows encountered were examined for shape, scat, pellets, white -wash, feathers, tracks, and prey remains. Suitable burrows/sites, including rock piles and non - natural substrates, were thoroughly examined for signs of presence.

4.1.2 ResultsAmpacts
Despite a systematic search of the project site, no burrowing owls or signs (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) were observed during the field investigation. Portions of the project site are vegetated with a variety of low -growing plant species that allow for minimal line -of -sight observation favored by burrowing owls. Further, no small mammal burrows that have the potential to provide suitable burrowing owl nesting habitat (>4 inches in diameter) were observed within the boundaries of the site. Further, the project site does not provide suitable burrows/sites, including rock piles and non -natural substrates that could be used as burrow surrogates. Additionally, the site is surrounded by tall trees and poles that provide perching opportunities for large raptors (i.e., red-tailed hawk) that can prey on burrowing owls. Based on this information, and as a result of current and historic on -site disturbances, and surrounding development, it was determined that burrowing owls do not have potential to occur on -site, and no focused surveys are recommended.
15 DBESP Report

4.1.3 Mitigation and Equivalency

4.1.3.1 Direct Effects
Based on the information provided above, and as a result of current and historic onsite disturbances, it was determined that burrowing owls do not have potential to occur onsite, and no focused surveys are recommended. Being that no appropriate burrows or burrowing owl habitat was found, Part B-Focused Burrowing Owl surveys were not required. Therefore, the project is consistent with Section 6.3.2. However, out of an abundance of caution a pre -construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities to ensure no direct effects to burrowing owl occur form project implementation.

Pre -Construction Burrowing Owl Survey
A 30-day pre -construction survey for burrowing owls is required prior to initial ground -disturbing activities (e.g., vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering) to ensure that no owls have colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding the ground -disturbing activities. If burrowing owls have colonized the project site prior to the initiation of ground -disturbing activities, the project proponent will immediately inform the Wildlife Agencies and the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), and will need to coordinate further with RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, including the possibility of preparing a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. If ground -disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre -construction survey will again be necessary to ensure burrowing owl has not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If burrow owl is found, the same coordination described above will be necessary.

4.1.3.2 Indirect Effects
With implementation of a pre -construction burrowing owl clearance survey, no indirect effects to burrowing owl are expected to occur.
16 DBESP Report
5 REFERENCES
Google, Inc. 2021. Google Earth Pro version 7.3.4.8248. Build date 7/16/2021.

ELMT Consulting Inc. 2023. Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis.

ELMT Consulting Inc. 2023. Jurisdictional Delineation.

Riverside County. 2003 (June). Final Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Available online at http://www.rcip.org/ .

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2000. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Protocol Revision 2000. Sacramento, California: USFWS.
https://www . fvvs.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/documents/SW WFlycatcher.2000. protocol.pdf
USFWS. 2001. Least Bell's Vireo Survey Guidelines. January 19, 2001. Sacramento, California:

USFWS. https://www.fws.gov/cno/es/Recovery_Permitting/birds/least bells vireo/ LeastBellsVireo_SurveyGuidelines_20010119.pdf
USFWS. 2015. A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow -Billed Cuckoo. Prepared by M. Halterman, M.J. Johnson, J.A. Holmes, and S.A. Laymon. Sacramento, California: USFWS. April 2015. htt2s:// www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Documents/R2ES/YBCU SurveyProtocol_FINAL _DRAFT _2 2Apr2015.pdf
17 Appendix A Project Exhibits

Niguel
Sai{ Clemente
..-iIII . 4 .-I. fl-.f..I,
10, 1111.. - il. 1
Oc
fAurri
ILI—V�
rIt
131041Mont g ni►�
o VaRey
t
2-3-' r �°
"!
Hemet
Idyll wil d
Sun City
ar
sr
t•
is
_ I
Fallbrook
t
r_
7ii ae�...A�7
r r� ,3j ►j'�.
er '
Vistasb ad
San Marc 7/ r
Escondido A7
Encinitas r , `,�- Ramona
44 0 2.5 5 10 YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
019 ELMT © Miles Regional Vicinity
Source: World Street Map, Riverside County Exhibit 1

Legend
Project Footprint
c
y o °PG
_ � o
c
ancliu
�iifprns�;\ =
,irport �+ •�
J
�ir. IAF
�AW p �1
• V
r ti~ tiv; tit _ _QNTJA
•mo
-` ''�' � ^ E � 1 � A •o �� T f`'4-
1 r N T
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
0o ELMT © Feet Site Vicinity
OC:� _
Source: USA Topographic Map, Riverside County Exhibit 2

m
`
v
S
�
�
a
00 ol-77,
y.

S
P•0�` c oc �
P°
Legend
Project Footprint (2.50 acres)
. f ..
�`• Permanent Project Impacts (2.50 acres)
s
_ r
- s
a - k
'3
� 4 �'� ct 4 ,�,���� T yr��• . ��a r
7079
f A -
�B o Or
A
rr
AdL-
r s
Y -A �. w.

Leg
AtF3: Arlington and Greenfield sandy loams, 15 to 35% slopes HcD2: Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15% slopes
01 n:46 HfD: Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 15% slopes
je RaB2: Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5% slopes
H
�, 1 '_ �� • _ � RmE3: Ramona and Buren sandy loams, 15 to 25% slopes ARE •;;��' . - - • r
Ai
ri
- _ - - r• _ } � '�,• a ;y.c
Yq r
707
40 HfD
10 ville
� � �11� ❑ . �� Cal ' k ..
•D� �g0ti 4 �� a � - � ,.

V
Legend
i�' + = .••- �, � Project Footprint Buckwheat Scrub (0.13 ac) CriteriaCells Non -Native Grassland (1.04 ac)
Riparian Scrub (0.22 ac) Disturbed (0.36 ac)
a e - Developed (0.76 ac)
n
_ y:' • - N
46 7079
/ �•
Ada �1
,e
a;� i �► ..y-
R sciry �.

D g0ti -
1 A'
A,' r i'1 fie•
.�
Rr
P

13 i
.f
y. Y
Y
77 r
NCity Owned Mitigation
...Parcels Widening(0.66 .-ri
.••D ..•

Appendix B Site Plan

YNEZ ROAD PHASE 1 STREET IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT
APN 944-331-026

R/W R/W

YNEZ ROAD ,
50 _ � _ 50 _
15'f
6'
lb,
18'f 12' I MEDIAN _ I 11 '
SIDEWALK L �
EX. AC

PA VEMEN T

SECTION A
N. T S.
5'
11' I B.L.I 11'

2. 0Z
7'

PROPOSED

TUBULAR

STEEL FENCE
2%
TMAX.
` 2 EXISTING
GROUND

PROPOSED
SLOPE
R/W

YNEZ ROAD RIW
EX. 6
SIDEK
LEGEND
PUBLIC RIGHT—OF—WAY

PROPOSED GRADING LIMITS

PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENTS
R/W

YNEZ ROAD
50'
6'
13' B. L. 11, 11, 10'

LEFT TURN
POCKET
>ED
R
= ENCE
EX. 6' EX. AC�

SIDEWALKJ PA VEMEN T
9POSED
)PE
ExIsriNc
GROUND

SEC TION C
N. T S
SCALE 1 "=50'
0 50 100 150 200
R/W
44'
6'
11 ' 11, B.L. 15'

PROPOSED

TUBULAR

STEEL FENCE
27 MAX.
15'

PROPOSED PROPOSED RAMP EXISTING
SLOPE � GROUND

PROPOSED
SLOPE
0 r
m
E
m
co
N
O
N
Q
N
0 a

EE M T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
❑� CONSULTING Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
Appendix B-3
Jurisdictional Delineation for the Proposed Ynez Road Improvements Project —Phase 1 Project Located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California
ELMT Consulting
October 2025

ELMT
FYI 7 CON`>UI IINC;
Updated October 2025

TK CONSULTING
Contact: Kim Berry
2082 Michelson Drive, 4th Floor
Irvine, California 92651
SUBJECT: Jurisdictional Delineation for the Proposed Ynez Road Improvements Project — Phase 1 Project Located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California Introduction
ELMT Consulting (ELMT) conducted a Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters for the proposed Ynez Road Improvements Project — Phase 1 Project located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. This delineation was prepared in order to document the jurisdictional authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps), the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (Regional Board), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. The fieldwork for this delineation was conducted on April 19, 2023.

This report explains the methodology utilized throughout the course of the delineation, defines the jurisdictional authority of the regulatory agencies, and documents the findings made by ELMT. This report presents ELMT's determination of jurisdictional boundaries using the most up-to-date regulations, written policy, and guidance provided by the regulatory agencies.

Project Location
The project site is generally located east of Interstate 15, south and north of State Route 79, and west of Margarita Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The site is depicted on both the Murrieta and Temecula quadrangles of the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map series in Section 12 of Township 8 South, Range 3 West. Specifically, the project site is located adjacent to, and encompassing a portion of Ynez Road between Rancho Vista Road and Tierra Vista Road. Refer to Exhibits 1-3 in Attachment A.

The project consists of approximately 1,763 linear feet of Ynez Road and a large open space area off of the northeastern shoulder of the road. The site is bounded to the northwest by Temecula Duck Pond and Park, to the southeast and southwest by residential development, and to the northeast by undeveloped vacant land with commercial development beyond.

Project Description
The City is proposing to improve 1,763 linear feet of the eastern half of Ynez Road between Tierra Vista Road to Rancho Vista Road in order to match the four -lane configuration and infrastructure that exists along Ynez Road north and south of this segment. Improvements will include the following and are depicted in Appendix B, Site Plans.
2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 1 Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 1 (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsulting com

October 2025