Agenda packet — Wildomar City Council, December 9, 2024 (part 11 of 22)

1386
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RI-06909 2006 Archaeological Survey Report for the So CA Edison Company, Syborne, Dominic C&D
Land Co, Hemet Nazaren, Sunset Vista
Homes, and Iodine Springs Projects,
Riverside County, CA, (WO#6279-2326, 6377-
1377, 6677-7101, 6577-1957, 6277-7164, AI#
6-2063, -1259 etc
Jordan, Stacey C. and Mooney, Jones & Stokes
Joshua D. Patterson
Other - Contract #
06327.06
RI-06958 2006 Cultural Resources Survey, Consisting od

4.71 Acres, Tract Map 33062, A.P.N. 367-
130-003, Wildomar, Riverside County,
Sander, Jay K. Chambers Group, Inc.

RI-06990 2006 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment:

Canyon Hills Estates, Riverside County,
California
Other - Trumark J001 Glenn, Brian K. BonTerra Consulting 33-014992, 33-014993 RI-07005 2006 A Cultural Resources Assessment of a 2.83- Acre Parcel As Showen on TPM 33782,
Northwest Corner of Lost and Dial Roads,
Wildomar, Riverside County
White, Robert S. and Archaeological Associates
White, Laura S.

RI-07022 2006 Keller, Jean A. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Jean A. Keller RI-07029 2006 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Cultural Resources Consultant
Other - APN 380-160- Jean A. Keller, Ph.D.
003 thru 009
RI-07033 2006 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of APN 380-120-012 & 013
Cultural Resources
Consultant
Jean A. Keller, Ph.D.

RI-07044 2006 A Phase I Archaeological Survey Report for APN 380-170-019, 3.5 Acres, Murrieta,
County of Riverside, California
L & L Environmental, Inc.,
Corona, CA
Anna M. Hoover and
Kristie R. Blevins
Submitter - KPA-03-
273-ARS
RI-07227 2007 Archaeological Survey Report for Southern California Edison Company clinton Keith
Reconductor Project Overhead Section
Riverisde County, California
Submitter - Jones & Moreno, Adrian Sanchez Jones & Stokes Stokes Contract No.
00514.07
RI-07228 2007 Archeaological Survey Report for Southern California Edison Company: Clinton Keith
Reconductor Project Underground Section in
Riverside County, California
Submitter - Jones & Moreno, Adrian Sanchez Jones & Stokes Stokes Contract No.
00514.07
RI-07250 2007 Phase I Archaeological Assessment of
Palomar Plaza a 2.43-Acre Parcel at Palomar
Street and Kilgore Land in the Community of
Wildomar, Riverside County, California
de Barros, Philip
RI-07251 2002 Cultural Resource Assessment: AT&T
Wireless Services Facility No. 08035A,
Riverside County, California
Submitter - GTI130 Curt Duke LSA Associates

Page 19 of 27 ends

1387
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RI-07378 2007 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Tentative Tract Map 33840 Near the
Community of Wildomar, Riverside County,
California
Tang, Bai "Tom" and CRM Tech
Michael Hogan
Submitter - CRM
TECH Contract No.
2108
RI-07408 2006 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of PAR #788 Crossroads Apartments, +- 23.19
Acres of Land in Wildomar, Riverside County,
California, USGS Murrieta, California
Quadrangle, 7.5' Series
Keller, Jean A. Author
RI-07525 2008 A Archaeological Mitigation-Monitoring Report for PM 32159, with APNS: 380-170-019 & -
20- A +_ 13.11-Acre Parcel Located in the
Murrieta Area, Riverside County, California
L&L Environmental, Inc.,
Corona, CA
Submitter - KPA-03- Crull, Scott
273
RI-07577 2007 A Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Baxter Road Project, Riverside County,
California, APN 367-300-003
Brian F. Smith and
Associates
Moreno, Sara
RI-07578 2008 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Catt Road Project, Wildomar Area, Riverside
County, California
Michael Brandman
Associates
Lord, Kenneth J.

RI-07593 2008 Archaeological Survey Report for Southern California Edison Company O&M -- Wildomar
Service Center Fiber Optic Cables Project, on
the Nutmeg 12 kV Circuit Riverside County,
California
Tsunoda, Koji and Jones and Stokes
Joshua D. Patterson
Other - Contract No.
00104.08
RI-07597 2008 Letter Report: Addendum to the Bear Creek Plaza, Wildomar Square cultural resources
report; CUP 03504R1-FTA 2007-28; APNs
380-110-023, -024, -027, -028, and 380-230-
001.

Brian F. Smith and
Associates
Smith, Brian F.

RI-07598 2007 A Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Wildomar Square Project, Riverside County,
California, APN 380-230-001
Brian F. Smith and
Associates
Clowery-Moreno, Sara
and Brian F. Smith
RI-07600 2008 Phase I Archaeological Assessment:

Assessor's Parcel No. 380-290-003, 36125
Jana Lane, Wildomar Area, Riverside County,
California
Bai "Tom" Tang, CRM Tech
Clarence Bodmer, Daniel
Ballester, and Laura
Shaker
Submitter - CRM
Tech Contract No.
2202
RI-07663 2006 A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL

ASSESSMENT FOR THE WILDOMAR

ANIMAL SHELTER PROJECT
BRIAN F. SMITH AND

ASSOCIATES
Smith, B.

Page 20 of 27 ends

1388
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RI-07677 2008 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT

FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

COMPANY O&M-NEXUS RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT ON THE NUTMEG 12kV

CIRCUIT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA (WO#6277-6784, AI#K-6757)
Jones & Stokes, San Diego,
CA
Other - Contract Tsunoda, Koji 33-016988
No.: #01128.07;
Other - SCE 2007
CWA 93
RI-07680 2006 A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL

ASSESSMENT FOR THE BEAR CREEK

PLAZA PHASE II PROJECT, RIVERSIDE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

Brian F. Smith and
Associates
Rosenberg, Seth A. and
Brian F. Smith
RI-07789 2008 Cultural Resource Survey for the Elsinore Valley Municpal Water DistrictT Phase I
Recycled Water System, Riverside County,
California
Carolyn E. Kyle Kyle Consulting
RI-07791 2008 PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL
ASSESSMENT: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
363-250-014, SEDCO HILLS AREA,

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Eddy, John J. and Daniel CRM TECH
Ballester
Submitter - Contract
No: 2184
RI-07797 2008 Archaeological Survey Report for Southern California Edison Company O&M-Nexus
Residential Project: Additional Survey for the
Replacement of One Pole (#2228150E) on
the Nutmeg 12 kV Circuit Riverside County,
California (WO# 6377-6753, AI# X-6731)
Submitter - Contract Tsunoda, Koji ICF Jones & Stokes
No. 01128.07
RI-07822 2007 Cultural Resources Report for the Verizon Wireless Project "The Farm"
Submitter - URS Corporation URS Corporation
36302124.02124
RI-07852 2007 Built-Environment Historic Resources
Technical Memorandum for Bundy CanyonScott Road Improvement Project Smith Francesca G. and PARSONS
Caprice D. (Kip) Harper
33-007706, 33-016712, 33-017106,
33-017107, 33-017108, 33-017109,
33-017182
RI-07886 2006 Photo Recordation of Historic Buildings
Rudolph J. Brown Ranch, 22060 Grand Ave.

Wildomar, Riverside County, California
Bai Tang and Michael CRM TECH
Hogan
Submitter - CRM 33-007808
TECH Contract #1927
RI-07920 2008 Phase I Archaeological Assessment:

Assessor's Parcel Nos. 367-100-019 and -
020, CUP 03403, City of Wildomar, Riverside
County, California
Tang, Bai, Dierdre CRM TECH
Encarnacion, and Daniel
Ballester
Submitter - CRM 33-013170
TECH Contract No.
2273
RI-08172 2003 Letter Report: Results of the Cultural
Resource Management Compliance Review
and Paleontological Resources Assessment
for the Oak Creek Apartments Parcel
Riverside County, California
Riordan Goodwin LSA Associates 33-011434, 33-011435, 33-011436

Page 21 of 27 ends

1389
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RI-08419 2001 Letter Report: Records Search Results for Sprint PCS Facility RV54XC511D (Hilltop
Ham), Wildomar, Riverside County, California.

Michael Brandman
Associates
Laurie S. White
RI-08479 2007 Archaeological Survey Report for Southern California Edison's Tenaja Substation City of
Wildomar, Riverside County, California
Christopher Doolittle and Earth Tech, Inc.

Susan Hogan-Conrad
Other - SCE JO No.
5877-0468;
Other - SCE
Purchase Order
Number: Q1017910
RI-08480 2007 Archaeological Survey Report Southern
California Edison Operations and
Maintenance Program Brehm Company Line
Extension Survey. City of Wildomar,
Riverside County, California
Susan Hogan-Conrad Earth Tech, Inc.
and Christopher J.

Doolittle
Other - SCE
Purchase Order
Number: Q1017910;
Other - SCE Work
Order Number: 6077-
2318 J-2267
RI-08510 2010 Archaeological Survey Report for Southern California Edison's Poles Replacement
Project: Menifee, Riverside County, California
Other - SCE Linda Honey Chambers Group, Inc.

Purchase Order
Number:
4500179336;
Other - WO 6026-
4800, J-4815
RI-08564 2010 Archival Report for Cultural and
Paleontological Resources: City of Menifee,
Riverside, California
Beth Padon Discovery Works, Inc. 33-007708, 33-007714
RI-08680 2011 Archaeological Survey Report For Southern California Edison's Deteriorated Poles
Project: Murrieta and Unicorporated Riverside
County, California; WOs 6088-4800/1-4811
and 6088-4800/1-4824
Other - SCE Jay K. Sander Chambers Groups, Inc.

Purchase Order
Number:
4500179336;
Other - Wos 6088-
4811 and 6088-
4800/4824
RI-08723 2011 Archaeological Survey for the Southern
California Edison Company: Replacement of
Five Deteriorated Power Poles
Rebecca S. Orfila RSO Consulting
RI-08726 2011 proposedAT&TWireless Telecommunications
Site RS0275 (Wildomar)located at 25125
Clinton Keith Road,
Wildomar, California 92595
Cellular, Archaeological,
Resource Evaluations
Robert J Wlodarski
RI-08769 2011 Letter Report: Proposed Cellular Tower
Project(s) in Riverside County, California, Site
Number(s)/Name(s): LA5647A/ Palomar TMO
Colo TCNS# 76331
Carla Allred EarthTouch, Inc.

Page 22 of 27 ends

1390
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RI-08770 2011 Archaeological Survey Report for SCE's Idle Facilities Removal Project
Jay K. Sanders TD# 525428
RI-08859 2012 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Assessor's Parcel No. 380-350-022,
City of Wildomar, Riverside County, California
Bai "Tom" Tang, Michael CRM Tech
Hogan, Daniel Ballester,
Terri Jacquemain, and
Nina Gallardo
33-003405, 33-007804, 33-007812,
33-008173, 33-008652, 33-008653,
33-008654, 33-008948, 33-008949,
33-011434, 33-011435, 33-011436,
33-013913, 33-015304, 33-015305,
33-016988, 33-017366
Submitter - CRM
Tech Contract No.
2627A
RI-08934 2013 Update to Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey, Assessor's Parcel Nos.
376-410-013, -022, and -023 (Westpark
Project), City of Wildomar, Riverside County,
California
Submitter - Contract Bai "Tom" Tang CRM Tech 33-008173
No. 2717
RI-08935 2013 Update to Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey, Assessor's Parcel No.
380-290-029(Siena Apartments Project), City
of Wildomar, Riverside County, California
Submitter - Contract Bai "Tom" Tang CRM Tech
No. 2716
RI-08939 2013 Update to Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey, Tentative Tract Map
33840; Assessor's Parcel No. 376-043-027,
City of Wildomar, Riverside County, California
Submitter - Contract Bai "Tom" Tang CRM Tech
No. 2730
RI-09021 2013 Cultural Resources Investigation Results of the Marshalling Yard Survey, Access Road
Survey, and Supplemental 115kV
Transmission Line Survey in Support of the
Alberhill Substation, Riverside County,
California

ECORP CONSULTING,
INC.

Robert Cunningham,
Wendy Jones, Evelyn N.

Chandler, and Roger
Mason
33-003308, 33-012067, 33-015743,
33-019925, 33-021068, 33-021069,
33-021162
RI-09039 2013 A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES

INVESTIGATION OF THE WILDOMAR

WALMART SUPERSTORE PROJECT AREA

IN THE CITY OF WILDOMAR, RIVERSIDE

COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Jeanette A. McKenna McKENNA et al.
and Richard S. Shepard,
Submitter - Job No.
09-13-11-1640
RI-09060 2013 A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES

ASSESSMENT OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
36388, APN 362-070-001, 003, 006, 013,
018, 021,023, 024; 362-080-
004,005,007,008,012,015; 362-090-009
Cultural Resources
Consultant
Jean A. Keller 33-001256, 33-015958

Page 23 of 27 ends

1391
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RI-09066 2012 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES
SURVEY FOR THE WILDOMAR 23

PROJECT

CITY OF WILDOMAR, COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE, Assessor's Parcel Numbers:
380-280-004, and 380-280-008 through -012
Brian F. Smith and
Associates, Inc.

Tracy A. Stropes and
Brian F. Smith
RI-09159 2013 Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey for the Orange Street Project City of Wildomar,
County of Riverside
Brain F Smith and
Associates, Inc.

Jennifer R. Kraft and
Tracy Stropes
RI-09208 2014 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for Verizon Wireless Candidate
'Refa', Gruwell Street, Wildomar, Riverside
County, California
Carrie D. Wills First Carbon Solutions
RI-09229 2014 Update of an Historical/ Archaeological
Resources Survey Tenative Tract Map
32035; Assessor's Parcel Nos. 380-040-005, -
007, -012, and -025 In the City of Wildomar,
Riverside County, California
Michael Hogan CRM Tech 33-023939
RI-09289 2014 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of APN 380-170-020 23151 Palomar Street,
Wildomar, California
Jean A. Keller Jean A. Keller
RI-09291 2014 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Public Use Permit 778, Revised Permit No. 5
APN 367-210-008, 018, 034, 035, 039, 041,
043 and 367-140-008
Jean A. Keller Jean A. Keller
RI-09295 2014 Letter Report: Native American Consultation Correspondence for the Catt Cellular
Communications New Tower Project,
Wildomar, Riverside County, California (BCR
Consulting Project No. TRF1402)
David Brunzell BCR Consulting
RI-09325 2012 A Phase II Cultural Resources Test
Investigation of Archaeological Site CA-RIV8282 Located Within The Boundaries of Tentative Tract Map 36388; City of Wildomar
Riverside County, California Township 6
South, Range 3 West, Section 19, SBM
USGS Romoland, California Quadrangle, 7.5'
Series
Jean A. Keller Jean Keller 33-008282

Page 24 of 27 ends

1392
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RI-09418 2015 Paleontological, Archaeological, and Native American Monitoring Report, 34915 Orange
Street (Tract 36519), City of Widomar,
Riverside County, California (APN 367-170-
029)
Brian F. Smith and
Associates Inc.

Brian F. Smith, George L.

Kennedy, and Todd A.

Wirths
RI-09427 2015 A Class III Archaeological Study for the
Parkside Project for Section 106 Compliance,
Riverside County, California (APNs 380-280-
004 and 380-280-009 through -012
Brian F. Smith and
Associates Inc.

Tracy A. Stropes and
Brian F. Smith
RI-09441 2012 Cultural Resources Assessment, Elsinore
Valley Municipal Water District, Waite Street
Reservoir and Pipeline Project, Wildomar,
Riverside County, California
David Brunzell BCR Consulting
RI-09443 2012 Cultural Resources Assessment Clinton
Keith/Prielipp Property, Wildomar, Riverside
County, California
David Brunzell BCR Consulting
RI-09499 2016 Architectural Survey of Assessor Parcel
Numbers (APNs) 369-021-031, -035, -036, -
039, and -044 and Evaluation of a Historicperiod Residence and Associated Structures on APN 369-021-035, in the City of Wildomar,
Riverside County, California
Josh Smallwood Applied EarthWorks 33-024864
RI-09524 2012 Cultural Resources Assessment Baxter
Property Wildomar, Riverside County,
California
David Brunzell BCR Consulting
RI-09759 2015 Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment
Banbury/ Ensite #26934 (290506) 22800
Grand Avenue Wildomar, Riverside County,
California 92595 EBI Project #6115004284
Don C. Perez EBI Consulting
RI-09783 2014 Results of Archaeological Monitoring at the North Ranch Project, Tentative Tract Map No.
32535, City of Wildomar, Riverside County,
California (Negative Archaeological
Monitoring Report)
Brian F. Smith Brian F. Smith & Associates
RI-09798 2016 Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the Briarwood Project, TR 36497, Wildomar,
California
Brian F. Smith and Brian F. Smith & Associates
Jennifer R. Kraft
Other - TR 36497
RI-09883 2016 Update to Historical/ Archaeological
Resources Survey Assessor's Parcel No. 380-
290-003 City of Wildomar, Riverside County,
California CRM TECH Contract 3104
Bai "Tom" Tang CRM TECH

Page 25 of 27 ends

1393
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RI-09884 2016 Addendum to Historical/ Archeological
Resources Survey Big East RV and Boat
Storage Facility Project (Conditional Use
Permit 16-0095)
Other - CRM TECH Bai "Tom" Tang CRM TECH
Contract 3104B
RI-09911 2005 Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile
Telecommunications Facility Candidate
IE05295A (SC295 First Presgyterian Church),
33122 Grape Street, Wildomar, Riverside
County, California
Michael Brandman
Associates
Wayne H. Bonner and
Marnie Aislin-Kay
RI-09967 2016 Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey for the Bundy Canyon Project City of Wildomar,
California APNs 367-100-018, -021, -025, -
029, and -031
Stephen P. Anderson Brian F. Smith & Associates
and Brian F. Smith
RI-10077 2018 Phase I Investigation for the Verizon Wireless Jaro Tower Installation Project, Wildomar,
Riverside, California
NWB Enviormental
Services, LLC
Jennifer Roland
RI-10113 2016 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

FAITH BIBLE CHURCH PROJECT

WILDOMAR RIVERSIDE COUNTY

CALIFORNIA
Other - RBF1610 DAVID BRUNZELL BCRCONSULTING 33-015306
RI-10230 2002 CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
PREPARED FOR: COLLEEN DOOLEY
CINGULAR WIRELESS SB-172-01, NEXTEL
COLO-CLINTON KEITH ROAD, 25125

CLINTON KEITH ROAD WILDOMAR, CA
92595
Other - NEXTEL DON LEWIS THE ALARIS GROUP, LLC

COLO-CLINTON
KEITH SITE;
Other - SB-172-01
RI-10290 2017 HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT:

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 367-140-008, -
010 AND -012, CITY OF WILDOMAR,

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BAI "TOM" TANG, CRM TECH

DEIRDRE

ENCARNACION,

DANIEL BALLESTER,
and NINA GALLARDO
Other -

ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 367-
140-008, 367-140-
010, 367-140-012
RI-10305 2018 Addendum to Phase I
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
Village at Monte Vista Project City of
Wildomar, Riverside County, California CRM
TECH Project Number 3278/3341
Bai "Tom" Tang CRM TECH
RI-10398 2018 A Cultural Resource Assessment for the St.

Frances of Rome Project
Andrew J. Garrison and Brian F. Smith & Associates
Brain F. Smith
RI-10489 2016 Camelia Residential Development Project
Phase 1 Cultural Rescources Assesment
Kyle Garcia ESA PCR

Page 26 of 27 ends

1394
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RI-10508 Other - SB-174-01 2002 Don Lewis Cultural Rescource Assessment SB-174-01 The Alaris Group, LLC RI-10517 2010 Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile USA Candidate
IE04635-C (Bear Creek Storage), 32575
Clinton Keith Road, Wildomar, Riverside
County, California
Michael Brandman
Associates
Wayne H. Bonner and
Arabesque Said
Other - IE04635-C
Bear Creek Storage
RI-10530 2009 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of
the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
Wildomar Recycled Water System Phase 1 -
Off-Site Facilities Project, Riverside County
Laura S. White and Arcaheological Associates
Robert S. White
RI-10555 2010 Record Seach Results for the proposed
AT&T Wireless Telecommunications Site
RS0006 (Outhuijse) 33805 Cherry Street,
Wildomar, California 92595
Cellular, Archaeological,
Resource, Evaluations
(C.A.R.E.)
Robert J. Wlodarski
RI-10566 2015 Cultural Resources Assessment Clinton Keith Property (Grove Park Project) Wildomar,
Riverside County, California
Other - STR1202 David Brunzell BCRConsulting LLC
RI-10602 2005 Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for Cingular
Telecommunications Facility Candidate SB--
174-01 (RS-047-01) Busch Land, 24240
Bundy Canyon Road, Wildomar, Riverside
County, California
Michael Brandman
Associates
Marnie Aislin-Kay
RI-10610 2005 Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile
Telecommunications Facility Candidate
IE04709 (SC236 Booster Station), 21422
Palomar Street, Wildomar, Riverside County,
California
Michael Brandman
Associates
Wayne H. Bonner and
Marnie Aislin-Kay
RI-10768 2019 Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the Monte Vista Ranch Project ( Tentative Tract
Map 32024), city of Wildomar, Riverside
County, California (APNs 367-140-007 and -
011)
Brian F. Smith and
Associate, Inc.

Brian F. Smith
RI-10773 2019 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Monte Vista Ranch Project
Brian F. Smith and
Associates
Brian F. Smith
RI-10793 2016 Wildomar Crossings Retail Development
Project Cultural Resources Survery Report
HELIX Environmental
Planning, Inc.

Kristina Davison and
Mary Robbins-Wade

Page 27 of 27 ends

1395
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
P-33-001256 CA-RIV-001256 Other - UCRARU #76-2 Site Prehistoric AP04 1973 (S. Hammond, ARU) RI-00108, RI-09060 P-33-001257 CA-RIV-001257 Other - UCRARU #76-3 Site Prehistoric AP04; AP15 1973 (J. R. Smith, UCR ARU) RI-00108, RI-04390 P-33-001643 CA-RIV-001643 Site Prehistoric 1979 (M.C. Hall and J.P. Barker) P-33-001999 CA-RIV-001999 Prehistoric 1980 (S. Bouscaren) RI-00985 P-33-002001 CA-RIV-002001 Prehistoric 1980 (S. Bouscaren) RI-00985 P-33-002042 CA-RIV-002042 Site Prehistoric 1980 (Jean A. Salpas) RI-01089 P-33-002767 CA-RIV-002767 RI-01769, RI-03757,
RI-04658, RI-06248,
RI-06345
Prehistoric,
Historic
1984 (Daniel F. McCarthy,
Archaeological Research Unit, UC
Riverside, Riverside, CA.);
1994 (Bruce Love and Steve Moffit,
CRM TECH, Riverside, CA.);
2003 (Josh Smallwood);
2004 (John J. Eddy)
P-33-002768 CA-RIV-002768 Prehistoric 1984 (Daniel F. McCarthy) RI-01769 P-33-002769 CA-RIV-002769 RI-01767, RI-01768,
RI-01769
Prehistoric 1984 (Daniel F. McCarthy)
P-33-003413 CA-RIV-003413 Other - Project: The FarmSecondary Highway AccessSite Prehistoric AP02; AP04 1988 (C.E. Drover and E.A. RI-02283, RI-04298 Jackson, Jr., n/a)
P-33-003956 CA-RIV-003956 Other - UCRARU #76-1;
Other - Sunset Ridge Project Area
RI-00109, RI-04298,
RI-04390, RI-04938,
RI-05058
Site Prehistoric,
Historic
AH04; AP02; AP04 1973 (J. R. Smith, UCR);
1987 (Joan Brown and Ronald M.

Bissell, RMW Paleo Associates);
2002 (McKenna, McKenna et al.)
P-33-004154 CA-RIV-004154 Other - N-1 Prehistoric 1990 (Arch. Associates, RI-03052 Archaeological Associates, P.O.

Box 180, Sun City, California 92381)
P-33-004722 CA-RIV-004722 Other - ARU # 1175-1 Historic 1992 (B. Love, Archaeological RI-03458 Research Unit)
P-33-004725 CA-RIV-004725 Other - Tunstall East Prehistoric 1989 (Robert S. White, RI-02888 Archaeological Associates)
P-33-004726 CA-RIV-004726 Other - Tunstall West Prehistoric 1989 (Robert S. White, RI-02888 Archaeological Associates)
P-33-007157 Other - Ser. No. 33-2330-17 Building Historic HP02; HP06; HP34 1982 (Theresa Borchard, RIV. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-007182 Other - Ser. No. 33-23300-42 Building Historic HP02 1982 (Pat Meredith, Riverside County Historical Commission)

Page 1 of 5 ends

1396
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
P-33-007231 Other - Ser. No. 33-2330-91 Building Historic HP02 1982 (Theresa Borchard, Riverside County Historical Commission)
P-33-007420 Other - Billy Frank Home Building Historic HP02 1982 (L.M. O'Brien, Riverside County Historical Comm.)
P-33-007783 Historic 1982 (M. O'Brien, Riverside County Historical Comm.)
P-33-007784 Historic 1982 (M. O'Brien, Riverside County Historical Comm.)
P-33-007785 Historic 1982 (M. O'Brien, Riverside County Historical Comm.)
P-33-007804 Other - Schwartz House;
Other - Ser. No. 33-2395-6;
Other - CRM TECH 893-1H
RI-05921, RI-06245,
RI-08859
Building Historic HP02 1982 (Marna O'Brien, Riverside
County Historical Comm.);
2002 (Teresa Woodard, CRM TECH)
P-33-007805 Other - Robinson House;
Other - Heald Ranch;
Other - Ser. No. 33-2395-7
Building Historic HP02 1982 (Marna O'Brien, Riverside
County Historical Comm.)
P-33-007806 Building Historic HP02 1982 (M. O'Brien, Riverside County Historical Comm.)
P-33-007807 Historic 1982 (M. O'Brien, Riverside County Historical Comm.)
P-33-007808 Historic 1982 (O'Brien, Marna, Riverside RI-07886, RI-08170 County Historical Commission);
2004 (Ostashay, Jan and Peter
Moruzzi, PCR Services Corp.,
Irvine);
2006 (Smallwood, Josh and Thomas
J. Melzer, CRM TECH)
P-33-007809 Historic 1982 (M. O'Brien, Riverside County Historical Comm.)
P-33-007810 Other - Iodine Springs;
Other - Ser. No. 33-2395-12
Building Historic HP02; HP06 1982 (Theresa Borchard, Riverside County Historical Comm.)
P-33-007811 Historic 1982 (M. O'Brien, Riverside County Historical Comm.)
P-33-007812 Other - Ser. No. 33-2395-1 RI-05921, RI-06245, RI-08859
Building Historic HP06 1982 (Marna O'Brien, Riverside
County Historical Comm.)
P-33-007881 Other - Warm Springs 1 Site Prehistoric AP04 0101 (Joan Brown & Ronald Bissell, RI-00109 RMW Paleo Associates)

Page 2 of 5 ends

1397
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
P-33-008173 CA-RIV-006070H Other - CRM TECH 311-1H;
Other - CRM TECH 2717
RI-03341, RI-04390,
RI-08859, RI-08934
Other Historic AH03 1998 (Bruce Love, CRM TECH,
Riverside, CA);
2013 (Daniel Ballester, CRM TECH)
P-33-008652 CA-RIV-006168 Other - CK-1/CK-2 RI-04297, RI-04390, RI-08859
Site Prehistoric AP02 1999 (Sue Wade, Heritage
Resources, Ramona, CA)
P-33-008653 CA-RIV-006169 Other - CK-A Site Prehistoric AP02 1999 (Sue Wade, Heritage RI-08859 Resources, Ramona, CA)
P-33-008654 Other - CK-3 Site Historic AH04 1999 (Sue Wade, Heritage RI-04297, RI-08859 Resources, Ramona, CA)
P-33-008948 Other - Mac-I1 Other Prehistoric AP02 1999 (Joan Brown, Dave Stevens, RI-05181, RI-08859 and David Ferraro, RMW Paleo
Associates)
P-33-008949 CA-RIV-006350 Other - Mac-1 RI-04350, RI-04390, RI-05181, RI-08859
Site Prehistoric AP02; AP08 1999 (Joan Brown, Dave Stevens, and David Ferraro, RMW Paleo
Associates Incorporated)
P-33-009641 CA-RIV-006440 Site Prehistoric RI-04382
P-33-010986 Other - BW-I-1 Other Prehistoric AP02 2000 (N. Harris, HDR) RI-04877 P-33-011434 CA-RIV-006821 Other - GLR 02-1-1 RI-04470, RI-05216, RI-08172, RI-08859
Site Prehistoric AP02; AP11 2002 (Mark C. Robinson, Great Lakes Research)
P-33-011435 Other - GLR-ISO-2002-1 RI-04470, RI-08172,
RI-08859
Other Prehistoric AP16 2002 (Mark C. Robinson, Great
Lakes Research)
P-33-011436 Other - GLR-ISO-2002-2 RI-04470, RI-08172,
RI-08859
Other Prehistoric AP16 2002 (Mark C. Robinson, Great
Lakes Research)
P-33-011624 Other - Warm Springs II Structure Historic AH05 1966 (Joan Brown and Ronald M. RI-00109 Bissell, RMW Paleo Associates)
P-33-012289 Other - RBF-156-01 Building Historic HP02 2002 (Richard S. Shepard, Bon RI-04608 Terra Consulting)
P-33-012770 Other - Site No. SA Site Prehistoric AP04 1982 (L.L. Bowles, none) RI-01620 P-33-012815 Other Historic
P-33-013170 Other - J&R-1 Building Historic HP02 2003 (David M. Van Horn, RI-07920 Archaeological Associates)
P-33-013503 Other - Site No. SA MF 1715 Site Prehistoric AP16 1982 (L. L. Bowles, n/a) RI-01620 P-33-013515 Other Prehistoric RI-02438

Page 3 of 5 ends

1398
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
P-33-014778 CA-RIV-007866 Prehistoric, RI-06594, RI-06595 Historic
2005 (Smallwood, Josh, CRM
Tech);
2006 (Smallwood, Josh, CRM Tech)
P-33-014779 CA-RIV-007867 Prehistoric 2005 (Smallwood, Josh and Daniel RI-06594, RI-06595 Ballester, CRM Tech);
2006 (Smallwood, Josh, CRM Tech)
P-33-014780 CA-RIV-007868 Prehistoric 2005 (Smallwood, Josh and Daniel RI-06592, RI-06593 Ballester, CRM Tech);
2006 (Smallwood, Josh, CRM Tech)
P-33-014781 CA-RIV-007869 Historic 2005 (Smallwood, Josh and Daniel RI-06592 Ballester, CRM Tech)
P-33-014782 CA-RIV-007870 Historic 2005 (Smallwood, Josh, CRM Tech) RI-06592 P-33-014783 Prehistoric 2005 (Smallwood, Josh, CRM RI-06592, RI-06593 Tech);
2006 (Smallwood, Josh, CRM Tech)
P-33-014891 Other - W-1 Ranch Complex;
Other - Former property of
Howard Wilson
Building, RI-05355
Structure
Historic HP02; HP30; HP32;
HP33
2005 (Hunt, Kevin, Stve O'Neil, and
Jim Clifford, SWCA Environmental
Consultants);
2009 (Ecorp Consulting, Ecorp
Consulting)
P-33-015304 Other - Isolate-1 Other Prehistoric AP02 2006 (Lapin, Philippe and Adam RI-06827, RI-08859 Sriro, Southern California Edison)
P-33-015305 Other - Isolate-2 Other Prehistoric AP02 2006 (Lapin, Philippe and Adam RI-06827, RI-08859 Sriro, Southern California Edison)
P-33-015306 CA-RIV-008081 Other - LSA-OKE-0601-H-1 Site Historic AH04 2006 (Goodwin, Riordan and Gini RI-06737, RI-10113 Austerman, LSA Associates, Inc.)
P-33-015665 CA-RIV-008163 Other - AE-BCN-1H Site Historic AH04 2006 (M. Linder, T. Kennedy, and K.

Jernigan, Applied EarthWorks, Inc.)
P-33-015666 CA-RIV-008164 Other - AE-BCN-2H Site Historic AH04 2006 (M. Linder, T. Kennedy, and K.

Jernigan, Applied EarthWorks, Inc.)
P-33-015669 Other - AE-BCN-ISO-2 Other Prehistoric AP16 2006 (T. Kennedy, K. Jernigan, and M. Linder, Applied EarthWorks, Inc.)
P-33-015670 Other - AE-BCN-ISO-3 Other Prehistoric AP16 2006 (T. Kennedy, K. Jernigan, and M. Linder, Applied EarthWorks, Inc.)
P-33-015958 CA-RIV-008282 Other - AE-BCN-4 Site Prehistoric AP02 2007 (C. Bouscaren, C. Cisneros, RI-09060 Applied EarthWorks, Hemet, CA)

Page 4 of 5 ends

1399
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
P-33-015994 Other - Sedco Tract 1, Lot 12;
Other - Heathner Residential
Complex
Building Historic AH02; AH04; HP02;
HP06
2005 (MBA, MBA);
2013 (Jeanette A McKenna, Dept of
Parks and Rec/McKenna et al)
P-33-015995 Other Prehistoric AP02 2005 ( Aislin-Kay, Marnie, MBA) P-33-015996 Other Prehistoric AP02 2005 ( Aislin-Kay, Marnie, MBA) P-33-016988 CA-RIV-008848 Other - 2007CWA93-01 Historic 2008 (Tsunoda, Koji, Jones & RI-07677, RI-08859 Stokes)
P-33-017106 Other - 33890 Cherry Street (No.
1)
Building Historic HP02 2007 (Caprice D. (Kip) Harper and RI-07852 Smith, Francesca, Parsons)
P-33-017107 Other - 23690 Bundy Canyon
Road (No. 48)
Historic 2007 (Caprice D. (Kip) Harper, RI-07852
Parsons);
2007 (Smith, Francesca, Parsons)
P-33-017309 Other - 22220 Bundy Canyon
Road
Building Historic HP06 2006 (Bai "Tom" Tang and Terri RI-06596 Jacquemain, CRM TECH)
P-33-017366 CA-RIV-009024 Other - APN's 380-250-011;
Other - Temp 1 20370013
Site Prehistoric AP02 2008 (Dice, Michael, Michael RI-08859 Brandman Associates)
P-33-019926 Other - CWA 60-2 Object Historic AH06; AH10 2009 (C. Cotterman and D.

Ballester, ECORP Consulting)
P-33-020991 Other - Oak Springs Ranch Building,
Structure
Historic HP33 2012 (Casey Tibbet, Riordan
Goodwin, LSA Associates, Inc)
P-33-023939 CA-RIV-011760 Other - CRM Tech 2818-1 Site Historic AH06 2014 (Michael Hogan, CRM TECH) RI-09229 P-33-024798 Other - STR1202-I-1 Other Prehistoric AP16 2012 (David Brunzell and Jon Spenard, BCR Consulting)
P-33-024819 CA-RIV-012308 Other - Temp-1 Site Prehistoric AP02 2015 (David Grabski, Jennifer Kraft, Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.)
P-33-024864 Other - Wong parcel, 22940
Palomar Street
Building, RI-09499
Structure
Historic HP02; HP33 2016 (Josh Smallwood, Applied
EarthWorks, Inc.)
P-33-028131 Other - LSA-JTM1801-S-1 Other Prehistoric AP16 2018 (Riordan Goodwin, LSA Associates, Inc.)
P-33-028202 Other - Oak Circle Road BRM Site Prehistoric AP04 2011 (REBECCA S ORFILA, RSO

CONSULTING)
P-33-028890 Other - Reburied Artifacts Other Prehistoric AP02 2019 (Patrick Maxon, VCS Enviornmental)

Page 5 of 5 ends

1400

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR
Appendices
May 2024
Appendix 5.13-1 Noise Monitoring and Modeling
1401

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR
Appendices
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
1402

NOISE MODELING SPREADSHEETS
1403
ID Leq-24hr Ldn CNEL 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Roadway Segment ADT Posted Speed Limit Grade % Autos % Med Trucks
% Heavy
Trucks
%
Daytime
% Evening % Night Number
of Lanes
Site
Condition
Distance to
Reciever
1 78.4 81.3 81.9 771 2437 7705 I-15 (Back) City Limit to Bundy Canyon Road 113000 60 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 3 Hard 50 2 78.2 81.1 81.7 736 2329 7364 I-15 (Ahead) Baxter Road to Bundy Canyon Road 108000 60 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 3 Hard 50 3 78.5 81.4 82.1 805 2544 8046 I-15 (Back) Bundy Canyon Road to Baxter Road 118000 60 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 3 Hard 50 4 78.4 81.3 81.9 771 2437 7705 I-15 (Ahead) Clinton Keith Road to Baxter Road 113000 60 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 3 Hard 50 5 78.6 81.5 82.1 811 2566 8115 I-15 (Back) Baxter Road to Clinton Keith Road 119000 60 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 3 Hard 50 6 78.5 81.4 82.1 805 2544 8046 I-15 (Ahead) Clinton Keith Road to City Limit 118000 60 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 3 Hard 50 7 64.8 67.7 68.3 34 108 341 Bundy Canyon Road Mission Trail to Orange Street 10,685 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 8 67.8 70.7 71.4 68 216 684 Bundy Canyon Road Orange Street to I-15 SB Ramps 21,443 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 9 67.8 70.7 71.3 68 215 681 Bundy Canyon Road I-15 SB Ramps to I-15 NB Ramps 21,367 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 10 67.3 70.2 70.9 61 193 609 Bundy Canyon Road I-15 NB Ramps to Monte Vista Road 19,099 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 11 67.1 70.0 70.6 58 183 579 Bundy Canyon Road Monte Vista Road to The Farm Road 18,152 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 12 66.3 69.1 69.8 47 150 474 Bundy Canyon Road The Farm Road to City Limit 14,869 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 13 64.2 67.1 67.7 29 93 293 Clinton Keith Road Grand Avenue to Palomar Street 17,051 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 14 66.3 69.2 69.9 48 153 484 Clinton Keith Road Palomar Street to Hidden Springs Road 28,119 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 15 67.6 70.5 71.1 64 203 643 Clinton Keith Road Hidden Springs Road to I-15 SB Ramps 37,356 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 16 67.4 70.3 71.0 62 197 624 Clinton Keith Road I-15 SB Ramps to I-15 NB Ramps 36,262 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 17 66.9 69.7 70.4 54 172 545 Clinton Keith Road I-15 NB Ramps to Wildomar Trail 31,650 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 18 66.6 69.5 70.1 51 162 513 Clinton Keith Road Wildomar Trail to Inland Valley Drive 29,793 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 19 65.6 68.4 69.1 40 128 403 Clinton Keith Road Inland Valley Drive to City Limit 23,439 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 20 63.2 66.1 66.7 24 75 236 Corydon Road Grand Avenue to Palomar Street 13,791 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 21 63.8 66.6 67.3 27 84 267 Corydon Road Palomar Street to Mission Trail 15,565 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 22 50.2 53.1 53.7 4 9 19 Cottonwood Canyon Road City Limit to Bundy Canyon Road 694 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Soft 50 23 64.7 67.6 68.2 33 105 331 Grand Avenue Corydon Road to Sheila Lane 10,378 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 24 64.8 67.7 68.3 34 107 339 Grand Avenue Sheila Lane to Gruwell Street 10,635 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 25 64.8 67.7 68.3 34 107 337 Grand Avenue Gruwell Street to Wildomar Trail 10,572 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 26 62.4 65.3 65.9 20 62 195 Grand Avenue Wildomar Trail to McVicar Street 6,123 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 27 61.6 64.4 65.1 16 51 161 Grand Avenue McVicar Street to Clinton Keith Rd 5,047 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 28 52.6 55.5 56.1 2 6 20 Gruwell Street Grand Avenue to Palomar Street 2,584 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 29 62.1 65.0 65.6 18 58 183 Hidden Springs Road Clinton Keith Rd to South of Clinton Keith Rd 10,574 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 3 Hard 50 30 65.2 68.1 68.7 37 119 375 Inland Valley Drive Clinton Keith Road to Preilipp Road 11,756 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 31 55.4 58.3 59.0 4 12 39 La Estrella Street Wildomar Trail to Salida Del Sol 1,227 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 32 57.0 59.9 60.5 6 18 56 Lemon Street Mission Trail to I-15 3,276 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 33 57.4 60.3 60.9 6 20 62 Lemon Street I-15 to Lost Road 3,613 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 34 58.4 61.3 62.0 8 25 78 McVicar Street Grand Avenue to Palomar Street 2,458 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 35 68.8 71.7 72.3 85 270 854 Mission Trail City Limit to Lemon Street 20,363 50 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 36 69.0 71.9 72.6 90 285 902 Mission Trail Lemon Street to Corydon Road 21,501 50 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 37 67.4 70.3 71.0 62 197 623 Mission Trail Corydon Road to Bundy Canyon Road 14,848 50 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 38 64.9 67.8 68.4 35 110 349 Mission Trail Bundy Canyon Road to Palomar Street 8,322 50 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 39 58.6 61.5 62.1 8 26 81 Monte Vista Drive Bundy Canyon Road to Wildomar Trail 2,533 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 40 54.3 57.2 57.8 3 10 30 Palomar Street Corydon Road to Mission Trail 3,796 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 41 57.9 60.8 61.4 7 22 70 Palomar Street Mission Trail to Orange Street/Gruwell Street 8,808 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 42 59.3 62.2 62.8 10 30 95 Palomar Street Orange Street/Gruwell Street to Wildomar Trail 12,020 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 43 57.6 60.5 61.2 7 21 65 Palomar Street Wildomar Trail to McVicar Street 8,254 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 44 58.3 61.2 61.8 8 24 76 Palomar Street McVicar Street to Clinton Keith Rd 9,625 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 45 59.1 62.0 62.6 9 29 92 Palomar Street Clinton Keith Rd to Washington Ave 11,571 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 46 61.6 64.5 65.1 16 51 163 Prielipp Road Inland Valley Drive to City Limit 6,859 40 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 47 52.5 55.4 56.0 2 6 20 Salida Del Sol La Estrella Street to Clinton Keith Road 845 40 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 48 58.3 61.2 61.9 8 24 77 Wildomar Trail Grand Avenue to Palomar Street 9,627 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 49 60.0 62.9 63.6 11 36 113 Wildomar Trail Palomar Street to I-15 SB Ramps 14,229 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 50 59.0 61.8 62.5 9 28 88 Wildomar Trail I-15 SB Ramps to I-15 NB Ramps 11,099 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 51 54.0 56.9 57.5 3 9 28 Wildomar Trail I-15 NB Ramps to Monte Vista Drive 3,559 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 52 53.4 56.3 56.9 2 8 24 Wildomar Trail Wildomar Trail to La Estrella Street 3,065 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 53 54.5 57.4 58.0 3 10 32 Wildomar Trail La Estrella Street to Clinton Keith Road 4,001 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 Traffic Noise Calculator: FHWA 77-108 Project Title: WILD-02.0 Existing dBA at 50 feet Distance to CNEL Contour
Output Inputs
1404
ID Leq-24hr Ldn CNEL 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Roadway Segment ADT Posted Speed Limit Grade % Autos % Med Trucks
% Heavy
Trucks
%
Daytime
% Evening % Night Number
of Lanes
Site
Condition
Distance to
Reciever
1 78.4 81.3 81.9 771 2437 7705 I-15 (Back) City Limit to Bundy Canyon Road 113000 60 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 3 Hard 50 2 78.2 81.1 81.7 736 2329 7364 I-15 (Ahead) Baxter Road to Bundy Canyon Road 108000 60 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 3 Hard 50 3 78.5 81.4 82.1 805 2544 8046 I-15 (Back) Bundy Canyon Road to Baxter Road 118000 60 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 3 Hard 50 4 78.4 81.3 81.9 771 2437 7705 I-15 (Ahead) Clinton Keith Road to Baxter Road 113000 60 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 3 Hard 50 5 78.6 81.5 82.1 811 2566 8115 I-15 (Back) Baxter Road to Clinton Keith Road 119000 60 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 3 Hard 50 6 78.5 81.4 82.1 805 2544 8046 I-15 (Ahead) Clinton Keith Road to City Limit 118000 60 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 3 Hard 50 7 65.4 68.2 68.9 39 122 386 Bundy Canyon Road Mission Trail to Orange Street 12,100 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 8 69.2 72.1 72.7 93 293 928 Bundy Canyon Road Orange Street to I-15 SB Ramps 29,100 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 9 69.6 72.5 73.1 103 325 1027 Bundy Canyon Road I-15 SB Ramps to I-15 NB Ramps 32,200 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 10 69.7 72.6 73.2 105 331 1046 Bundy Canyon Road I-15 NB Ramps to Monte Vista Road 32,800 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 11 70.0 72.9 73.5 112 354 1119 Bundy Canyon Road Monte Vista Road to The Farm Road 35,100 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 12 69.4 72.2 72.9 97 307 970 Bundy Canyon Road The Farm Road to City Limit 30,400 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 13 65.9 68.8 69.4 44 138 437 Clinton Keith Road Grand Avenue to Palomar Street 25,400 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 14 67.4 70.3 71.0 62 197 623 Clinton Keith Road Palomar Street to Hidden Springs Road 36,200 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 15 68.8 71.7 72.3 85 267 845 Clinton Keith Road Hidden Springs Road to I-15 SB Ramps 49,100 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 16 68.7 71.6 72.2 83 263 833 Clinton Keith Road I-15 SB Ramps to I-15 NB Ramps 48,400 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 17 68.8 71.7 72.3 85 268 849 Clinton Keith Road I-15 NB Ramps to Wildomar Trail 49,300 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 18 68.3 71.2 71.8 76 241 761 Clinton Keith Road Wildomar Trail to Inland Valley Drive 44,200 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 19 67.4 70.3 70.9 61 194 613 Clinton Keith Road Inland Valley Drive to City Limit 35,600 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 20 64.2 67.1 67.7 29 93 295 Corydon Road Grand Avenue to Palomar Street 17,200 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 21 65.5 68.4 69.0 40 127 401 Corydon Road Palomar Street to Mission Trail 23,400 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 22 51.8 54.7 55.3 5 11 24 Cottonwood Canyon Road City Limit to Bundy Canyon Road 1,000 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Soft 50 23 65.8 68.7 69.3 43 135 427 Grand Avenue Corydon Road to Sheila Lane 13,400 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 24 65.5 68.4 69.0 40 125 395 Grand Avenue Sheila Lane to Gruwell Street 12,400 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 25 65.8 68.7 69.3 43 135 427 Grand Avenue Gruwell Street to Wildomar Trail 13,400 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 26 65.1 67.9 68.6 36 114 360 Grand Avenue Wildomar Trail to McVicar Street 11,300 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 27 61.7 64.6 65.2 17 52 166 Grand Avenue McVicar Street to Clinton Keith Rd 5,200 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 28 53.4 56.3 56.9 2 8 25 Gruwell Street Grand Avenue to Palomar Street 3,100 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 29 60.0 62.9 63.5 11 36 113 Hidden Springs Road Clinton Keith Rd to South of Clinton Keith Rd 6,500 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 3 Hard 50 30 66.3 69.2 69.8 48 151 478 Inland Valley Drive Clinton Keith Road to Preilipp Road 15,000 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 31 61.2 64.1 64.7 15 47 147 La Estrella Street Wildomar Trail to Salida Del Sol 4,600 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 32 58.8 61.6 62.3 8 27 84 Lemon Street Mission Trail to I-15 4,900 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 33 60.6 63.5 64.1 13 41 129 Lemon Street I-15 to Lost Road 7,500 35 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 34 62.7 65.5 66.2 21 66 207 McVicar Street Grand Avenue to Palomar Street 6,500 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 35 69.8 72.7 73.3 107 337 1066 Mission Trail City Limit to Lemon Street 25,400 50 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 36 69.4 72.3 72.9 99 312 986 Mission Trail Lemon Street to Corydon Road 23,500 50 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 37 69.1 72.0 72.6 92 291 919 Mission Trail Corydon Road to Bundy Canyon Road 21,900 50 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 38 67.1 70.0 70.6 58 183 579 Mission Trail Bundy Canyon Road to Palomar Street 13,800 50 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 39 60.9 63.8 64.4 14 43 137 Monte Vista Drive Bundy Canyon Road to Wildomar Trail 4,300 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 40 58.5 61.4 62.0 8 25 80 Palomar Street Corydon Road to Mission Trail 10,100 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 41 59.8 62.6 63.3 11 34 106 Palomar Street Mission Trail to Orange Street/Gruwell Street 13,400 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 42 60.6 63.5 64.1 13 41 128 Palomar Street Orange Street/Gruwell Street to Wildomar Trail 16,200 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 43 60.1 63.0 63.6 12 37 116 Palomar Street Wildomar Trail to McVicar Street 14,600 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 44 61.2 64.1 64.7 15 47 147 Palomar Street McVicar Street to Clinton Keith Rd 18,600 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 45 61.2 64.1 64.8 15 47 150 Palomar Street Clinton Keith Rd to Washington Ave 18,900 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 46 62.5 65.4 66.1 20 64 202 Prielipp Road Inland Valley Drive to City Limit 8,500 40 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 47 60.3 63.2 63.8 12 38 121 Salida Del Sol La Estrella Street to Clinton Keith Road 5,100 40 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 1 Hard 50 48 58.5 61.3 62.0 8 25 79 Wildomar Trail Grand Avenue to Palomar Street 9,900 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 49 62.6 65.4 66.1 20 64 202 Wildomar Trail Palomar Street to I-15 SB Ramps 25,400 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 50 61.0 63.9 64.5 14 45 143 Wildomar Trail I-15 SB Ramps to I-15 NB Ramps 17,900 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 51 57.7 60.6 61.3 7 21 67 Wildomar Trail I-15 NB Ramps to Monte Vista Drive 8,400 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 52 57.8 60.7 61.4 7 22 68 Wildomar Trail Wildomar Trail to La Estrella Street 8,600 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 53 59.0 61.9 62.6 9 28 90 Wildomar Trail La Estrella Street to Clinton Keith Road 11,300 25 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 2 Hard 50 dBA at 50 feet Distance to CNEL Contour
Traffic Noise Calculator: FHWA 77-108 Project Title: WILD-02.0 Future Output Inputs
1405

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR
Appendices
May 2024
Appendix 5.15-1 Service Provider Questionnaires
1406

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR
Appendices
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
1407

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
Wildomar Fire Department Questionnaire

Page 1 of 4 ends

3. Per the WFD website, the City of Wildomar is served by one fire station, as shown below.

Please provide current information (equipment and staffing) for the existing fire station.

Please add any additional fire stations that would serve the City.

Station Location/Address Equipment Daily Staffing
Wildomar
Fire Station
61 32637 Gruwell Street

1. Please list any joint/mutual aid agreements Wildomar Fire Department (WFD) has for the City.
• CAL FIRE / Riverside County Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement • City of Murrieta auto aid agreement
• California Fire and Rescue Mutual aid agreement
• CAL FIRE Wildland Fire Protection Agreement

2. In addition to automatic/mutual aid agreements, does WFD have any contracts with other agencies to provide suppression services for the City? • CAL FIRE / Riverside County Cooperative Fire Protection Contact • CAL FIRE Wildland Fire Protection
Agreement
Fire Engine 61,
Medic Squad 61 5
Menifee #68 26020 Wickard Rd. Menifee Engine 68 3
Bear Creek #75 38900 Clinton Keith Rd. Murrieta Engine 75 3 Canyon Hills #94 22770 Railroad Cyn. Rd. Lake Elsinore Engine 94 3 Rancho Californa #73 27415 Enterprise Cir. Temecula Engine 73/ Truck 73 7

4. Please provide the total number of employees at WFD (staff and firefighters). 13 Firefighters and 1 Fire marshal = 14
Contract includes daily chief officer coverage of a Battalion Chief , Division Chief, and Duty Chief.

5. Does the department have a metric for guiding increases in staff? (i.e., XX personnel per 1,000 population) What is WFD’s staffing ratio goal?
Increases in services are determined using NFPA 1710 and Fire Department standards:

1. Station response time for areas of population: 1000 per Sq. mile = 4 minutes, 500-1000 per Sq. mile = 6 minutes, 100-500 per Sq. Mile = 8 minutes, less than 100 persons per Sq. mile = 15 minutes.

2. Over 3066 calls for service on a single apparatus additional apparatus and staffing is required

3. In first due response zones with tactical hazards, high-hazard occupancies, or dense urban areas additional staffing maybe required..

City of Murrieta fire stations #2 & #5
1408

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
Wildomar Fire Department Questionnaire

Page 2 of 4 ends

6. What is WFD’s performance goal for responding to emergency and nonemergency calls within the service area (i.e., minutes to reach the call location)?

1. The Department will use the Fractile Analysis Methodology to report performance outcomes based on Response Time. The Riverside County Fire Department will establish a goal of arriving within the established Response Time objective 90% of the time.

7. What is the current average response time (in minutes) for emergency and nonemergency calls?
• 2023 Year to date January to September:
o 5.4 Minutes to all calls for service.
o 5.1 minutes to emergency calls for service

8. What is the standard estimate for determining the number of fire emergency calls generated by new residential and nonresidential development (e.g., calls per residential unit/square foot or nonresidential development)?
• Station response time objectives for areas of population:
o Urban:1000 per Sq. mile = 4 minutes,
o Suburban =500-1000 per Sq. mile = 6 minutes,
o Rural 100-500 per Sq. Mile = 8 minutes,
o Outlying less than 100 persons per Sq. mile = 15 minutes. • Over 3066 calls for service on a single apparatus.
• In first due response zones with tactical hazards, high-hazard occupancies, or dense urban areas additional staffing maybe required.

9. Are the existing resources (personnel, equipment) adequate to serve the City under current conditions?
• A comprehensive study of service area coverage and current population density is needed to determine service gaps.
• Current response time metric shows the city is at the cusp of its response time standard and will require additional improvements with future growth. • Current covered apparatus meet calls for service standard. • The 3-5 year goal of Fire department is to acquire land for two future fire stations.

This will require an increase in apparatus and staffing levels. • Northeast area of the city will require cost mitigation agreement at Menifee fire station #68 to offset impacts of future development.
• The Fire Department is in process of transition a 56 hour work week. This will require an increase in staffing of one Fire Apparatus Engineer and one Firefighter II. 1409

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
Wildomar Fire Department Questionnaire

Page 3 of 4 ends

10. The 2021 Development Impact Fee Report noted that RCFD has identified a need for another fire station north of the Interstate 15 freeway in Wildomar. Does WFD have any current plans to construct additional facilities in this area or any other location in Wildomar? If so, when is construction expected to start?

11. Please confirm or edit the development impact fees to fund new fire protection facilities. • Single-Family Residential: $496 per dwelling unit
• Multi-Family Residential: $344 per dwelling unit
• Commercial/Retail: $339 per 1,000 square feet of building space • Office: $300 per 1,000 square feet of building space
• Light Industrial/Business Park: $120 per 1,000 square feet of building space

12. In addition to development impact fees, where else does WFD receive funds for its fire protection and emergency services?
The city requires two fire stations to provide appropriate service levels. The locations of future fire stations has not been determined. Additional development in the northeast may require additional apparatus and staffing at existing City of Menifee fire station #68. • General Fund
• Local Tax Measure AA
Listed prices are rounded up to the full dollar amount
1410

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
Wildomar Fire Department Questionnaire

Page 4 of 4 ends

13. Please summarize any additional resources (facilities, equipment, personnel) needed to serve future development under the Proposed General Plan buildout scenario of an additional 8,992 dwelling units, 27,999 residents, 2,965,538 non-residential square feet, and 6,724 jobs as shown in Table 1, Proposed General Plan Buildout, of the NOP.

14. Please provide any additional comments you may have regarding the proposed project.

Response Prepared By:

Name Title
Agency Date
• Two fire stations to provide appropriate response time service levels. • Two fire engines and two medic squads.
• A study is needed to determine fire ladder truck coverage needs. • Include updated high fire area hazard maps as a part of general plan update. 1411

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
Wildomar Police Department Questionnaire

Page 1 of 4 ends

1. Please list any joint/mutual aid agreements Wildomar Police Department (WPD) has for the City.

2. In addition to automatic/mutual aid agreements, does WPD have any contracts with other agencies to provide services for the City?

3. Per the WPD’s website, local policing is directed from one station, as shown below. Please provide current information (equipment and staffing) for the existing station. Please add any additional stations that would serve the City.

Station Location/Address Equipment Daily Staffing
Lake Elsinore
Sherriff’s
station
333 Limited Avenue, Lake Elsinore

4. How many non-sworn staff does WPD have?

5. Does the department have a metric that guides increases in staff? (i.e., XX officers per 1,000 population)?
The city of Wildomar contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for police services. 1- BMW motorcyle 5 Patrol- 1 motor officer
that works 40 hrs/week
2 Special Enforcment
Team officers
work/40hrs/week
1 Community service officer
No. The city of Wildomar adjusts staffing based on recommendations from the Riverside Sheriff's Office.

The Riverside County Sheriff's Office has active mutual aid agreements with neighboring agencies
Riverside Sheriff's Office
1412

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
Wildomar Police Department Questionnaire

Page 2 of 4 ends

6. What is WPD’s performance standard for responding to emergency and nonemergency calls within the service area (i.e., minutes to reach the call location)?

7. What is the current average response time (in minutes) for emergency and nonemergency calls?

8. What is the standard estimate for determining the number of emergency calls generated by new residential and nonresidential development (e.g., calls per residential unit/square foot or nonresidential development)?

9. Are the existing resources (personnel, equipment) adequate to serve the City under current conditions?

7.9 min priority 1 calls (highest priority)

24.48 min priority 2 calls

45.07 min priority 3 calls

43.93 min priority 4 calls (lowest priority)
Yes
There are not set department goals; however, administration monitors average response times and ensures deputies are responding as efficiently as possible.

NA
1413

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
Wildomar Police Department Questionnaire

Page 3 of 4 ends

10. The 2021 Development Impact Fee Report noted that although the City expects that the existing Lake Elsinore station to continue serving Wildomar, the City will need additional space for law enforcement as the City continues to grow. Does WPD have any current plans to construct additional facilities? If so, where would this new facility be located and when is construction expected to start?

11. Please confirm or edit the development impact fees to fund new police protection facilities. • Single-Family Residential: $272 per dwelling unit
• Multi-Family Residential: $189 per dwelling unit
• Commercial/Retail: $183 per 1,000 square feet of building space • Office: $162 per 1,000 square feet of building space
• Industrial/Business Park: $65 per 1,000 square feet of building space

12. In addition to development impact fees, where else does WFD receive funds for its police protection facilities?
The sheriff's department does not have any plans to construct new facilities.

The sheriff's office does not have this information.

NA
1414

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
Wildomar Police Department Questionnaire

Page 4 of 4 ends

13. Please summarize any additional resources (facilities, equipment, personnel) needed to serve future development under the Proposed General Plan Update buildout scenario of an additional 8,992 dwelling units, 27,999 residents, 2,965,538 non-residential square feet, and 6,724 jobs by 2040 as shown in Table 1, Proposed General Plan Buildout, of the NOP.

14. Please provide any additional comments you may have regarding the proposed project.

Response Prepared By:

Name Title
Agency Date
This increase would nearly double current needs.

David Clark Lieutenant
Riverside Sheriff's Office 10/10/2023
1415

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
Lake Elsinore Unified School District Questionnaire

Page 1 of 3 ends

1. Please confirm or update the following information obtained from the California Department of Education and District’s websites:

LEUSD schools serving the City of Wildomar:

LEUSD Schools Serving Residents from the City of Wildomar School Name/Location 2022-2023 Enrollment School Capacity Elementary Schools
Donald Graham Elementary
35450 Frederick Street
442
Ronald Reagan Elementary
35445 Porras Road
532
Wildomar Elementary
21575 Palomar Road
577
William Collier Elementary
20150 Mayhall Drive
707
Middle Schools
David A. Brown Middle
21861 Grand Avenue
990
High Schools
Elsinore High
21800 Canyon Drive
2,122
Alternative Education
Valley Adult School
21330 Lemon St

2. Does the District plan to build any new schools that would serve residents of the City of Wildomar? If so, please provide grade levels, location, and capacity for each planned school.

Grades Location/Address Capacity Anticipated
Opening Year
1416

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
Lake Elsinore Unified School District Questionnaire

Page 2 of 3 ends

3. Are there any existing shortages in the amount of classroom, athletic, recreational or other facilities available to serve the current number of students? If shortages exist, what is the basis for determining those shortages?

4. Please confirm or update the following developer impact fees for residential, commercial, and industrial development, as listed on the District’s website. a. Residential: $4.79 per square foot
b. Retail and Services: $0.78 per square foot
c. Office: $0.78 per square foot
d. Research and Development: $0.78 per square foot
e. Industrial/Warehouse/Manufacturing: $0.78 per square foot f. Hospital: $0.78 per square foot
g. Hotel/Motel $0.399 per square foot
h. Self-Storage $0.023 per square foot
i. Other development fees per square foot?

5. Please confirm or update the following generation rates specific to housing type, as listed on the Districts website.

School Levels Single Family Detached Units Multi-Family Attached Units Elementary School 0.2476 0.2222
Middle School 0.1298 0.0977
High School 0.1827 0.1228
Total 0.5601 0.4427
1417

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
Lake Elsinore Unified School District Questionnaire

Page 3 of 3 ends

6. How would the proposed project, which includes land use designation changes that would accommodate a buildout of an additional 8,992 dwelling units, 27,999 residents, 2,965,538 non-residential square feet, and 6,724 jobs, as shown in Table 1, Proposed General Plan Buildout, of the NOP, affect the existing LEUSD school services and facilities?

7. Please provide any additional comments you may have regarding the proposed project.

Response Prepared By:

Name Title
Agency Date
1418

1. Please confirm or update:

The Wildomar Branch Library at 34303 Mission Trail would serve the City.

The Wildomar Library serves and will continue to serve the community of Wildomar as a community center and service area for educational, recreational, and social services.

2. What resources and special services are provided at this location (collection size, computers, etc.)?
Collection of approximately 20,000 in house (circulation of 58,802 last 12 months), with cooperating association with other libraries for free material access plus the ability to acquire for loan additional materials nation wide with an interlibrary loan program. Reference services and public information referral to local resources, early learning pre literacy programs in English and Spanish and specialized computers (2); school age literacy, science technology engineering, art and math (STEAM); teen after school programs; adult learning programs; computer services inhouse (7) and Chromebooks (2) and hotspots (2) for checkout; digital services such as online tutoring, veteran resources, learning programs, eaudio/ebook/downloadable movies, black history resources, in-home schooling, writing and publication, education designed for older adults, career finding and job assistance live help provided digitally; classical arts performances, newspapers magazines and encyclopedias in English and Spanish in most cases available free from standard internet capable devices; printing services from inhouse computers and customer mobile devices; recreation services in programing and CA state park day passes, reading program for all ages, outreach to schools and communities, learning and recreational print, audio and audio/visual (DVD/Blu-Ray)l; personal assistance with a wide range of digital resources; Mental health resources kits for dementia sufferers; community room (cap. 67) available for free use to non-profits and minimal fee for others. a. Are the existing library space and number of books/resources considered adequate for the existing population within the library’s service area? The short answer is current facilities are workable but strained, therefore not adequate. The American Library Association no longer provides guidelines in this area. Comparison to the Temecula facility results in an approximate 1 item per capita. In that regard, the Wildomar collection would be compared at 36,880 items, an additional 17,000 items, or almost twice the current collection. These numbers do not consider digital offerings accessible through use of the Wildomar Library account.
b. If not, what are the estimated deficits of:
i. Building area in square feet? Additional 5,000 sf.(currently 5578 sf) ii. Volumes or collection size? 17,000 items.
iii. Other resources (computers, etc.)? Internet capable computers additional 4, AWE stations children’s computers (non-internet) additional 2, printing station additional 1. Study rooms (none currently), parent/children social area, teen social area, larger program room, 1419
Friends Bookstore/work area, staff workroom (currently shared with friends); storage space for seasonal items and programming supplies.

3. What is the source of the library’s funding?
City and County funds from property taxes; grants; additional city funding; community fundraising.

4. What demand factors or standards are used to determine the amount of library space and number of volumes, or collection size, needed to serve a given population? The American Library Association no longer sets standards for these concerns. The primary factor is funding. This is matched with community need for service functions. Comparisons with other facilities in similar communities can provide guidance on equipment and future projections for technology needs.

5. What demands would you estimate the proposed project would create based on the Proposed General Plan buildout scenario of an additional 8,992 dwelling units, 27,999 residents, 2,965,538 non-residential square feet, and 6,724 jobs as shown in Table 1, Proposed General Plan Buildout, of the NOP.
a. For library facilities in square feet?
Building size of 20k sf (additional 14,432 sf over our current 5578 sf) b. For collection items?
Additional 45,000 items (from current 19,845)
c. For additional library staff?
Additional 16 people (total of 374 hours weekly) of which 3 are full time (40 hrs/week). d. Other?
Additional 23 internet capable computers; 2 additional AWE stations (children’s computers non-internet); 1 additional printing station; study rooms (none currently); parent/children social area; teen social area; larger program room; Friends Bookstore/work area; staff workroom (currently shared with friends); storage space for seasonal items and programming supplies; makerspace.

6. Are there any plans for future library expansion or new libraries that would serve the proposed project? If so, when would construction begin and how would these facilities be funded?
Not at this moment.

7. What measures, if any, would you recommend to reduce project impacts to library facilities and/or collections?
The largest project impact to the library facility will be the increase in the population by an additional 76%. We have already expanded our digital solutions to accommodate the current 1420
population. What remains is the space for those who prefer personal contact, book browsing, and a need for live support (such as assistance with technology). Recommendations include:

A. Temporarily: add a second location in an existing facility such as a storefront or office space.

B. Permanently: build a centralized, technologically updated building with sufficient room for activities and programs that can accommodate the increased population.

8. Please add any other comments you may wish to make regarding this project.

We are pleased to be a part of your expansion and are flattered that you are asking us for comments on the impact of your deserved growth. Working directly with our patrons, we find this community to be both technologically comfortable and desiring social contacts consistent with your goals of keeping a small town atmosphere.

Response Prepared By:

Sandra Brautigam and Kim Pike Librarian and Branch Manager Name Title
Riverside County Library System October 16, 2023
Agency Date
1421

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR
Appendices
May 2024
Appendix 5.17-1 Transportation Impact Study
1422

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR
Appendices
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
1423
Prepared For
Prepared By
23873 Clinton Keith Road
Suite 201
Wildomar, CA 92595
CR Associates
3900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92103

WILDOMAR GPU
Transportation Impact Study
January 2024
1424
City of Wildomar General Plan Update
Transportation Impact Study Page ii
Table of Contents

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

1.1 Purpose of the Report ................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Study Scenarios.............................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Report Organization ....................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Alternatives Description ............................................................................................................. 4

3.0 Analysis and Methodology Thresholds ....................................................................................... 9

3.1 Determination of VMT Significant Impacts ................................................................................. 9

4.0 Impact Analysis – Proposed Project ........................................................................................ 10

4.1 VMT Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................... 10

4.2 Mitigation Recommendations .................................................................................................... 10

4.3 Additional Transportation-related CEQA Considerations ........................................................ 11

5.0 Alternatives Analysis ................................................................................................................ 12

5.1 No Project Alternative (Adopted General Plan) ........................................................................ 12

6.0 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 13 List of Tables
Table 4.1 - Wildomar Base Year VMT Efficiency Metrics for Transportation Impact Analysis ........... 10 Table 4.2 - Wildomar Proposed Project VMT Efficiency Metrics for Transportation Impact Analysis 10 Table 5.1 - Wildomar No Project VMT Efficiency Metrics for Transportation Impact Analysis ........... 12 Table 6.1 - Summary of Wildomar VMT Efficiency Metrics for Transportation Impact Analysis for All Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 13 List of Figures
Figure 1.1 – Project Regional Location................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2.1 – Existing Conditions Network ............................................................................................. 5 Figure 2.2 – Adopted Roadway Network .............................................................................................. 6 Figure 2.3 – Preferred Roadway Network............................................................................................. 7 Figure 2.4 – Preferred Bicycle Network ................................................................................................ 8 Appendices
Appendix A Base Year and Proposed Project VMT Results
Appendix B VMT Reduction Measures
Appendix C Project Alternatives VMT Results
1425
City of Wildomar General Plan Update
Transportation Impact Study Page 1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Report
This Transportation Impact Study (TIS) serves to identify and document potential transportation impacts related to the City of Wildomar General Plan Update proposed land uses and mobility networks (Proposed Project), its alternatives, and recommend improvements/mitigation measures, as appropriate.

The City of Wildomar is nestled in the southwestern Riverside County, part of the growing Inland Empire region in Southern California. Geographically, it lies roughly between the bustling cities of Los Angeles and San Diego, approximately 60 miles north of San Diego and 75 miles southeast of Los Angeles. The city is bordered by the city of Murrieta to the south and the city of Lake Elsinore to the north. Its landscape features a mix of flat lands and mildly hilly terrains, characteristic of the broader region. Wildomar's location benefits from a close proximity to the Interstate 15 corridor, making it an accessible spot for those traveling between the major Southern California metropolitan areas.

Additionally, its position provides a blend of suburban and semi-rural atmospheres, with the Cleveland National Forest and the Santa Ana Mountains in close proximity, offering scenic views and outdoor recreational opportunities.

Figure 1.1 displays the City of Wildomar location in the Riverside County Region.

The analysis herein is based on the revised (January 2023) State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of Wildomar’s adopted Resolution No. 2020-40, VMT CEQA Threshold Policy Guidelines (Wildomar VMT Guidelines) adopted on June 10, 2020.

1.2 Study Scenarios
Three (3) study scenarios were evaluated, including base year (2018) and two (2) future year alternatives, as follows:
 Base Year (2018/2019) – establishes the baseline VMT within the project study area. The Riverside County Transportation Model (RIVCOM) Base Year (2018) was utilized as a startingpoint and validated for the City of Wildomar.  No Project (Adopted General Plan) – represents buildout of the City of Wildomar’s currently Adopted General Plan Land Use and Mobility Elements.
 Preferred Plan (Proposed Project) – represents buildout of the Proposed Project’s land uses and mobility network, which were developed in collaboration with community members, City staff, and the project consultant team.

All study scenarios were modeled using the validated RIVCOM model. This model was developed by Caltrans District 8 in coordination with Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) in 2010. As part of this General Plan Update effort, the project team developed a Wildomar-focused subarea model by updating the RIVCOM with relevant Wildomar information, including roadway network and socioeconomic data for the various alternatives listed above. 1426
Riverside
Menifee
Perris
Murrieta
Temecula
Moreno Valley
Lake Elsinore

W I L D O M A R
Corona
Hemet
Norco
San Jacinto
Beaumont
Canyon
Lake
Figure 1.1
City of Wildomar within the Region
0 §¨¦15
§¨¦15
·}60
§¨¦215
·}91
San Diego County
Riverside County
²
0 2 4 Miles
Wildomar General Plan Update
Transportation Impact Study
1427
City of Wildomar General Plan Update
Transportation Impact Study Page 3

1.3 Report Organization
The remainder of this report is organized into the following chapters:

2.0 Alternative Description – This chapter summarizes land use assumptions for Base Year (2018/2019) and future year alternatives including the Adopted General Plan (No Project), and the Preferred Plan (Proposed Project).

3.0 Analysis Methodology – This chapter describes the methodologies and thresholds utilized to evaluate potential VMT impacts for each of the future alternatives. Note that as of July 1, 2020, VMT is the metric (rather than Level of Service) for CEQA transportation-related impact evaluation.

4.0 Project Impacts – This chapter discusses the VMT analysis and identifies potential transportation impacts of the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures to reduce the identified VMT impacts, as necessary, are also discussed.

5.0 Preferred Plan Analysis – This chapter discusses the VMT analysis and potential transportation impacts of the Preferred Plan.

6.0 Summary – This chapter provides a summary of the VMT analysis for the two analyzed alternatives.
1428
City of Wildomar General Plan Update
Transportation Impact Study Page 4

2.0 Alternatives Description
This section provides a summary of each of the modeled alternatives, land use information was obtained and developed in coordination with Placeworks and is consistent with the approach documented in the General Plan Land Use Buildout Methodology memorandum (Placeworks, July 26, 2023) also referred to as the “Buildout Methodology” memorandum. As mentioned earlier, a total of three (3) alternatives were evaluated, the Existing or baseline scenario, No Project or Currently Adopted Scenario, and Proposed Project or Preferred Plan scenario. Detailed descriptions of each of the alternatives are provided below.

Existing Conditions (Baseline)
The Riverside County Transportation Model (RIVCOM) Base Year (2018) was utilized as a startingpoint and updated to reflect the baseline assumptions documented in the Buildout Methodology memorandum. Per the Buildout Methodology memorandum, the SCAG's 2019 Annual Land Use (ALU v.2019.2) Dataset, updated in February 2021, was used to establish on-the-ground uses. Nonresidential building square footage was derived from GIS measurements of Riverside County building footprint data and spot-checked for accuracy. Roadway networks were updated to reflect the existing conditions. Figure 2.1 displays the base year roadway network.

No Project (Adopted General Plan)
The No Project scenario began with the RIVCOM Year 2045 model, which incorporated land use data from SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan Sustainable Community Strategies (SCAG RTP/SCS). For the year 2045, the SCAG RTP/SCS land uses were revised according to the Buildout Methodology memorandum. This involved replacing certain SCAG RTP/SCS land use assumptions with specific project land uses, including those from the unbuilt Pipeline list and the Housing Element Sites inventory, wherever relevant. To maintain consistency with the RTP/SCS, land uses in areas not impacted by the project were kept unchanged (as assumed by the RTP/SCS). The roadway network was updated to reflect the currently adopted Mobility Element and is shown in Figure 2.2.

Preferred Plan (Proposed Project)
Consistent with the approach documented in the Buildout Methodology memorandum, the Preferred Plan or Proposed Project scenario starts with the No Project scenario as the baseline and was updated to reflect realistic growth. This growth was focused in nine (9) specific areas that were developed based on a community engagement process and in consultation with City staff. These nine Focus Areas were identified as locations where growth is likely to occur during the planning period, based on factors such as vacancy, development suitability and economic development potential. Proposed land uses in these areas informed by economic analysis of projected market demand during the planning period, result in a “realistic” growth scenario. Similar to the No Project scenario, land uses outside of the nine focused areas were kept unchanged.

The Preferred Plan (Proposed Project) also proposed selective improvements to the Mobility Element network. The improvements build upon the Mobility Element network that was adopted in 2021, with additional connections/modifications to support the land use changes in the nine focused areas.

Wildomar’s transition from low density to higher density land use patterns under the Proposed Project would require equally supportive mobility infrastructure, public improvements, and policies focused on better serving pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users, in addition to motorists.

Therefore, to supplement these land use changes, the Proposed Project also includes transportation network and policy improvements to address existing and forecasted mobility needs and deficiencies. The proposed roadway and bicycle networks are included in Figures 2.3 and 2.4, and more detailed infrastructure, policy, and program recommendations can be found in the Mobility Element section of the General Plan Update.
1429
6-Ln 2-Ln
4-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
4-Ln
6-Ln
2-Ln
4-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
4-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
4-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
4-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
6-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
4-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
4-Ln
2-Ln
4-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
6-Ln
4-Ln
Figure 2.1
Existing Functional Classifications
Scott Rd
Murrieta Rd
Lakeshore Dr
Corydon Rd
Grand Ave
Clinton Keith Rd
Mission Trl
Palomar St
Washington Ave
Jefferson Ave
Jackson Ave
Nutmeg St
Hancock Ave
Prielipp Rd
Cali of rnia
§¨¦15
§¨¦215
² Lake
Elsinore
City of
Lake Elsinore
City of
Menifee
City of
Murrieta
Oaks Rd
0 0.5 1 Miles
Bundy Canyon R
Lemon St d Orange St
Palomar St
Monte Vista Rd
Lost Rd
Hills Rd
Canyon
Cottonwood
Canyon Rd
Gruwell St
Sal di a Yamas
Dr
Inland Valley Dr
Hidden
Springs Rd
Malaga Rd
McVicar St
Del Sol
La Estre lla St
The Farm
Rd
Existing Functional Classification
Arterial
Major
Secondary
Collector
Unpaved
Sheila Ln
#-Ln Number of Travel Lanes
Source: City of Wildomar (2019)
Wildomar Trail
Wildomar Trail
Wildomar Trail
4-Ln
Wildomar General Plan Update
Transportation Impact Study
4-Ln
1430
Figure 2.2
Adopted Network
Wildomar General Plan Update
Transportation Impact Study
Figure 2.3
Proposed Roadway Classification
Wildomar Mobility Plan
Scott Rd
Murrie at Rd
Lakeshore Dr
Corydon Rd
Grand Ave
Clinton Keith Rd
Mission Trl
Palomar St
Washington Ave
Jefferson Ave
Jackson Ave
Nutmeg St
Hancock Ave
Prielipp Rd
California
§¨¦15
§¨¦215
² Lake
Elsinore
City of
Lake Elsinore
City of
Menifee
City of
Murrieta
Oaks Rd
0 0.5 1 Miles
Bundy Canyon R
Lemon St d
Orange St
Palomar St
Monte Vista Dr
Hills Rd
Canyon
Cottonwood
Canyon Rd
Gruwell St
Salida Yamas D
Hidden r
Springs Rd
Malaga Rd
McVicar St
Del Sol
La Estre lla St
The Farm
Rd
Sheila Ln
Wildomar Trail
Wildomar Trail
Wildomar Trail
Bayless Rd De p asqua
Rd le Jana Ln
Elizabeth Ln
Stable Lanes Rd
Wyman
Rd Gateway Dr
Susan Dr
Bunny
Trl
Hidden Trl
Skylark Dr
Grape St
Future
Commercial Dwy
Lost Rd
Inland Valley Dr
Proposed Roadway Classification & Median Treatment
Primary Arterial (6-Ln)
Major Arterial (4-Ln)
Minor Arterial (4-Ln)
Collector (2-Ln)
Raised
Raised or Striped or Center Left-Turn Lane
None (Left-Turn Pocket, as needed)
None (Left-Turn Pocket, as needed)
Bundy Canyon Rd
)LJXUH3ODQQHG5RDGZD\1HWZRUN&ODVVLÀFDWLRQV
1431
6-Ln
4-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
4-Ln
6-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
4-Ln
4-Ln
4-Ln
2-Ln
4-Ln
6-Ln
2-Ln
4-Ln
4-Ln
6-Ln
4-Ln
2-Ln
2-Ln
Figure 2.3
Proposed Network
Scott Rd
Murrie at Rd
Lakeshore Dr
Corydon Rd
Grand Ave
Clinton Keith Rd
Mission Trl
Palomar St
Washington Ave
Jefferson Ave
Jackson Ave
Nutmeg St
Hancock Ave
Prielipp Rd
Cali of rnia
§¨¦15
§¨¦215
² Lake
Elsinore
City of
Lake Elsinore
City of
Menifee
City of
Murrieta
Oaks Rd
0 0.5 1 Miles
Bundy Canyon Rd
Lemon St
Orange St
Palomar St
Lost Rd
Hills Rd
Canyon
Cottonwood
Canyon Rd
Gruwell St
Salid
D
a
e p asqua
Rd le
Yamas
Dr
Inland Valley Dr
Malaga Rd
McVicar St
Del Sol
La Estre lla St
Wildomar Trail
Wildomar Trail
Wildomar Trail
Monte Vista Dr
Bundy Canyon Rd
Hidd en Springs Rd Gateway
Dr
Walnut St
Como St
Catt Rd
Waite St A ml ond St
4-Ln
Sauer
Rd
Oak
Circle Dr
Sunset Ave
Olive St
Grape St
Proposed Roadway Classification & Median Treatment
Primary Arterial (6-Ln)
Major Arterial (4-Ln)
Minor Arterial (4-Ln)
Collector (2-Ln)
Raised
Raised or Striped or
Center Left-Turn Lane
None (Left-Turn
Pocket, as needed)
None (Left-Turn
Pocket, as needed)
Rural Collector (2-Ln) None
#-Ln Number of Travel Lanes
Potential Connections
Wesley St
Bryant St Wildomar General Plan Update
Transportation Impact Study
1432
Figure 2.4
Planned Bicycle Network
Scott Rd
Murrie at Rd
Lakeshore Dr
Corydon Rd
Grand Ave
Clinton Keith Rd
Mission Trl
Palomar St
Washington Ave
Jefferson Ave
Jackson Ave
Nutmeg St
Hancock Ave
Prielipp Rd
Cali of rnia
§¨¦15
§¨¦215
² Lake
Elsinore
City of
Lake Elsinore
City of
Menifee
City of
Murrieta
Oaks Rd
0 0.5 1 Miles
Bundy Canyon R
Lemon St d Orange St
Palomar St
Monte Vista Dr
Hills Rd
Canyon
Cottonwood
Canyon Rd
Gruwell St
Salid
D
a
e p asqua
Rd le
Yamas
Dr
Inland Valley Dr
Malaga Rd
McVicar St
Del Sol
La Estre lla St
Source: City of Wildomar (2020)
Wildomar Trail
Wildomar Trail
Wildomar Trail
Bayless Rd
Jana Ln
Elizabeth Ln
Wesley St
Bryant St
Bryant St
Union St
Trailwood
Ct
Fredrick St
Cervera
Rd
Catt Rd
Gierson
Ave
Navut
Ave
Charle St
s
Canyon Dr
Olive St
Grape St
Orange St
Waite St Sellers Rd
Susan Dr
Elberta
Rd
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Sunset Ave
Prairie
Rd
Future
Commercial Dwy
Existing Proposed
Class I - Multi-Use Path
Class II - Bike Lane
Class II - Buffered Bike Lane
Class III - Bike Route
Class IV - Cycle Track
#
Bike Facility in One Direction
Sedco
Bl
Note:

At the project / design-level when more information
is available, modifications to these recommended
classifications may be considered by the City.

Gafford
Rd
Bunny
Trl
Lost Rd
The Farm
Rd
Lakeview
Ter
Wildomar R
#d
#
#
#
#
Hidd en Springs Rd Gateway
Dr
Sauer
Rd
Oak
Circle Dr
Wildomar General Plan Update
Transportation Impact Study
1433
City of Wildomar General Plan Update
Transportation Impact Study Page 9

3.0 Analysis and Methodology Thresholds
This chapter describes the methodologies and thresholds utilized to evaluate potential VMT impacts for each of the future alternatives.

3.1 Determination of VMT Significant Impacts
VMT is positively correlated with growth and as the region is expected to grow, VMT is also expected to increase. However, where the growth occurs plays a significant role in determining how much VMT will increase. Growth in areas with access to high-quality transit, a complete active transportation network, and/or complementary land use mixes are projected to be more VMT efficient.

The following definitions describe how VMT is referred to, calculated, and accounted for in this programmatic CEQA impact analysis in accordance with the Wildomar VMT Guidelines:
 VMT per Service Population includes all daily vehicle-based trips associated with all land uses (residential, employment, retail, education, etc.). which are then summed for the study area (City of Wildomar) and divided by the population of the same analysis area to arrive at VMT per Service Population.

The Wildomar VMT Guidelines state that Projects that are at or below the city’s current average VMT per Service Population or below the subregion’s average VMT per Service Population be considered less than significant. Additionally, it states that the city shall endeavor to ensure that new projects are able to demonstrate a 3% reduction in VMT that currently exists.

Existing VMT was determined using RIVTAM Base Year (2018), which yielded a VMT per Service Population of 34.6 miles. Excerpts from the regional transportation model are provided in Appendix A.

For the purpose of this transportation impact study, a Plan-to-Ground analysis was conducted by comparing the Proposed Project to Base Year (2018), which is representative of the baseline conditions.
1434
City of Wildomar General Plan Update
Transportation Impact Study Page 10

4.0 Impact Analysis – Proposed Project
This chapter focuses on whether the Proposed Project would have a significant impact if the proposed land uses would in aggregate exceed the VMT per Service Population threshold shown in Table 3.1.

4.1 VMT Impact Analysis
To establish a baseline understanding, Table 4.1 displays both Riverside County and Wildomar’s VMT per Service Population for the Base Year (2018) conditions. As shown, Wildomar is 1% more efficient in VMT per Service Population compared to Riverside County.

Table 4.1 - Wildomar Base Year VMT Efficiency Metrics for Transportation Impact Analysis VMT Metric
Base Year (2018) % of Riverside County
Base Year
Riverside County Wildomar Wildomar
VMT per Service Population 34.8 34.6 99%
Source: RIVCOM, CR Associates (2023)
By 2040 with the implementation of the Proposed Project, the VMT efficiency of Wildomar substantially improves. Table 4.2 presents the Wildomar VMT per Service Population with the Proposed Project. As shown in the table below, Wildomar is projected to have a VMT per Service Population at 30.6, which is 87.9% of the Riverside County’s Base Year VMT per Service Population and 88.4% of Wildomar’s Base Year VMT per Service Population. The land uses associated with the Proposed Project would reduce the VMT per Service Population within Wildomar by more than 3%.

However, due to uncertainty regarding the actual development pattern, population growth, and other factors that are outside of the purview and control of this Project, the impact is considered to be significant, and the City would need to mitigate the Project’s VMT to the extend feasible.

Table 4.2 - Wildomar Proposed Project VMT Efficiency Metrics for Transportation Impact Analysis VMT Metric
Riverside
County - Base
Year
Wildomar –
Base Year
Wildomar -
Proposed
Project
% of
Riverside
County Base
Year
% of
Wildomar
Base Year
Significant
Impact?
VMT Per
Service
Population

34.8 34.6 30.6 87.9% 88.4% Y
Source: RIVCOM, CR Associates (2023)

4.2 Mitigation Recommendations
The City would provide the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential significant impacts:
 Mitigation Strategy 1: The City will implement the active transportation network as detailed in Section XXX of the Mobility Element. This implementation is expected to achieve a reduction of up to 6.4% (with implementation of built out sidewalk facilities) and 0.015% (with implementation of all proposed bicycle facilities) in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per service population.
 Mitigation Strategy 2: The City will establish a Transportation Demand Management Program. This program will engage with current and future key employers to decrease commute and work-related VMT. This will be achieved through various initiatives like employee shuttle bus services, vanpool programs, parking cash-out options, mobility hubs, and other related transportation demand management strategies. Depending on 1435
City of Wildomar General Plan Update
Transportation Impact Study Page 11
the various strategies, a maximum of 30 percent reduction in VMT per service population could be achieved.
 Mitigation Strategy 3: The City will continue its collaboration with the Western Riverside Council of Governments and Riverside Transit Agency to boost transit usage. This will involve enhancing transit facilities and introducing more high-frequency transit services connecting areas of high employment with residential zones.

As shown, mitigation strategies 1 and 2 would potentially reduce the Project’s VMT between 0.015% and 30%. It is not feasible to quantify the VMT reduction associated with Mitigation Strategy 3. If the City implements all of the mitigation strategies, the potential reduction would be 30% of the VMT per service population. However, due to the uncertainty regarding the timeframe of when these mitigation measures would be fully implemented, this study assumes that the Project would continue to have a significant transportation related impact under CEQA. See Appendix B for a list of VMT reduction strategies.

4.3 Additional Transportation-related CEQA Considerations In addition to VMT, the following section focuses on the transportation impact analysis carried out utilizing the 2023 CEQA standards, with the objective of addressing the three additional (other than VMT) main inquiries detailed in Section XVII, Transportation, of Appendix G in the 2023 CEQA Statute & Guidelines.

Would the project
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
The project proposes additional enhancements to the multimodal transportation network.

Consequently, it does not conflict with any existing program, plan, ordinance, or policy related to the circulation system, including transit, roadways, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Yes - See analysis in Section 4.1.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) & d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The Project includes the construction of new roadways and multi-modal facilities (bike and pedestrian). However, roadway and multi-modal recommendations are provided at the programmatic level, with no actual designs proposed. All recommended improvements will be evaluated during the design phase and will adhere to prevailing applicable standards, such as those in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD), highway capacity manual (HCM), etc., as well as any applicable environmental review. As such, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

For the same reasons as above, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
1436
City of Wildomar General Plan Update
Transportation Impact Study Page 12

5.0 Alternatives Analysis
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mandates consideration and analysis of alternatives to the Proposed Project. According to CEQA Guidelines, the range of alternatives “shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant impacts” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (d) (2)).

This chapter discusses potential VMT impacts under the No Project alternative. The No Project alternative is identical to the currently adopted General Plan. The VMT Reports for this alternative are included in Appendix C.

5.1 No Project Alternative (Adopted General Plan)
The purpose of evaluating the No Project Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the outcomes by approving the Proposed Project vs. maintaining the currently adopted Plan. The No Project Alternative represents what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Proposed Project were not adopted.

Table 5.1 presents the Wildomar average resident and employee VMT under the No Project conditions.

Table 5.1 - Wildomar No Project
VMT Efficiency Metrics for Transportation Impact Analysis VMT Metric
Riverside
County Region
- Base Year
Wildomar –
Base Year
Wildomar –
No Project
% of
Regional
Base Year
% of
Wildomar
Base Year
VMT Per
Service
Population

34.8 34.6 29.5 84.7% 85.2%
Source: RIVCOM, CR Associates (2023)
Proposed Project VMT per Service Population Impact?
As shown in the table above, Wildomar is projected to have a VMT per Service Population at 29.5, which is 84.7% of the region’s Base Year VMT per Service Population and 85.2% of Wildomar’s Base Year VMT per Service Population. The land uses associated with the No Project alternative would reduce the VMT per Service Population within Wildomar by more than 3%. However, due to uncertainty regarding the actual development pattern, population growth, and other factors that are outside of the purview and control of this Project, the impact is considered to be significant, and the City would need to mitigate the Project’s VMT to the extent feasible. 1437
City of Wildomar General Plan Update
Transportation Impact Study Page 13

6.0 Summary
Table 6.1 presents a summary of Wildomar average resident, employee VMT, and retail total VMT under all alternatives.

Table 6.1 - Summary of Wildomar
VMT Efficiency Metrics for Transportation Impact Analysis for All Alternatives VMT Metric
Riverside
County
Region -
Base Year
Wildomar
– Base
Year
Wildomar -
Proposed
Project
Wildomar
– No
Project
Below
Riverside
County Base
Year
Below
Wildomar
Base Year
Significant
Impact?
VMT Per
Service
Population

34.8 34.6 30.6 29.5 Yes (both
alternatives)
Yes (both
alternatives) Yes
Source: RIVCOM, CR Associates (2023)
This report previously mentioned that a Plan-to-Ground analysis was carried out, comparing the Proposed Project with the baseline conditions represented by the Base Year (2018). This analysis revealed that the Proposed Project's impacts on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per Service Population are less than the applicable threshold. However, due to uncertainty regarding the actual development pattern, population growth, and other factors that are outside of the purview and control of this Project, the impact is considered to be significant, and the City would need to mitigate the Project’s VMT to the extent feasible.

The Project would mitigation strategies 1, 2, and 3 and would potentially reduce the Project’s VMT between 0.015% and 30%. If the City implements all of the mitigation strategies, the potential reduction would be 30% of the VMT per service population. However, due to the uncertainty regarding the timeframe of when these mitigation measures would be fully implemented, this study assumes that the Project would continue to have a significant transportation related impact under CEQA.
1438
City of Wildomar General Plan Update
Transportation Impact Study Appendices
Appendix A
Base Year and Proposed Project VMT Results
1439
Households SFDU MFDU TotPop TotEmp Service Pop TotalEnroll HHS Wildomar Total OD VMT VMT per SP Constant AdoptedHHS Pop
Adjusted Service
Pop
1 Adjusted VMT per
SP
2018Cal3 11,989 8,022 3,967 37,150 5,839 42,989 6,624 3.096 1,448,089 33.7 36,022 41,861 34.6 2045Prop3 20,956 10,291 10,665 59,185 12,114 71,299 7,706 2.822 2,296,469 32.2 62,965 75,079 30.6 Households SFDU MFDU TotPop TotEmp Service Pop TotalEnroll HHS 2018Cal3
2045AdoptB 62.2% 82.8% 20.6% 57.4% 92.0% 62.1% 16.3% -2.9% 42.2% -12.3% 62.4% 66.5% -14.6% 2045Prop3 74.8% 28.3% 168.8% 59.3% 107.5% 65.9% 16.3% -8.8% 58.6% -4.4% 74.8% 79.4% -11.6% Households SFDU MFDU TotPop TotEmp Service Pop TotalEnroll HHS 2045AdoptB
2045Prop3 7.7% -29.8% 122.8% 1.2% 8.0% 2.3% 0.0% -6.1% 11.5% 9.0% 7.7% 7.7% 3.5% 1 Adjusted Service Population refers to the service population calculated utilizing the Household Size from the RIVCOM model. 1440
City of Wildomar General Plan Update
Transportation Impact Study Appendices
Appendix B
VMT Reduction Measures
1441
Transportation Demand Management Strategy Applicable Land Use Type Maximum Residential Non- Reduction
Residential
Land Use
T-1 Increase Residential Density   0.0% - 30.0%
T-2 Increase Job Density   0.0% - 30.0%
T-3 Provide Transit Oriented Development   6.9%
T-4 Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing  0.0% - 28.6% T-17 Improve Street Connectivity (Dependent on Project
Site intersection density)   0.0% - 30.0%
Trip Reduction Strategies
T-5 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program
(Voluntary) (Dependent on participation)  0.0% - 4.0%
T-6
Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program
(Mandatory Implementation and Monitoring)
(Dependent on participation)
 0.0% - 26.0%
T-7
Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing
(On-site TDM coordinator, Information center for
transportation alternatives) (Dependent on
participation)
 0.0% - 4.0%
T-8
Provide Ridesharing Program (Reserved parking for
ridesharing and an app/website for coordinating rides)
(Differs between urban and suburban environment)
 4.0% - 8.0%1
T-9 Implement Subsidized or Discount Transit Program
(10% to 100% subsidy)  

0.029% -

0.295%1
T-10
Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities (bike parking,
bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers)
(expanded mitigation options include bicycle repair
station) (lower end associated with parking only
compared to biking with additional supporting
facilities)


0.062% -

0.305%1
T-11 Provide Employer Sponsored Vanpool  3.55%1
T-12 Price Workplace Parking  0.0% - 20.0%
T-13 Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out (Dependent on
number of eligible employees)  0.0% - 12.0%
T-23 Provide Community-Based Travel Planning (Dependent on percentage of residences targeted with plan)   0.0% - 2.3% Parking or Road Pricing/Management
T-14 Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure (Site Dependent)   0.0% - 11.9%
T-15 Limit Residential Parking Supply (Site Dependent)  0.0% - 13.7% T-16 Unbundled Residential Parking Costs from Property
Cost (Parking Cost Dependent)  0.0% - 15.7%
T-24 Implement Mark Price Public Parking (On-Street)   0.0% - 30.0% Neighborhood Design
T-18 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement   0.0% - 6.4% T-19-A Construct or Improve Bike Facility   0.0% - 0.8% T-19-B Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard   0.0% - 0.2% 1442
Transportation Demand Management Strategy Applicable Land Use Type Maximum Residential Non- Reduction
Residential
T-20 Expand Bikeway Network   0.0% - 0.5%
T-21-A Implement Conventional Carshare Program   0.0% - 0.15% T-21-B Implement Electric Carshare Program   0.0% - 0.18% T-22-A Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program   0.0% - 0.02% T-22-B Implement Electric Bikeshare Program   0.0% - 0.06% T-22-C Implement Scootershare Program   0.0% - 0.07%
Transit
T-25 Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours (Service
miles and hours dependent)   0.0% - 4.6%
T-26 Increase Transit Service Frequency   0.0% - 11.3% T-27 Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments   0.0% - 0.6% T-28 Provide Bus Rapid Transit   0.0% - 13.8%
T-29 Reduce Transit Fares   0.0% - 1.2%
Non-Quantifiable Measures
Wayfinding signage  
Off-site pedestrian supportive strategies  
Pedestrian access with internal and external
connections and sidewalk connections  
Pre-tax transportation benefits 
Telecommute work center for residents 
Telecommute and/or compressed work week 
Delivery supportive amenities  
On-site childcare  
High-cost off-site transit stop amenities and upgrades   Low-cost off-site transit stop amenities and upgrades   1 VMT reduction specific to Wildomar.
1443
City of Wildomar General Plan Update
Transportation Impact Study Appendices
Appendix C
Project Alternatives VMT Results
1444
Households SFDU MFDU TotPop TotEmp Service Pop TotalEnroll HHS Wildomar Total OD VMT VMT per SP Constant AdoptedHHS Pop
Adjusted Service
Pop
1 Adjusted VMT per
SP
2018Cal3 11,989 8,022 3,967 37,150 5,839 42,989 6,624 3.096 1,448,089 33.7 36,022 41,861 34.6 2045AdoptB 19,452 14,666 4,786 58,483 11,213 69,696 7,706 3.005 2,058,757 29.5 58,483 69,696 29.5 Households SFDU MFDU TotPop TotEmp Service Pop TotalEnroll HHS 2018Cal3
2045AdoptB 62.2% 82.8% 20.6% 57.4% 92.0% 62.1% 16.3% -2.9% 42.2% -12.3% 62.4% 66.5% -14.6% 2045Prop3 74.8% 28.3% 168.8% 59.3% 107.5% 65.9% 16.3% -8.8% 58.6% -4.4% 74.8% 79.4% -11.6% Households SFDU MFDU TotPop TotEmp Service Pop TotalEnroll HHS 2045AdoptB
2045Prop3 7.7% -29.8% 122.8% 1.2% 8.0% 2.3% 0.0% -6.1% 11.5% 9.0% 7.7% 7.7% 3.5% 1 Adjusted Service Population refers to the service population calculated utilizing the Household Size from the RIVCOM model. 1445

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR
Appendices
May 2024
Appendix 5.18-1 Native American Consultation Pursuant
to SB 18
1446

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR
Appendices
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
1447
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 2 ends

November 3, 2023
Matthew Bassi
City of Wildomar
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18, Government Code §65352.3 and §65352.4, City of Wildomar Proposed General Plan Project, Riverside County Dear Mr. Bassi:

Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties.

Government Code §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans.

The law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law.

The NAHC also believes that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded or are adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites; • Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response;
• Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and • If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Laurena Bolden
Serrano

COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
1448

Page 2 of 2 ends

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code §6254.10.

3. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was positive. Please contact the Pechanga Band of Indians on the attached list for more information.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event, that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we are able to assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:

[email protected].

Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
1449
Tribe
Name
Fed
(F)
NonFed
(N)
Contact
Person
Cultural
Affiliation
Counties
Agua
Caliente
Band of
Cahuilla
Indians
F Patricia Garcia,
Director of
Historic
Preservation
Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego Augustine
Band of
Cahuilla
Mission
Indians
F Amanda
Vance,
Chairperson
Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego Cabazon
Band of
Mission
Indians
F Doug Welmas,
Chairperson
Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego Cahuilla
Band of
Indians
F BobbyRay
Esaprza,
Cultural
Director
Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego Cahuilla
Band of
Indians
F Daniel
Salgado,
Chairperson
Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego Cahuilla
Band of
Indians
F Anthony
Madrigal,
Tribal Historic
Preservation
Officer
Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego Juaneno
Band of
Mission
Indians
Acjachemen
Nation -
Belardes
N Joyce Perry,
Cultural
Resource
Director
Juaneno Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
1450
Juaneno
Band of
Mission
Indians
Acjachemen
Nation 84A
N Heidi Lucero,
Chairperson,
THPO
Juaneno Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
La Jolla
Band of
Luiseno
Indians
F Norma
Contreras,
Chairperson
Luiseno Orange, Riverside, San Diego
Los
Coyotes
Band of
Cahuilla
and Cupeño
Indians
F Ray
Chapparosa,
Chairperson
Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego Morongo
Band of
Mission
Indians
F Ann Brierty,
THPO
Cahuilla
Serrano
Imperial, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino,
San Diego
Morongo
Band of
Mission
Indians
F Robert Martin,
Chairperson
Cahuilla
Serrano
Imperial, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino,
San Diego
Pala Band
of Mission
Indians
F Shasta
Gaughen,
Tribal Historic
Preservation
Officer
Cupeno
Luiseno
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
Pala Band
of Mission
Indians
F Alexis Wallick,
Assistant
THPO
Cupeno
Luiseno
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
Pauma
Band of
Luiseno
Indians
F Temet Aguilar,
Chairperson
Luiseno Orange, Riverside, San Diego
1451
Pechanga
Band of
Indians
F Steve Bodmer,
General
Counsel for
Pechanga
Band of
Indians
Luiseno Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Ventura
Pechanga
Band of
Indians
F Tuba Ebru
Ozdil,
Pechanga
Cultural
Analyst
Luiseno Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Ventura
Quechan
Tribe of the
Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Manfred Scott,
Acting
Chairman -
Kw'ts'an
Cultural
Committee
Quechan Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego
Quechan
Tribe of the
Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Jordan
Joaquin,
President,
Quechan Tribal
Council
Quechan Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego
Quechan
Tribe of the
Fort Yuma
Reservation
F Jill McCormick,
Historic
Preservation
Officer
Quechan Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego
Ramona
Band of
Cahuilla
F Joseph
Hamilton,
Chairperson
Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego Rincon
Band of
Luiseno
Indians
F Denise Turner
Walsh,
Attorney
General
Luiseno Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Ventura
1452
Rincon
Band of
Luiseno
Indians
F , Cultural
Resources
Manager/Tribal
Historic
Preservation
Officer
Luiseno Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Ventura
Rincon
Band of
Luiseno
Indians
F Joseph Linton,
Tribal
Council/Culture
Committee
Member
Luiseno Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Ventura
Rincon
Band of
Luiseno
Indians
F Laurie
Gonzalez,
Tribal
Council/Culture
Committee
Member
Luiseno Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Ventura
Santa Rosa
Band of
Cahuilla
Indians
F Lovina Redner,
Tribal Chair
Cahuilla Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego
Soboba
Band of
Luiseno
Indians
F Jessica
Valdez,
Cultural
Resource
Specialist
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego
Soboba
Band of
Luiseno
Indians
F Joseph
Ontiveros,
Tribal Historic
Preservation
Officer
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego
TorresMartinez
Desert
Cahuilla
Indians
F Alesia Reed,
Cultural
Committee
Chairwoman
Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego 1453
TorresMartinez
Desert
Cahuilla
Indians
F Gary
Resvaloso, TM
MLD
Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego TorresMartinez
Desert
Cahuilla
Indians
F Abraham
Becerra,
Cultural
Coordinator
Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego TorresMartinez
Desert
Cahuilla
Indians
F Thomas
Tortez,
Chairperson
Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego TorresMartinez
Desert
Cahuilla
Indians
F Mary Belardo,
Cultural
Committee
Vice Chair
Cahuilla Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego 1454
October 2024 | Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2023090064

CITY OF WILDOMAR

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR
City of Wildomar
Prepared for:

City of Wildomar
Contact: Matthew C. Bassi, Community Development Director 23873 Clinton Keith Road, Suite #110
Wildomar, California 92095
951.677.7751
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Mark Teague, AICP, Managing Principal, Environmental Services 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
1455
1456

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR
Table of Contents
October 2024 Page i
Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ................................. 1-2

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ......................................................................................................2-1

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ................................................................................................3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ................................................................. 3-1 City of Wildomar Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.........................................................................................3-32 Wildland-Urban Interface Fires.......................................................................................................................3-33

APPENDICES
Appendix A Additional Pages from Comment Letter A3
Appendix B Revised Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix C Table 9-2 of the MSHCP
Appendix D Revised Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix E Draft General Plan
Appendix F 2021-2029 Safety Element
Appendix G Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Appendix H Wildomar Housing Crisis Act Compliance Memo

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 2-1 List of Commenters........................................................................................................................... 2-1 1457

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
1458
October 2024 Page 1-1

1. Introduction

1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.).

According to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or a revision of the Draft; (b) Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR; (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

This document contains responses to comments received during the public review period on the DEIR for the City of Wildomar Proposed General Plan Project, which began May 9, 2024, and closed June 24, 2024. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency (“City of Wildomar” or “City”). This document, which includes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as Appendix G, and incorporates the circulated DEIR by reference comprise the FEIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132.

1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR
This document is organized as follows:

Section 1, Introduction. This section describes the relevant CEQA requirements for and contents of this FEIR.

Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the DEIR; copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number (A1 through A4 for letters received from agencies and organizations, and R1 through R2 for letters received from community members). Individual comments within each comment letter have also been numbered and each comment letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number. 1459

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

1. Introduction

Page 1 ends

Section 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR. This section contains revisions to the DEIR’s text and figures proposed as a result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 2, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the DEIR for public review.

The responses to comments contain material and revisions that will be added to the text of the FEIR. The City of Wildomar staff has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the DEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5.

1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review of and comments on DEIRs should be “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. …CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204 (d) also states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204 (e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.”
In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to comments submitted by public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the environmental impact report. The responses will be forwarded with copies of this FEIR, as permitted by CEQA, and will conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on DEIRs. 1460
October 2024 Page 2-1

2. Response to Comments
Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency (City of Wildomar) to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DEIR and prepare written responses.

This section provides all comments received on the DEIR and the City’s responses to each comment.

Comment letters and specific comments within those comment letters are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the DEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented.

Changes to the DEIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and strikeout for deletions.

Table 2-1, List of Commenters, provides a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review period.

Table 2-1 List of Commenters
Number
Reference Commenting Person/Agency Date of Comment Page No.

Agencies & Organizations
A1 California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Constantin Raether, Associate Environmental Planner June 6, 2024 2-2
A2 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Elsa McKinney, Engineering Tech 1 June 13, 2024 2-4
A3 Blum, Collins, and Ho, LLP on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, Gary Ho, Attorney June 18, 2024 2-6
A4 Center for Biological Diversity, Tiffany Yap, D.Env/PhD, Senior Scientist June 24, 2024 2-34 A5 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance June 26, 2024 2-57 Residents
R1 Veronica Langworthy June 6, 2024 2-59
R2 Veronica Langworthy June 19, 2024 2-61
1461

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

LETTER A1 – California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Constantin Raether, Associate Environmental Planner (1 page) 1462

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-3
A1. Response to Comments from California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Constantin Raether, Associate Environmental Planner, dated June 6, 2024.

A1-1 The City adopted its Safety Element along with its Housing Element on October 13, 2021.

As indicated in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the DEIR, the Housing and Safety Elements are not slated for revision as they comply with state law. Minor changes to the Safety Element include updating references to the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, revising typographical errors, and incorporating newer data into applicable figures (see Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR and Appendix F of this FEIR). 1463

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

LETTER A2 – Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Elsa McKinney, Engineering Tech 1 (1 page) 1464

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-5
A2. Response to Comments from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Elsa McKinney, Engineering Tech 1, dated June 13, 2024.

A2-1 The commenter is correct in that the proposed project is a General Plan analyzed pursuant to a programmatic-level EIR and therefore, does not propose specific development projects (or construction/operational activities). Future development in the City would be required to be consistent with the General Plan and prepare appropriate environmental documents to analyze a proposed project’s potential impacts, including potential impacts on hydrology, water quality, and drainage. The District will have the opportunity to review such environmental documents, as applicable, and future developers would be required to comply with applicable local, regional, and state regulations, including those required by the District.
1465

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

LETTER A3 – Blum, Collins, and Ho, LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, Gary Ho, Attorney (17 pages)
1466

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-7
1467

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1468

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-9
1469

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1470

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-11
1471

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1472

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-13
1473

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1474

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-15
1475

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1476

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-17
1477

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1478

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-19
1479

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1480

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-21
1481

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1482

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-23
The remaining 21 (unbracketed) pages of this comment letter are provided as Appendix A to this Final EIR.
1483

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

A3. Response to Comments from Blum, Collins, and Ho, LLP, on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, Gary Ho, Attorney, dated June 18, 2024.

A3-1 The City will notify Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance on all future actions for the proposed project.

A3-2 The commenter provides a summary of the proposed project; however, the summary is not entirely accurate. The proposed project would adopt land use designations that accommodate 6,274 jobs, not 6,724 jobs as asserted in the comment. In addition, the City disagrees with the comment’s assertion that providing a list of parcels is a requirement of CEQA for a comprehensive General Plan Update. Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a project description to provide an overview of a project’s technical and environmental characteristics, but it “should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact.” CEQA requires an EIR to include a general description of a project’s characteristics and a project’s main features, but not all of its details. Here, the project involves a comprehensive General Plan Update, the main features of which are discussed and analyzed. The proposed Land Use Element and Chapter 3, Project Description, of the DEIR, further define focus areas that are depicted on Figure 2-3 of the proposed Land Use Element and Figure 5.1-1 of the DEIR. This focus-area approach allows residents to understand that land use and development potential changes are anticipated only in specific areas, and gives them the tools to understand the extent of change in the focus area in a more meaningful format than a simple table listing. Although parcel-level detail is neither required nor appropriate to provide in the project description of an EIR for a General Plan Update, the City has made such parcellevel data available to the public for review throughout the planning process.

The agendas/staff reports for the 2023 Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the proposed land use plan have all included a link to an online interactive map showing the proposed land use designations for every parcel in the City. This format allows property owners affected by any change, and any other interested party, to quickly and accurately determine the actual change without having to rely upon a parcel list that would need to be updated regularly, or include a lengthy narrative explaining every change. The interactive electronic map has remained part of the General Plan Update process throughout and will continue on after adoption of the General Plan. The map can be viewed here:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/06e5893cf3094547a8066eded0fb9ae7/. The link to the interactive map has been included in the project description of the DEIR (see Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR). Additionally, Figure 1-4, Proposed Land Use Plan, and Figure 3-4, Proposed Land Use Plan, of the DEIR have been revised to update typographical errors, revert the land use designations of parcels, and to ensure that no changes to the housing sites listed in the 2021-2029 Housing Element were made as part of the proposed project (see Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR). 1484

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-25
Taken as a whole, Figures 3-3 and 3-4 of Chapter 3, Project Description, show the extent of change anticipated by the City as envisioned under the proposed General Plan. As explained at multiple public meetings and presentations, and starting on page 2-1 of the proposed Land Use Element of the proposed General Plan, the intent of the process was “To maintain the aspects of Wildomar that people value, new developments will be designed to integrate into the existing character of the City. They will be concentrated and directed to key focus areas to minimize impacts to established neighborhoods, enhance economic activity, promote walking and biking, and minimize demands on infrastructure.” Appendix H, Wildomar Housing Crisis Act Compliance Memo, of this FEIR, represents the evaluation of housing change as a result of the General Plan process. Table 2, of Appendix H, shows that the potential dwelling unit count at maximum density under the Proposed Project would be 35,080 units, which is 5,069 more units than are allowed under the current General Plan (30,011 units, as shown in Table 1, of Appendix H). Although some areas previously planned for residential development would be redesignated, on the whole, the Proposed General Plan allows for approximately 17 percent more housing than the existing General Plan. As noted above, no parcels identified in the 2021-2029 Housing Element as being available to accommodate the City’s RHNA are affected by the proposed changes. Further, the amount of medium and high density residential increased in other portions of the City, such as mixed-use, which is consistent with the Housing Element goal of providing a range of affordable housing options. Therefore, the proposed project would not cumulatively reduce residential development capacity within the City. Accordingly, adoption of the Proposed General Plan would fully comply with the Housing Crisis Act and State Housing Element Law.

A3-3 The City disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that the Land Use and Planning impact analysis and significance determinations are incorrect due to errors in the modeling and impact analysis. The SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that would help achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets identified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and focuses on per capita GHG emission reductions from passenger cars through integrated transportation, land use, housing, and environmental planning efforts. However, the RTP/SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the RTP/SCS; instead, it provides incentives to governments and developers for consistency (see Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the DEIR). Goal 5 through Goal 7 in the SCS, identified by the commenter, are general goals of the SCS to improve regional air quality and reduce GHG emissions.

Although consistency is not required, the City evaluated its General Plan for consistency with applicable RTP/SCS goals and properly concluded that the General Plan would be consistent with such goals.

As demonstrated in Table 5.11-1, SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goal Consistency Analysis, on page 5.11-12 of the DEIR, the Proposed General Plan would be consistent with the Connect SoCal goals and would further State goals through emphasis on design and reduction 1485

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

in vehicles miles traveled (VMT), which will also improve air quality. The SCS consistency evaluation is based on whether the City’s General Plan policies are aligned with SCAG’s SCS policies, which are broad, general policies about growth management in the SCAG region. SCAG’s SCS has broad general goals for GHG emissions, but the RTP/SCS does not set a specific target for individual cities/counties to meet. The commenter would need to cite a specific inconsistency with a policy and identify why the Proposed General Plan is inconsistent with that individual policy and then identify that being inconsistent with that policy would result in a significant impact in the environment per CEQA Guidelines Section 15382. Recently, the Courts have identified that the consistency analysis is broad and need not be determined solely by the quantitative determinations for GHG emissions or air quality (see City of Long Beach et al. Xavier Becerra v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 465th).

The DEIR does acknowledge that buildout of the Proposed General Plan would generate an increase in communitywide GHG emissions, expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant (TACs) concentrations, and result in project-related construction and operation emissions to potentially exceed the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds. However, these impacts are not what is being evaluated with SCAG’s SCS policies. One of the main objectives of the Proposed General Plan is to focus on providing limited mixed-use development where services and transportation routes exist as well as integrate Complete Streets principles that are generally consistent with the policy recommendations in the SCS. Additionally, the Proposed General Plan includes goals and policies (see Section 5.8.3, Proposed General Plan Goals and Policies, of Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the DEIR) that reduce VMT per service population within Wildomar by more than 3 percent from existing conditions and bring the City closer to a more equal distribution of employment and housing. As a result, the Proposed General Plan is aligned with SCS by providing a more efficient land use plan than existing conditions to help reduce VMT per service population and would focus growth within existing urban regions where transit and infrastructure are already in place.

Reducing traffic congestion and improving accessibility to the transportation network in turn will also improve regional air quality for the region. Additionally, incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 into future development projects would reduce criteria air pollutant and TACs emissions associated with buildout of the Proposed General Plan to the extent feasible. Further, there is nothing in Proposed General Plan policies that would conflict with SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS or other ordinances governing the circulation system.

Although the Proposed General Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable VMT impact, Section 5.17, Transportation, focuses on addressing Senate Bill (SB) 743 and providing guidance based on Wildomar's VMT Guidelines, which is separate from what SCS addresses (i.e., SB 375). SB 743 focuses on how individual projects are analyzed for transportation impacts under CEQA by promoting more sustainable transportation systems 1486

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-27
and evaluating VMT as an input to help calculate a project’s impact on GHG emissions.

By contrast, SB 375 aims to coordinate regional land use and transportation planning through SCS to reduce GHG emissions from personal vehicle travel to meet the State GHG reduction goals. As noted in the Connect SoCal 2024 Executive Summary, “Connect SoCal is a long-term plan for the Southern California region that details investment in our transportation system and development in our communities to meet the needs of the region both today and tomorrow.” The proposed General Plan does not impede the plans of Connect SoCal in developing regional and local transit. Rather, but promoting a compact urban form, allowing for higher densities in two mixed use land use designations, and requiring non-motorized connectivity, the proposed General Plan encourages a reduction in personal vehicle miles travelled and sets the stage for improved regional transit.

As noted in Chapter 5-17 of the Draft EIR, there are numerous policies in the proposed General Plan designed to reduce VMT, encourage the expansion of transit, and reduce project trips through update and implementation of Chapter 10.36 Transportation Demand Management Program of the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, it is possible to advance SB 375’s broader planning goals even though there is an increase in overall VMT.

While the proposed General Plan includes several policies that could reduce VMT, they are project dependent, and may not work in all instances. Further, some of them, such as a Transportation Demand Management, may not be suited for all industries. So, while the draft EIR shows a reduction in VMT from the existing general plan, the findings in Section 5.17, Transportation, of the DEIR, for SB 743 impacts are conservatively considered significant and unavoidable due to the uncertainty regarding actual development pattern, population growth, and other factors outside the purview of the proposed project. The City disagrees with the commenter that the findings in Section 5.17, Transportation, of the DEIR, for SB 743 are directly related to the findings in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the DEIR, for consistency with SCAG’s strategies in the SCS. Therefore, there is no inconsistency in this regard.

A3-4 Contrary to the commenter’s claim, the DEIR includes a discussion in relation to the proposed project’s buildout and its exceedance of the 2045 population projections for Wildomar in the RTP/SCS starting on page 5.11-11 of Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning, of the DEIR. Even with exceedance of SCAG's growth forecasts, Table 5.3-9, Comparison of Population and Employment Forecast, on page 5.3-40, of the DEIR, shows that VMT per service population would decrease from existing conditions as well as from the current General Plan. Moreover, as discussed in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, of the DEIR, implementation of the Proposed General Plan would bring the City closer to a more equal distribution of employment and housing and would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies in Connect SoCal. Planning for growth that exceeds SCAG’s growth forecasts is not a significant impact in and of itself, and the EIR’s analysis discusses any potential environmental effects associated with the project’s growth potential. Therefore, the comment’s assertion that the EIR must include a finding of a 1487

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

significant impact based on the difference between the General Plan’s buildout and SCAG’s projections is not correct.

A3-5 On October 13, 2021, the City held a public hearing where the City Council adopted the Addendum to the 2013-2021 Housing Element Environmental Impact Report for the 2021-2029 Housing Element and the 2021-2029 Housing Element. The window for commenting on or challenging the legal adequacy of the 2021-2029 Housing Element has passed. Although earlier proposed revisions to the land use plan would have affected housing element sites, the City has determined not to change any housing element site as part of the proposed project. Accordingly, there is no change to the existing adopted housing element, nor to the land use inventory contained therein, in the General Plan Update as currently proposed. Therefore, both the 2021-2029 Housing Element and the General Plan Update fully comply with state housing element law. Additionally, see response to comment A3-2.

A3-6 See response to comments A3-2 and A3-5.

A3-7 See response to comments A3-2 and A3-5.

A3-8 See response to comments A3-5 through A3-7.

A3-9 See response to comments A3-2 and A3-5.

A3-10 See response to comments A3-2 and A3-5.

A3-11 See response to comments A3-2 and A3-5. The proposed project would not result in a net loss in housing, and therefore, the DEIR is not piecemealing environmental analysis pertaining to the residential capacity to a later date.

A3-12 As previously stated, the housing sites in the 2021-2029 Housing Element would remain intact and no changes are proposed to the housing sites. See response to comment A3-5.

A3-13 The CEQA Guidelines no longer permit the use of vehicle delay as measured by LOS as a metric for measuring transportation impacts under CEQA. As stated on the Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) website, LOS is no longer used under CEQA, however, LOS can still be used outside of CEQA: https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/sb-743/faq.html#stillrequire-los. Additionally, see response to comment A3-12. All future development project applications will be assessed for potential CEQA transportation impacts using the required VMT methodology and all such projects will be assessed for non-CEQA General Plan consistency purposes using the LOS D as the target. For the General Plan, LOS D is used as a tool for determining when or if roadway or intersection improvements are needed. Additionally, per Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(4), local agencies are still allowed to apply LOS-based policies outside of CEQA transportation impact analyses. 1488

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-29
A3-14 See response to comments A3-1 through A3-13, and A3-15 through A3-28, which addresses and demonstrates that there are no such flaws as alleged by the commenter. As noted above in response to comment A3-1, the commenter will be added to the City’s project/CEQA notification list.

A3-15 The City disagrees with the commenter's assertion and as detailed in response to comments A3-17 through A3-22, the DEIR evaluates the potential health risk and GHG impacts in a local and regional context. The comment neither identifies a deficiency in the DEIR’s analysis nor identifies a new or more severe potential significant environmental impact not already addressed in the DEIR. This response merely amplifies or clarifies the analysis in the DEIR.

A3-16 The City disagrees with the commenter’s assertion. See response to comments A3-17 through A3-19.

A3-17 The City disagrees with the commenter’s assertion. South Coast AQMD has adopted thresholds for carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requires that development projects subject to CEQA prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential construction-related air quality impacts.

In accordance with Mitigation Measure AQ-1, a site-specific construction analysis is required, which includes evaluation of potential TACs impacts during the construction phase for future development projects subject to CEQA. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 listed in Table 1-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, of Chapter 1, Executive Summary, and in Section 5.3, Air Quality, of this DEIR, has been revised to clarify that this mitigation measure requires a construction health risk assessment (HRA) for discretionary projects within 1,000 feet of sensitive land uses, that utilize off-road equipment of 50 horsepower or more, and that occur for more than 2 months of active construction (see Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR). Modification to Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is aligned with OEEHA guidelines and use of heavy off-road equipment are known to generate substantial diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions.

Mitigation Measure AQ-3 requires mitigation of long-term air quality impacts of industrial and warehouse projects proposed near sensitive receptors and not short-term construction impacts. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 listed in Table 1-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, of Chapter 1, Executive Summary, and in Section 5.3, Air Quality, of this DEIR, has been revised to clarify that this mitigation measure includes operational HRAs for applicable industrial or warehousing development projects (see Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR).

The DEIR describes potential impacts associated with construction activities under Impact 5.3-2, which addresses both CEQA checklist thresholds AQ-2 and AQ-3 (see page

5.3-42 through page 5.3-43, of the DEIR). The construction localized significance 1489

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

thresholds (LSTs) discussion on page 5.3-46 in Section 5.3, Air Quality, of this DEIR, has been relocated to Impact 5.3-2 to address regional and localized construction emissions under the same impact (see Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR).

As discussed in this Section of the DEIR, information regarding specific development projects, soil types, and the locations of receptors would be needed to quantify the level of impact associated with construction activity. This includes both regional construction emissions and localized criteria air pollutant and TACs. Air quality emissions related to construction must be addressed on a project-by-project basis. The last statement under Impact 5.3-2 on page 5.3-43 in Section 5.3, Air Quality, of this DEIR, has been revised to clarify that construction-related regional and localized air quality impacts would be potentially significant (see Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR).

A3-18 The commenter correctly states that in 2015, the OEHHA released updated guidance that recommended an HRA for construction projects that are longer than two months. As detailed in response to comment A3-17 and in accordance with Mitigation Measure AQ1, a site-specific construction analysis is required, which includes evaluation of potential TACs impacts during the construction phase for future development projects subject to CEQA. The duration of future construction projects would be considered based on the OEHHA guidance.

A3-19 Mitigation Measure AQ-1 through Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would require evaluation of potential construction and operational impacts, which includes evaluation of potential health risks from TACs from construction and operation, for future development projects subject to CEQA. This may include evaluation of combined construction and operational health risk if projects generate substantial TACs during the operational phase, like those project types identified in Mitigation Measure AQ-3. However, the methodology to determine potential CEQA impacts will depend on the circumstances of each project. In addition, South Coast AQMD is in the process of providing updated methodology regarding cumulative health risk and has not provided guidance on how to evaluate combined cancer risk from construction and operational phases. Currently, South Coast AQMD does not require this type of analysis, and it would not be appropriate to dictate the specific methodology for evaluating impacts for future projects in this program-level DEIR. The methodology for evaluating cumulative health risk shall be based on the thresholds and methodology prescribed by South Coast AQMD at the time the environmental analysis is prepared.

A3-20 The commenter correctly states that the DEIR concludes that implementation of the Proposed General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable GHG emissions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that the City participates in the Subregional CAP led by the Western Regional Council of Governments (WRCOG) with focus on GHG strategies in the City. Additionally, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would 1490

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-31
also contribute to minimizing GHG emissions from land uses accommodated under the Proposed General Plan to the extent feasible.

As stated by the commenter, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would require that the City prepare a list of reduction measures/best management practices for use by new development subject to the City's discretionary review process. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 listed in Table 1-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, of Chapter 1, Executive Summary, and in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this DEIR, has been revised to clarify that this mitigation measure would require new development that resulted in significant GHG emissions impacts to be required to implement the City’s GHG reduction measures or best management practices consistent with the Subregional CAP.

However, the City disagrees with the commenter's latter assertation that the DEIR claims that future projects will be consistent with the Subregional CAP. The DEIR acknowledges that it is uncertain whether these Subregional CAP policies will lower the City’s GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level. The Sub Regional CAP provides information on the types of mitigation that can be employed to reduce GHG emissions, however the reductions are project specific and need to be quantified before they can be applied.

Therefore, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project are considered significant and unavoidable.

A3-21 See response to comment A3-20. The City disagrees that all the measures for the Subregional CAP be required for future development as mitigation measures. Firstly, many of the measures in a CAP are measures for municipal operations or citywide initiatives and are not specific to an individual project. Secondly, a CAP typically contains voluntary measures in addition to mandatory measures to allow flexibility in how a jurisdiction can achieve the local GHG reduction targets. Lastly, oftentimes measures in a CAP are integrated directly into the project’s design; and therefore, would not be valid to identify these design features as mitigation measures. Once the WRCOG Subregional CAP is complete, future projects subject to CEQA would be required to conduct their own consistency evaluation with the individual measures in the CAP to determine whether or not the project is consistent with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions impacts.

As discussed under Impact 5.8-1 of the DEIR, a general plan does not directly result in development without subsequent approvals of development projects. Before any development can occur in the City, it must be analyzed for consistency with the General Plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and State requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits. Since buildout of the Proposed General Plan is not linked to a specific development time frame, a GHG evaluation in accordance with the requirements of CEQA must be evaluated and feasible GHG mitigation measures would be prescribed for future development projects. 1491

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

As detailed in response to A3-20, implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would contribute to minimizing GHG emissions from future land uses to the extent feasible and the DEIR acknowledges that given the growth in population and employment within the City, it is uncertain whether these Subregional CAP policies and the City’s list of quantified GHG reduction measures or best management practices will lower the City’s GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level. Currently, there are no other feasible GHG mitigation measures. Therefore, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project are considered significant and unavoidable.

A3-22 Mitigation Measure AQ-1, Mitigation Measure AQ-2, and the policies of the Proposed General Plan would be consistent with the recommended Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures in SCAG’s RTP/SCS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) recommendations listed by the commenter for construction. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce construction-related air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. Per Mitigation Measure AQ-1, project applicants shall submit a technical assessment in conformance with South Coast AQMD methodology for assessing air quality impacts and the City of Wildomar Building & Safety department shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions if construction-related criteria air pollutants are deemed to exceed the South Coast AQMD thresholds. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for the project, which include measures to reduce vehicle exhaust and road dust, similar to mitigation measures recommended by the commenter. For instance, the use of construction equipment that is properly maintained and rated by US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce long-term air pollution emissions to the extent feasible. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for the project, which include measures to support renewable energy and support active transportation options, and are consistent with the mitigation measures recommended by the commenter. For example, promotion of active transit use, support of electric charging infrastructure, and encouragement of energy efficient appliances.

Likewise, implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 and multiple policies listed in the Proposed General Plan would contribute to reducing GHG emissions similar to the effect of SCAG's RTP/SCS Program EIR recommended GHG mitigation measures and recommendations by the DOJ. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 listed in Table 1-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, of Chapter 1, Executive Summary, and in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this DEIR, has been revised to include a list of example mitigation measures from SCAG’s GHG Project Level Mitigation Measures and DOJ’s recommended mitigation measures that can be included in the City’s list.

However, given the growth in population and employment within the City and the magnitude of emissions reductions needed to achieve the GHG reduction target, it is 1492

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-33
uncertain whether these additional GHG mitigation measures and local carbon offset programs as listed by the commenter would contribute to reducing GHG emissions to lessthan-significant levels. Therefore, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would continue to be considered significant and unavoidable.

A3-23 See response to comment A3-21. As identified previously, individual development projects subject to CEQA would be required to evaluate the project-level GHG emissions impacts to determine if they would result in a substantial increase in magnitude of GHG emissions; and if mitigation measures, such as those recommended by the commenter, are necessary to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. In general, mitigating onsite emissions is preferrable to purchase of voluntary carbon offsets.

As detailed in response to comments A3-17 through A3-22, the DEIR evaluates the potential health risk and GHG impacts in a local and regional context. As stated previously, implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that the City participates in the Subregional CAP and would contribute to minimizing GHG emissions from land uses accommodated under the Proposed General Plan to the extent feasible. As mentioned in response to comment A3-20, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 listed in Table 1-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, of Chapter 1, Executive Summary, and in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this DEIR, has been revised to clarify that this mitigation measure would require new development that resulted in significant GHG emissions impacts to be required to implement the City’s GHG reduction measures or best management practices consistent with the Subregional CAP.

A3-24 This comment does not raise an issue with the analysis of the DEIR, and no further response is necessary.
1493

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

LETTER A4 – Center for Biological Diversity, Tiffany Yap, D.Env/PhD, Senior Scientist (17 pages) 1494

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-35
1495

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1496

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-37
1497

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1498

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-39
1499

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1500

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-41
1501

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1502

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-43
1503

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1504

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-45
1505

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1506

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-47
1507

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1508

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-49
1509

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1510

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-51
A4. Response to Comments from Center for Biological Diversity, Tiffany Yap, D.Env/PhD, Senior Scientist, dated June 24, 2024.

A4-1 No response is required for these introductory remarks. See responses to comments A4- 2 through A4-10 which address the points made by the commenter about potential impacts to pumas and wildfire risk.

A4-2 The City is within the Santa Ana Mountains range, which is included in the Southern and Central Coast Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) for the species. According to the California Fish and Game Commission, the petition to list Southern and Central Coast ESU of mountain lions was accepted. Mountain lions are a Candidate species as defined by Section 2068 of the Fish and Game Code. A petition1 from the Center for Biological Diversity and the Mountain Lion Foundation was submitted in 2020 to the Fish and Game Commission for their consideration to list the Mountain Lion as a threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act. A written report was supposed to be submitted in April 2021 to determine whether the petitioned action is warranted; however, it does not appear that any reports have been published. Therefore, mountain lions are still a Candidate species; as a Candidate species, mountain lions are afforded all the protections as though listed during this review period.

Additionally, mountain lions are also protected under the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990, where it is unlawful to possess, transport, import or sell any mountain lion or part or product thereof (including taxidermy mounts) (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Mountain-Lion#56231953-laws-and-regulations).

The Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) prepared by ECORP in November 2023 and revised in March 2024 did not include mountain lion as a special status species due to the fact that the BRA relied upon resources listing documented occurrences of special status species in or near the vicinity of the City. The mountain lion was not identified as there are no documented occurrences in the City and this species is considered when analyzing wildlife movement corridors. This is when the species gets analyzed in a project and the mountain lion would be accounted for on a project-by-project basis. The BRA was broad in order to set a framework for project specific analysis consistent with the Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).

It is important to note that the MSHCP states and shows in Section 2.1.4 and Table 2-2 that mountain lion is not only one of the 146 species covered under the MSHCP but that mountain lion is one of 118 species that are “considered to be adequately conserved.” The MSHCP identifies key habitat areas and linkages within the MSHCP Plan Area that are critical for mountain lion conservation. For example, The MSHCP identifies mountain lion as a planning species in Existing Cores A, B, C, F, G, I, J, K, L and M; Proposed Cores 3, 4, 6 and 7; Existing Linkage A; Proposed Linkage 1, 5, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18; 1 The following webpage includes a list of petitions to list species under the California Endangered Species Act, including the petition to list mountain lions: https://fgc.ca.gov/CESA
1511

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

and Proposed Constrained Linkage 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 14. The following Cores are considered “live in” Cores for mountain lion:
 Existing Core B – Cleveland National Forest,
 Existing Core G – Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve,  Existing Core K – San Bernardino National Forest,
 Existing Core L – Beauty Mountain,
 Existing Core M – Agua Tibia Mountains,
 Existing Linkage A – BLM land east of Rainbow Creek
 Proposed Core 3 – Badlands/ Potrero
Further, the MSHCP also identifies areas considered critical for mountain lion movement including Proposed Constrained Linkage 1 and 2 (connection between Cleveland National Forest and Chino Hills State Park under Highway 91), Proposed Linkage 1 and Constrained Linkage 5 (connection between Cleveland National Forest and Lake Matthews/Estelle Mountain under I-15), Proposed Linkage 9 (connection between Cleveland and the Santa Rosa Plateau), and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 (connection between Santa Ana Mountains and the Palomar Mountains). These linkages and movement corridors between large habitat blocks allow dispersal and movement of mountain lions throughout the MSHCP Plan Area and beyond.

The City, however, is not within any of the key habitat areas and linkages that the MSHCP identifies as being critical for conservation of the mountain lion. Because none of the habitat or linkage areas identified in the MSCHP as being critical to mountain lion conservation and movement are located within the City it follows that the proposed General Plan does not propose any changes to and thus will not facilitate the construction of new roads, development or increased human presence in those important mountain lion habitat or linkage areas. The City is a signatory to the MSHCP and collects fees for all development projects at the time of building permit issuance. (See Chapters 3.42 and 3.43 of the City’s Municiipal Code, and Page 5.4-13 of the Draft EIR.) The City also includes coordination with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (Resource Agency) in implementing the MSHCP.

In response to the comment letter, Appendix 5.4-1, Biological Resources Assessment, of the DEIR, has been revised to include a discussion on mountain lions and mountain lionspecific provisions of the MSHCP, and is included as Appendix B, Revised Biological Resources Assessment, of this FEIR (see Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR). Mitigation Measure BIO-14, and portions of Section 5.4, Biological Resources, have also been revised not only acknowledge that the mountain lion is a candidate species but to include a discussion that not only explains that the mountain lion is a covered species under the MSCHP but demonstrates how the MSHCP helps conserve the mountain lion and 1512

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-53
facilitate its movement through conservation and enhancement of mountain lion habitat areas and linkages/movement corridors between them. The revisions also to clarify the requirement to evaluate development project impacts on wildlife corridors as required by the MSHCP. (see Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR).

Mitigation Measure BIO-14 informs future project applicants of the requirement to evaluate wildlife movement corridors, and that mitigation must be included to reduce impacts to less than significant. As an analysis of wildlife corridors; conducting biological studies to assess special-status species for new projects; and abiding by local, state, and federal policies/protections is required by the MSHCP, and that the City is a signatory to the MSCHP, impacts to affected species will be reduced. The BRA for the proposed project was intentionally broad to provide guidance for project-specific analysis. As the Section

5.4, Biological Resources, of the DEIR states under Focal Point:
“Specific information for development projects allowed by the General Plan is unknown at the time of this broad, program-level analysis, so impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species would conservatively be considered significant and unavoidable. Impacts to sensitive natural communities such as wetlands and riparian habitats and wildlife corridors would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures and the Proposed General Plan policies. All development in the City must comply with local, state, and federal regulations, which would reduce other impacts to biological resources to less than significant.”
The City is within the MSHCP and mountain lions are a covered species. As a participant in the MSHCP, the City of Wildomar is under the umbrella of take for covered species.

Future projects must abide by local policies and plans, such as the MSHCP. Please see Table 9-2, Species Conservation Summary, of the MSHCP for Conservation Objectives for the mountain lion (see Appendix C, Table 9-2 of the MSHCP, of this FEIR).

A4-3 The commenter implies that fireproofing and/or ensuring no homes burn are CEQA wildfire impact thresholds. However, the Appendix G checklist thresholds for wildfire hazards pertain to impairing emergency response and evacuation plans, exacerbating wildfire risks that can expose occupants to pollutants or uncontrolled spread of wildfires, exacerbating wildfire risks due to installation or maintenance of infrastructure, and exposing people or structures due to post-fire risks. Section 5.20.4, Environmental Impacts, of Section

5.20, Wildfire, of the DEIR, adequately addresses the Appendix G checklist thresholds for wildfire hazards, and the analysis in the DEIR determined that wildfire hazard impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As shown in Figure 5.1-1, Proposed Focus Areas, Figure 5.20-1, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, and Figure 5.20-2, Wildland Urban Interface, some of the Focus Areas, such as Focus Areas 5, 1513

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

7, and 8, would include development that are within both the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and Wildland-Urban Interface. However, any future development would not only have to comply with the most recent versions of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, but also the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Fire Safe Regulations, Public Resources Code Section 4291, and California Public Utilities Commission Decision 17-06-024. Additionally, new potential development would be required to comply with the 2021-2029 Wildomar Safety Element, which goes beyond State law to provide more stringent regulations for site development, defensible space creation and maintenance, and evacuation access. Furthermore, development proposed in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, would be required to comply with 2021-2029 Safety Element Policies S-47 and S-48, which would require development to be in areas with adequate fire and emergency services, and that development in these areas prepare a longterm comprehensive fuel reduction and management program. Additionally, implementation of the 2021-2029 Safety Element Policy S-46, which requires the City to work with property owners of existing non-conforming development to meet current State and locally adopted fire safe standards, and Safety Element Policy S-44, which requires that all proposed development within Fire Hazard Severity Zones be reviewed by the Riverside County Fire Department and Wildomar Building and Safety Department prior to the issuance of any building permit, would further reduce impacts. Moreover, as required for all projects in the City, future applicants would be required to implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, which requires compliance with the most recent California Building Code and California Fire Code, and vegetation management requirements of California Fire Code Section 4906 and California Government Code Section 51182.

The combination of a firesafe building, and creation and maintenance of defensible space in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 4291, the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Fire Safe Regulations, the 2021-2029 Safety Element, and Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, would reduce impacts of new development on the environment, related to wildfire, to a less than significant level.

A4-4 While the proposed project would increase the development potential in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, many of these areas are within already developed regions of the City. Some of the Focus Areas, such as Focus Areas 3, 4, and 8, include primarily commercial and industrial land use types, thereby reducing the number of permanent residents in these areas. Additionally, pursuant to California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015), the DEIR evaluates the proposed project impacts on the environment and not the environment’s impacts on the proposed project or its users. However, Chapter 5.20, Wildfire, of the DEIR, does evaluate how the potential future development under the proposed project could exacerbate existing wildfire hazards.

With the implementation of 2021-2029 Safety Element policies listed on pages 5.20-6 to

5.20-10 of the DEIR, as well as Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 and Mitigation HAZ-2, the 1514

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-55
proposed project would not increase or exacerbate unhealthy levels of smoke, cause power outages, or increase wildfire potential in the City.

In the context of wildfire, power outages are typically caused by utility company public safety power shutoffs or on extreme heat days through rolling blackouts. Above ground power lines in high wind corridors are the first power lines to be deenergized during public safety power shutoff events.

A4-5 The City is predominantly developed and is in an urbanized portion of the County. The proposed project would focus development in nine areas, as shown in Figure 5.1-1, Proposed Focus Areas. Most of these Focus Areas are either developed or surrounded by development. While future development could occur in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, compliance with local, state, and federal regulations, including the numerous wildfire-specific policies in the Safety Element, would ensure that wildfire risks are reduced.

By reducing fire risks, impacts to habitats, special-status species, and human communities would be reduced.

A4-6 While the commenter is correct that wildfire smoke harms people, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks which would lead to project occupants being exposed to harmful air pollutants. With the implementation of 2021-2029 Safety Element policies listed on pages 5.20-6 to 5.20-10 of the DEIR, the proposed project would not increase or exacerbate unhealthy levels of smoke. CEQA evaluates a project’s impacts on the physical environment, and therefore, as social impacts are not a CEQA issue, impacts to firefighters and their families are not a topic evaluated under CEQA. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.

A4-7 As stated in Impact 5.14-1, in Chapter 5.15, Public Services, the adoption of the Proposed General Plan would not in itself create a need for new or altered facilities. All development in the City that results from the implementation of the proposed project would be reviewed by the Wildomar Fire Department (WFD) for compliance with applicable provisions of the California fire and residential codes, the City’s General Plan (including its Safety Element), and the WFD’s standards. The payment of development impact fees as well as the City’s General Fund and Measure AA would be available to fund the construction of fire facilities, land acquisition, staffing, and equipment when such facilities/personnel are needed.

A4-8 While the commenter is correct that the extended fire season takes a toll on firefighters, this is not a topic evaluated under CEQA. See response to comment A4-6.

A4-9 While the commenter is correct that wildfires disproportionally affect communities with limited resources, which is discussed in the Wildomar 2021-2029 Safety Element (see Section 1, Introduction, and Appendix A, Vulnerability Assessment Results, of the Safety Element), this is not a topic evaluated under CEQA. Environmental Justice policies are embedded throughout the relevant elements of the Proposed General Plan which would 1515

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

further reduce impacts to vulnerable communities. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.

A4-10 While the commenter is correct that wildfires have economic impacts, which is discussed in the Wildomar 2021-2029 Safety Element, this is not a topic evaluated under CEQA.

This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.

A4-11 See responses to comments A4-2 through A4-10. The commenter has been added to the City’s public distribution list for the proposed project. 1516

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-57
LETTER A5 – Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (1 page) 1517

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

A5. Response to Comments from Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated June 26, 2024.

A5-1 The City will notify Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance on all future actions for the proposed project.
1518

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-59
LETTER R1 – Veronica Langworthy (1 page)
1519

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

R1. Response to Comments from Veronica Langworthy, dated June 6, 2024.

R1-1 This information was retrieved from Appendix 5.5-1, Cultural Resources Assessment, of the DEIR. The Proposed General Plan has been revised to include the correct information, and Appendix 5.5-1, Cultural Resources Assessment, has also been revised (see Appendix D, Revised Cultural Resources Assessment, and Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR).
1520

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments
October 2024 Page 2-61
LETTER R2 – Veronica Langworthy (1 page)
1521

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

R2. Response to Comments from Veronica Langworthy, dated June 19, 2024.

R2-1 Agricultural uses and animal keeping are intended to be permitted in all zones with different requirements per zone (e.g., minimum lot sizes, different types of animal keeping/agricultural uses, etc.). This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.

R2-2 Under the Proposed General Plan, the Open Space Conservation Habitat (OS-CH) designation would increase by approximately 1,069.5 acres. The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (WRC RCA) and other applicable conservation agencies are the adopting bodies for conservation plans. Criteria cells governed by the MSHCP are not under the jurisdiction of the City, and therefore, the City has no control over acreage changes to them. However, the increased acreage of the OS-CH designation is intended to capture all lands owned by WRC RCA.

R2-3 This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration. 1522
October 2024 Page 3-1

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section contains revisions to the DEIR based upon (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of DEIR publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. This section also includes additional mitigation measures to fully respond to commenter concerns as well as provide additional clarification to mitigation requirements included in the DEIR. The provision of these additional mitigation measures does not alter any impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the DEIR. Changes made to the DEIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions. This section also includes revisions to additional documents that are part of the proposed project (e.g., technical reports, existing conditions reports, etc.).

The revisions made to the DEIR merely provide clarification and amplification of issues and impacts already addressed in the DEIR, and do not disclose any new or more severe impacts. As such, none of the information proposed to be added to the DEIR is significant new information requiring recirculation pursuant to Public Resources Code 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

3.2 REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
The following text has been revised in response to comments received during the public comment period.

In response to Letter A4, Appendix 5.4-1, Biological Resources Assessment, of the DEIR, was revised to include a discussion on mountain lions and references to the MSHCP.

The revised technical report has been included as Appendix B, Revised Biological Resources Assessment, of this FEIR.

Pages 5.4-12, Section 5.4, Biological Resources, under Heading “Southwest Area Plan.” The following revisions are made.

Southwest Area Plan
The City is also located adjacent to the Southwest Area Plan. Conservation goals of the Southwest Area Plan that pertain to the City include preserving core areas and linkages as well as sensitive plant and wildlife species and their habitat (ECORP 2024). The target conservation acreage range for this Area Plan is 58,295 to 72,155 acres. This includes approximately 35,795 acres of existing public-quasi public lands and 22,500 to 36,360 acres of Additional Reserve Lands.
1523

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

Pages 5.4-16, Section 5.4, Biological Resources, under Heading “Reserve Assembly.” The following revisions are made.

Reserve Assembly
The City is in the Elsinore Area Plan in Subunit 3, Elsinore, and Subunit 4, Sedco Hills. The City is also adjacent to the Southwest Area Plan in to Subunit 1, Murrieta Creek and ;Subunit 2, Lower Sedco Hills; and Subunit 5, French Valley/Lower Sedco Hills and adjacent to the Sun City/Menifee Area Plan in Subunit 2, Lower Sedco Hills. The City is in the Santa Ana Mountains and Menifee Habitat Management Units, and adjacent to the Forest Service Trabuco Habitat Management Unit. Figure 5.4-2 shows the locations of the Subunits.

The City is within Species Survey Areas for narrow endemic plants, criteria area species, and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). The City is within the Criteria Area Species survey area for San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior), Parish’s brittlescale (Atriplex parishii), Davidson’s saltscale (Atriplex sernana var. davidsonii), thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia), round-leaved filaree (Calfornia macrophylla), smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri), little mousetail (Myosurus minimus ssp. apus), and mud nama (Nama stenocarpa). The City is within the Narrow Endemic Plants survey area for Munz’s onion (Allium munzii), San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila), many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis), spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis), California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica), and Wright’s trichocoronis (Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii). The City is also adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest, of which.

Pages 5.4-16, Section 5.4, Biological Resources, under Heading “Elsniore Area Plan.” The following revisions are made.

Elsinore Area Plan
Subunit 3:, Elsinore
The target acreage range for Additional Reserve Lands within the Elsinore Subunit is 925 to 1,815 acres. Species of conservation focus within this Ssubunit are American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), Bell’s sage sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas Editha quino), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), bobcat (Lynx rufus), western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), Munz’s onion, San Diego ambrosia, and smooth tarplant. Biological issues and considerations from the MSHCP follow:
• Conserve wetlands including Temescal Wash, Collier Marsh, Alberhill Creek, Lake Elsinore and the floodplain east of Lake Elsinore (including marsh Habitats) and maintain water quality. • Conserve clay soils supporting Munz’s onion.
• Conserve Travers-Willow-Domino soil series.
1524

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR/Additional Information
October 2024 Page 3-3
• Conserve foraging Habitat for raptors, providing a sage scrub-grassland ecotone. • Conserve grassland Habitat for mountain plover.
• Conserve breeding Habitat for northern harrier.
• Maintain linkage area for bobcat.
• Conserve San Diego ambrosia at Alberhill and Nichols Road or find new populations that would allow for loss of known populations.
• Maintain Core and Linkage Habitat for western pond turtle. • Maintain Core Area for Riverside fairy shrimp.
• Maintain opportunities for Core and Linkage Habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly.

Subunit 4:, Sedco Hills
The target acreage range for Additional Reserve Lands within the Sedco Hills Subunit is 2,415 to 3,845 acres.

Species of conservation focus within this Ssubunit are Bell’s sage sparrow, coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), least Bell’s vireo, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), southwestern willow flycatcher, Quino checkerspot butterfly, bobcat, Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), and western pond turtle. Biological issues and considerations from the MSHCP follow:
• Provide a northwest-southeast connection along the hills between Estelle Mountain and Sedco Hills, primarily for coastal California gnatcatchers, but also other sage scrub species. • Conserve habitat in Sedco Hills to maintain connection between Granite Hills and Bundy Canyon Road.
• Conserve wetlands in lower San Jacinto River.
• Provide upland Linkage connecting Sedco Hills to Wildomar. • Conserve foraging Habitat for raptors, providing a sage scrub-grassland ecotone. • Maintain Core and Linkage Habitat for bobcat.
• Maintain Core and Linkage Habitat for Stephens’ kangaroo rat. • Maintain linkage area for western pond turtle.
• Maintain opportunities for linkage area for Quino checkerspot butterfly.

Pages 5.4-17, Section 5.4, Biological Resources, under Heading “Southwest Area Plan.” The following revisions are made.

Southwest Area Plan
The Southwest Area Plan is adjacent to the City. While Criteria Cells within this Area Plan are adjacent to the City, they are included in conservation considerations for Criteria Cells within the City. Figure 5.4-2 shows the locations of the Ssubunit.
1525

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

Subunit 1: Murrieta Creek
The target acreage range for Additional Reserve Lands within this Subunit is 640 to 1,465 acres. Species of conservation focus within this Subunit are California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), white-tailed kite, yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), arroyo chub (Gila orcuttii), bobcat, mountain lion (Puma concolor), and western pond turtle. Biological issues and considerations from the MSHCP follow:
• Maintain habitat connectivity within Murrieta Creek from the confluence of Temecula Creek to Cole Creek for wildlife movement and Conservation of wetland species. • Maintain habitat connectivity between Murrieta Creek and Lower Warm Springs Creek to facilitate wildlife movement and conserve wetland species.
• Maintain linkage area for bobcat..
• Maintain the area of Murrieta Creek at the confluence of Pechanga Creek, Temecula Creek and Santa Margarita River for mountain lion Linkage.
• Maintain Habitat for arroyo chub, California red-legged frog and western pond turtle within Murrieta Creek and Cole Creek.
• Maintain the area of Murrieta Creek at the confluence of Pechanga Creek, Temecula Creek and Santa Margarita River for mountain lion Linkage.
• Maintain Habitat for arroyo chub, California red-legged frog and western pond turtle within Murrieta Creek and Cole Creek.

Subunit 5:, French Valley/Lower Sedco Hills
The target acreage range for Additional Reserve Lands within this subunit is 4,360630 to 7,395 acres. Species of conservation focus within this Ssubunit are Bell’s sage sparrow, California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), coastal California gnatcatcher, Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), southern California rufous crowned sparrow, Quino checkerspot butterfly, bobcat, Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), western pond turtle, long-spined spine flower (Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina), Munz’s onion, and Palmer’s grapplinghook (Harpagonella palmeri). Biological issues and considerations from the MSHCP follow:
• Conserve a large block of habitat generally east of I-215 and south of Scott Road for narrow endemic species.
• Provide connection to the Southwestern Riverside County Multi Species Reserve. • Conserve clay soils supporting long-spined spine flower, Munz’s onion and Palmer’s grapplinghook. • Maintain Core and Linkage Habitat for bobcat.
• Determine presence of potential Core Area for Los Angeles pocket mouse along Warm Springs Creek. • Maintain Core and Linkage Habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly. • Maintain Core Area for western pond turtle.
• Maintain Core Area for Riverside fairy shrimp.
1526

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR/Additional Information
October 2024 Page 3-5
Sun City//Menifee Area Plan
The Sun City/Menifee Area Plan is adjacent to the City. While Criteria Cells within this Area Plan are adjacent to the City, they are included in conservation considerations for Criteria Cells within the City. Figure 5.4-2 shows the locations of the Subunit.

Subunit 2: Lower Sedco Hills
The target acreage range for Additional Reserve Lands within this Subunit is 725 to 1,020 acres. Species of conservation focus within this Subunit are Bell’s sage sparrow, coastal California gnatcatcher, grasshopper sparrow, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, and Quino checkerspot butterfly. Biological issues and considerations from the MSHCP follow:
• Contribute to lower Sedco Hills portion of a habitat connection between the new Core Area in Antelope Valley and the Estelle Mountain/Lake Mathews Reserve area. • Conserve existing populations and Habitat of the coastal California gnatcatcher. • Maintain wetlands for purposes of connection and wildlife dispersal as well as wetland species Conservation. • Maintain Core and Linkage Habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly.

Pages 5.4-35, Section 5.4, Biological Resources, under Heading “Critical Habitat” The following revisions are made.

Critical Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat
Essential Fish Habitat
The City does not include any areas of Essential Fish Habitat, which are waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (ECORP 2024).

California Gnatcatcher Critical Habitat
The USFWS designated critical habitat for the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher in 2000 and revised the designated critical habitat in 2007. Critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher exists within Riverside County and south and southeast of Bundy Canyon in the City (see Figure 5.4-3). Furthermore, critical habitat is located immediately north of the City and just east of Lake Elsinore. Unit 10 exists within both San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The 2007 revision of the critical habitat reduced the original 199,940 acres designated in 2000 to 27,529 acres. Of the total acres in this unit, 21,776 acres are within the MSHCP Plan Area.
1527

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

Pages 5.4-52, Section 5.4, Biological Resources, under Heading “Wildlife Movement Corridors” The following revisions are made.

Wildlife Movement Corridors
As development continues and habitat fragments, it becomes harder for wildlife to travel between these fragments of their habitat. Wildlife corridors are linear landscape elements that provide areas for wildlife species to move and disperse between two or more habitats. Wildlife corridors contribute to population viability by ensuring continual exchange of genes between populations, providing access to adjacent habitat areas for foraging and mating, and providing routes for recolonization of habitat after local displacement or ecological catastrophes (e.g., fires). Wildlife corridors could be bounded by development or areas unsuitable for wildlife, but could contain enough food, cover, and/or water to facilitate wildlife movement between habitat patches and prevent isolation of populations. Travel routes are landscape features (i.e., ridgelines, drainages, canyons, or riparian areas) that are used by wildlife to gain access to essential resources. Areas adjoining two habitats are also often referred to as habitat linkages. As development continues and habitat fragments, it becomes harder for wildlife to travel between these fragments of their habitat.

Wildlife corridors can exist through the City. A large expanse of natural habitat within the City exists at the foothills of the Cleveland National Forest. However, due to development within the City, movement from the City into the Cleveland National Forest and vice versa is limited. The City is highly developed, and Interstate 15 (I-15) bisects the City as it runs generally north-south and further limits the success of wildlife dispersal.

An additional movement corridor exists in the form of Murrieta Creek. Creeks and drainages often provide wildlife with ways to move throughout developed landscapes. Additionally, the San Andreas Rift Zone is within and adjacent to the City and provides unique topographical characteristics, microclimates, and habitats that allow for linkage of habitats and can facilitate movement.

The development of the MSHCP included an assessment of core habitat areas and linkages within the MSHCP Plan Area; these core habitats and linkages provide suitable habitat for Covered Species and allow movement throughout the MSHCP Plan Area. Areas of core habitat generally consists of blocks of habitat of sufficient size to support the life history requirements of Covered Species or reduce edge effects. Linkages primarily facilitate movement and provide a connection to core habitat. Within the City, criteria cells reference the preservation or contribution to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 8 and Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3. A summary of these as they relate to the City and facilitate wildlife movement is as follows.  Proposed Linkage 8 consists primarily of upland habitat and is a major component of one of the two main east-west connections between Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain, Alberhill, and the Cleveland National Forest in the west and French Valley, Johnson Ranch, Diamond Valley Lake, and San Jacinto Mountains in the east. This linkage begins on the west side of the I-15 near Lake Elsinore, which is north of the City, and then continues south, parallel to the I-15, through the City until moving east toward Diamond Valley Lake. This linkage provides movement corridors and habitat for sensitive wildlife species such as coastal California gnatcatcher, Quino checkerspot butterfly, and Stephens’ kangaroo rat. A total of 5,470 acres are included in this linkage.
1528

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR/Additional Information
October 2024 Page 3-7
 Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3 consists of two blocks of land that extend from the southern border of Lake Elsinore. This Extension occurs adjacent to the northwestern portion of the City. This Extension converses soils of the Traver series and therefore protects habitat for Narrow Endemic Plants including Munz’s onion, San Diego ambrosia, and smooth tarplant. Sensitive wildlife species are also associated with this Extension and include Riverside fairy shrimp, Quino checkerspot buttery, western pond turtle, and shorebirds. A total of 1,290 acres are included in this Extension.

The City likely provides wildlife movement opportunities because it consists of open land and preserved areas.

Although the City’s value as a corridor is lessened by the high amount of development, it still offers ways for wildlife to move through the landscape. Lastly, bird rookeries, bat maternity roost sites, and other nursery sites have the potential to exist within the City. Figure 5.4-3, shows the locations of conserved lands in and around the City that may provide opportunities for wildlife movement, but are not the only areas in which wildlife movement can occur.

The mountain lion is known from the Santa Ana Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, San Jacinto Mountains, Santa Rosa Mountains and inhabits a wide range of ecosystems, including mountains, forests, riparian and oak woodlands, streams, deserts and wetlands. Mountain lions require large areas of relatively undisturbed habitats with adequate connectivity to allow for dispersal and gene flow. They have large home ranges that include heterogenous habitats. The MSHCP identifies mountain lion as a planning species in the following Cores and Linkages:
• Existing Cores A, B, C, F, G, I, J, K, L and M,
• Proposed Cores 3, 4, 6 and 7,
• Existing Linkage A,
• Proposed Linkage 1, 5, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18 , and • Proposed Constrained Linkage 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 14.

The following Cores are considered “live in” Cores for mountain lion:
• Existing Core B – Cleveland National Forest,
• Existing Core G – Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, • Existing Core K – San Bernardino National Forest,
• Existing Core L – Beauty Mountain,
• Existing Core M – Agua Tibia Mountains,
• Existing Linkage A – BLM land east of Rainbow Creek
• Proposed Core 3 – Badlands/ Potrero
Linkages considered critical for mountain lion movement include Proposed Constrained Linkage 1 and 2 (connection between Cleveland National Forest and Chino Hills State Park under Highway 91), Proposed Linkage 1 and Constrained Linkage 5 (connection between Cleveland National Forest and Lake Matthews/Estelle Mountain under I-15), Proposed Linkage 9 (connection between Cleveland and the Santa Rosa Plateau), and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 (connection between Santa ana Mountains and the Palomar Mountains). To date, there have been no findings in the vicinity of the City with respect to mountain lion or any new or revised 1529

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

linkages. None of the Cores and Linkages for the mountain lion identified above occur within the City limits.

The City as proposed is located outside of any designated linkages for the mountain lion.

The City likely provides wildlife movement opportunities because it consists of open land and preserved areas.

Pages 5.4-53, Section 5.4, Biological Resources, under Heading “Special-Status Plants” The following revisions are made.

Special-Status Plants
Special-status plant species include those classified as endangered or threatened, proposed or candidate species for listing by the USFWS or CDFW, monitored by CNPS, and considered to be those in greatest need of conservation.

A total of 36 special-status plant species were identified through the database searches and a review of pertinent literature and prior environmental documents. An additional 4 plant species were recognized in the City’s Criteria Area Species Survey Areas. Results of the CNDDB, iPaC, and CNPS database searches are included as Appendix D of Appendix 5.4-1. Table 5.4-1, Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the City, summarizes the special-status plant species, associated habitats, designated critical habitat within the city, blooming period, and elevation, and occurrence information. No critical habitat for plant species exists within the City. Table 5.4- 1 lists the special-status plant species that have been documented to occur within the City or may be potentially affected by activities in the City, as identified in the literature review.

Table 5.4-1 Special-Status Plant Species Identified in the Literature Review Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the City
Scientific Name/Common Name Federal/State/CRPR/USFS Status Habitats Blooming
Period
Elevation
Range (ft)
Abronia villosa var. aurita/chaparral sand-verbenaNone/None/1B.1/S/None Occurs in chaparral, coastal dune, and desert dunes.
(Jan) Mar–Sep 245–5,250
Allium marvinii/Yucaipa onion None/None/1B.1/S/None Occurs in chaparral and generally in clay soils and openings.

Apr–May 2,495–
3,495
Allium munzii/Munz’s onion END/THR/1B.1/None/Covered Occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, pinyon and
juniper woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands.

Mar–May 975–3,510
Almutaster pauciflorus/Alkali
marsh aster
None/None/2B.2/None/Not
Covered
Occurs in meadows and seeps. Jun–Oct 785–2,625
1530

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR/Additional Information
October 2024 Page 3-9
Table 5.4-1 Special-Status Plant Species Identified in the Literature Review Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the City
Scientific Name/Common Name Federal/State/CRPR/USFS Status Habitats Blooming
Period
Elevation
Range (ft)
Ambrosia pumila/San Diego ambrosiaEND/None/1B.1/None/Covered Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools.

Apr–Oct 65–1,360
Arctostaphylos rainbowensis/Rainbow manzanitaNone/None/1B.1/S/Covered Occurs in chaparral. Dec–Mar 675–2,200 Atriplex 3-9ditha3-9e var. notatior/San Jacinto Valley crownscale
END/None/1B.1/None/Covered Occurs in playas, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools.

Apr–Aug 455– 1,640
Atriplex parishii/Parish’s brittlescaleNone/None/1B.1/None/Covered Occurs in chenopod scrub, playas, and vernal pools.

Jun–Oct 80–6,235
Ayenia compacta/California ayeniaNone/None/2B.3/None/Not Covered
Occurs in Mojavean and Sonoran desert scrub.Mar–Apr 490–3,595 Brodiaea filifolia/Thread-leaved
brodiaea
THR/END/1B.1/None/Covered Occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, playas, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools. Often found in clay soils.

Mar–Jun 80–3,675
Brodiaea santarosae/Santa
Rosa Basalt brodiaea
None/None/1B.2/S/Not CoveredOccurs in valley and foothill grassland.May–Jun 1,855– 3,430
Calochortus weedii var. intermedius/Intermediate mariposa-lilyNone/None/1B.2/S/Covered Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland.

May–Jul 345–2,805
Centromadia pungens ssp.

Laevis/Smooth tarplant
None/None/1B.1/None/Covered Occurs in chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, riparian woodland,
and valley and foothill grassland.

Apr–Sep 0–2,100
Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi/Parry’s spineflowerNone/None/1B.1/S/Covered Occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley
and foothill grassland.

Apr–Jun 900–4,005
Chorizanthe polygonoides var.
longispina/Long-spined spineflower
None/None/1B.2/None/Covered Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools.

Apr–Jul 100–5,020
Clinopodium chandleri/San Miguel savoryNone/None/1B.2/S/Covered Occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian
woodland, and valley and foothill
grassland.

Mar–Jul 395–3,525
Dodecahema leptoceras/Slender-horned spineflowerEND/END/1B.1/None/Not CoveredOccurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub (alluvial
fans).

Apr–Jun 655–2,495
Dudleya multicaulis/Manystemmed dudleyaNone/None/1B.2/S/Covered Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland.

Apr–Jul 50–2,590
1531

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

Table 5.4-1 Special-Status Plant Species Identified in the Literature Review Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the City
Scientific Name/Common Name Federal/State/CRPR/USFS Status Habitats Blooming
Period
Elevation
Range (ft)
Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii/San Diego button-celeryEND/END/1B.1/None/Covered Occurs in coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools.

Apr–Jun 65–2,035
Geothallus tuberosus/Campbell’s liverwortNone/None/1B.1/None/Not Covered
Occurs in coastal scrub and vernal
pools.
– 35 1,970
Harpagonella palmeri/Palmer’s
grapplinghook
None/None/4.2/None/Covered Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland.

Mar–May 65–3,135
Hesperocyparis forbesii/Tecate
cypress
None/None/1B.1/S/Not CoveredOccurs in closed-cone coniferous forest and chaparral.– 360–4,920 Juncus luciensis/Santa Lucia
dwarf rush
None/None/1B.2/S/Not CoveredOccurs in chaparral, Great Basin scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, and vernal pools.

Apr–Jul 985–6,695
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. Coulteri/Coulter’s goldfieldsNone/None/1B.1/None/Covered Occurs in marshes and swamps, playas, and vernal pools.Feb–Jun 5–4,005 Lilium parryi/Lemon lily None/None/1B.2/S/Covered Occurs in lower and upper montane coniferous forest, meadows and
seeps, and riparian forest.

Jul–Aug 4,005–
9,005
Limnanthes alba ssp. Parishii/Parish’s meadowfoamNone/END/1B.2/S/Covered Occurs in lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, and vernal pools.

Apr–Jun 1,970–
6,560
Monardella hypoleuca ssp. Intermedia/Intermediate monardellaNone/None/1B.3/None/Not Covered
Occurs in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and lower montane coniferous forest.

Apr–Sep 1,310–
4,100
Myosurus minimus ssp.

Apus/Little mousetail
None/None/3.1/None/Covered Occurs in valley and foothill grassland and vernal pools.

Mar–Jun 65–2,100
Navarretia fossalis/Spreading
navarretia
THR/None/1B.1/None/Covered Occurs in chenopod scrub, marshes and swamps, playas, and vernal
pools.

Apr–Jun 100–2,150
Navarretia prostrata/Prostrate
vernal pool navarretia
None/None/1B.2/None/Covered Occurs in coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools.

Apr–Jul 10–3,970
Orcuttia californica/California
Orcutt grass
END/END/1B.1/None/Covered Occurs in vernal pools. Apr–Aug 50–2,165 Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum/White rabbit-tobaccoNone/None/2B.2/None/Not Covered
Occurs in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian
woodland.
(Jul) Aug–Nov
(Dec)
0–6,890
1532

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR/Additional Information
October 2024 Page 3-11
Table 5.4-1 Special-Status Plant Species Identified in the Literature Review Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the City
Scientific Name/Common Name Federal/State/CRPR/USFS Status Habitats Blooming
Period
Elevation
Range (ft)
Scutellaria bolanderi ssp. Austromontana/Southern mountains skullcap
None/None/1B.2/S/Not CoveredOccurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and lower montane coniferous forest.

Jun–Aug 1,395–
6,560
Sibaropsis hammittii/Hammitt’s
clay-cress
None/None/1B.2/S/Covered Occurs in chaparral openings and valley and foothill grasslands.Mar–Apr 2,360– 3,495
Sphaerocarpos drewiae/Bottle
liverwort
None/None/1B.1/None/Not
Covered
Occurs in chaparral and coastal
scrub.
– 295–1,970
Symphyotrichum defoliatum/San
Bernardino aster
None/None/1B.2/S/Not CoveredOccurs in cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps, and valley and
foothills grasslands.

Jul–Nov 5–6,695
ECORP 2024 (Appendix 5.4-1)
FED: Federal Classifications
END: Taxa listed as endangered
THR: Taxa listed as threatened
CAN: Candidate for threatened or endangered status
None: No listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act CNPS: California Native Plant Society Classifications
1A – Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and Either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere 1B – Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere 2A – Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, But Common Elsewhere 2B – 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
United States Forest Service (USFS)
S – Listed as sensitive under the USFS
None – No listing under the USFS
STATE: State Classifications
END: Listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act THR: Listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act FP: Fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code CT: Candidate for threatened listing
SSC: Species of Special Concern in California
None: No listing under the California Endangered Species Act CRPR List –
1 – Seriously threatened in California (over 80 percent of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) 2 – Moderately threatened in California (20 to 80 percent occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat) 3 – Not very threatened in California (less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
Covered Covered Species
Not Covered Not covered species
Pages 5.4-35, Section 5.4, Biological Resources, under Heading “Special-Status Wildlife” The following revisions are made.

Special-Status Wildlife
Special-status wildlife species include those classified as endangered or threatened, proposed or candidate species for listing by the USFWS or CDFW, USFS Sensitive, or considered a CDFW fully protected species or SSC. 1533

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

A total of 432 special-status wildlife species were identified through the database searches and a review of pertinent literature and prior environmental documents known to occur in the vicinity of the City were identified through the database review. Table 5.4-2, Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the City Identified in the Literature Review, summarizes the special-status wildlife and, associated habitats within the city. , and any designated critical habitat within the City.

Within the City, critical habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher exists (see Figure 5.4-2). Wildlife species listed or proposed for listing under FESA or CESA are discussed in more detail in Table 5.4-2.

Table 5.4-2 lists all the special-status wildlife species that have been documented to occur within the City or may be potentially affected by activities in the City, as identified in the literature review.

Table 5.4-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Identified in the Literature Review Scientific Name/Common Name
Federal/State/USFS/MSHCP
Status Habitats

INVERTEBRATES
Bombus crotchii/Crotch bumble
bee
None/CAN/None/Not Covered
Found in coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade crest and south into Mexico. Occurs in open grassland and scrub habitats.

Prefers a diet consisting of certain plant species including milkweeds, dusty maidens, lupines, medics, phacelias, sages, clarkias, poppies, and wild buckwheats. Nests are often located underground in abandoned rodent nests or above ground in tufts of grass, old bird nests, rock piles, or cavities in dead trees.

Branchinecta lynchi/Vernal pool
fairy shrimp
THR/None/None/Not CoveredOccurs in vernal pools and ephemeral wetlands. Typically occurs in small and shallow pools with mud or grassy bottoms.

Branchinecta sandiegoensis/San Diego fairy shrimpEND/None/None/Not CoveredOccurs in vernal pools and non-vegetated ephemeral basins.

Danaus plexippus plexippus
pop. 1/Monarch butterfly CAN/None/S/Not Covered
Roosts in wind-protected tree groves (coastal California conifer and eucalyptus species) from Northern Mendocino to Baja California.

Milkweed is essential for the larvae of this species.

Euphydryas ditha quino/Quino
checkerspot butterfly END/None/None/Covered
Occurs in chaparral and coastal sage scrublands, containing the proper host plant and abundant nectar resources. Primary host plants include dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta), white snapdragon (Anterrhinum coulterianum), woolly plantain (Plantago patagonica), and Chinese houses (Collinsia concolor)
Linderiella santarosae/Santa
Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp None/None/None/Covered Occurs in cool-water vernal pools that are formed from Southern Basalt Flows.

Streptocephalus woottoni/Riverside fairy shrimp END/None/None/Covered Occurs in vernal pools, tectonic swales, and earth slump basins in Riverside County.

FISH
Gila orcuttii/Arroyo chub None/SSC/S/ Covered Occurs in creeks, streams, and rivers with areas of slow-moving water with sand or mud bottoms. Ranges from San Diego to San Luis Obispo county.

AMPHIBIANS
Rana aurora draytonii/California
red-legged frog
THR/SSC/None/ Covered Occurs near water features such as ponds or streams in humid forests, grasslands, coastal scrub, and woodlands.

Anaxyrus californicus/Arroyo
toad
END/SSC/None/ Covered Occurs along the sandy banks of rivers, arroyos, and streams with shallow sandy pools. Also found in riparian woodlands or uplands adjacent to arroyos.
1534

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR/Additional Information
October 2024 Page 3-13
Table 5.4-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Identified in the Literature Review Scientific Name/Common Name
Federal/State/USFS/MSHCP
Status Habitats
Spea hammondii/Western
spadefoot
None/SSC/None/ Covered Occurs in open areas with sandy soils in a wide range of habitats including lowlands to foothills, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, mixed woodlands, alluvial fans, and grasslands.

Taricha torosa/Coast Range
newt
None/SSC/None/ Covered Occurs in wet forests, oak forests, chaparral, and rolling grasslands.

In southern California, it will occur in drier chaparral, oak woodland, and grasslands. Eggs are laid or attached by the female to submerged vegetation, logs, or rocks.

REPTILES
Anniella stebbinsi/Southern
California legless lizard
None/SSC/S/Not Covered Occurs in coastal sand dunes, scrubs, chaparral, and a variety of interior habitats, including sandy washes and alluvial fans.

Aspidoscelis hyperythra/Orange-throated whiptail
None/None/S/ Covered Occurs in semi-arid open areas with coarse soils including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and dry riparian areas and washes.

Arizona elegans occidentalis/California glossy snakeNone/SSC/None/Not CoveredOccurs in arid scrub, rocky washes, grasslands, chaparral. Typically in open areas and areas with loose soil for burrowing.

Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri/Coastal whiptail
None/SSC/None/Covered Occurs in arid habitats including chaparral, woodlands, and dry riparian areas.

Crotalus ruber/Red-diamond
rattlesnake
None/SSC/S/Covered Occurs in coastal chaparral, arid scrub, rocky grassland, oak and pine woodlands, desert mountain slopes, and rocky desert flats.

Thamnophis hammondii/Twostriped garter snake
None/SSC/S/Not Covered Occurs along aquatic habitats such as creeks and pools with rocky areas in chaparral, brushland, oak woodlands, and conifer forests.

Requires water for foraging.

Emys marmorata/Western pond
turtle
None/SSC/S/ Covered Occurs in ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, marshes, and irrigation ditches with abundant vegetation. Also occurs in either rocky or muddy bottoms of these aquatic environments. Can also occur in woodland, forest, and grassland habitats.

Phrynosoma blainvillii/Blainsville’s horned lizard
None/SSC/None/Covered Occurs in open areas of valleys, foothills, and semiarid mountains with sandy soil and low vegetation including chaparral, woodlands, and grasslands.

Salvadora hexalepsis virgultea/Coast patch-nosed snakeNone/SSC/None/Not CoveredOccurs in open arid and semi-arid areas such as deserts, brushland, grassland, and in scrub along canyons, rocky hillsides, sandy plains.

BIRDS
Accipiter cooperii/Cooper’s
hawk
None/None/None/Covered Occurs within forests and woodlands. Also occurs in neighborhoods and parks. Nests are typically built in pines, oaks, Douglas-fir, birches, spruces, and other taller trees that occur on flat ground and in dense woods.

Artemisiospiza belli belli/Bell’s
sparrow
None/None/None/Covered Breeding occurs in coastal sagebrush, chaparral, and open, scrubby habitats. Within chaparral, they are often found in young, less dense stands. Nesting occurs within shrubs, bunchgrasses and occasionally California sagebrush, brittlebush, white sage, black sage, California buckwheat, bush mallow, chamise, cholla, and willow. During winter they will utilize saltbush-dominated desert scrub and creosote.

Aimophila ruficeps canescens
/Southern California rufouscrowned sparrow
None/None/None/Covered Occurs on dry, open hillsides covered with grasses, rocks, and scattered shrubs. Chaparral, coastal sagebrush, scrub oaks, and pinyon pine are common habitats. Not associated with dense, woody vegetation. Nests are built on the ground near the base of a shrub.
1535

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

Table 5.4-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Identified in the Literature Review Scientific Name/Common Name
Federal/State/USFS/MSHCP
Status Habitats
Aquila chrysaetos/Golden Eagle
None/FP/None/ Covered Occurs in open and semi-open habitats. Found alongside canyonlands, rimrock terrain, and riverside cliffs and bluffs. They avoid developed areas and uninterrupted stretches of forest. Nesting occurs on cliffs but can occur in trees, on the ground, or in artificial structures. Nesting can also occur in grassland, chaparral, shrubland, forest, and other vegetated areas.

Athene cunicularia/Burrowing
owl
None/SSC/None/Covered Occurs in a variety of habitats characterized by dry annual or perennial low-growing vegetation. Occurs in grasslands, scrublands, agricultural fields, vacant lots, and other disturbed areas. Nests in abandoned burrows and requires an abundance of prey (e.g., ground squirrels and insects).

Buteo swainsoni/Swainson’s
hawk
None/THR/None/Covered Occurs in great basin grassland, great basin scrub, pinyon and juniper woodlands and valley and foothill grasslands.

Charadrius nivosus
nivosus/Western snowy plover
THR/SSC/None/Not Covered
Occurs in sand spits and dune-backed beaches.

Elanus leucurus/White-tailed
kite
None/FP/None/Not CoveredOccurs in low elevation, open grasslands, savannah-like habitats, agricultural areas, wetlands, and oak woodlands. Typically use riparian scrub, forest and woodland, and oak woodland and forest for breeding and use a wide variety of more open grassland/agricultural land and scrub lands for foraging. Nesting occurs in the upper third of trees; trees can be isolated or at the edge of or within a forest.

Lanius ludovicianus/Loggerhead shrike
None/SSC/None/Covered Occurs in open country, with scattered shrubs and trees or other perches for hunting. Common habitats include agricultural fields, deserts, grasslands, savanna, and chaparral.

Empidonax traillii extimus/Southwestern willow flycatcher END/END/None/Covered Occurs within riparian woodlands, particularly those with willow thickets. Nests in areas of shrubs and trees with low-density canopies.

Eremophila alpestris actia/California horned lark
None/None/None/Covered Occurs in areas with bare, dry ground or with sparse vegetation.

Common habitats include beaches, heavily grazed pastures, and deserts. They are common in areas with signs of human disturbance. Nests are placed on bare ground.

Plegadis chihi/White-faced ibis None/None/None/Covered Occurs in freshwater habitats such as ponds, rivers, marshes, and swamps. Nests in low trees or on the ground within reeds in marshes.

Icteria virens/Yellow-breasted
chat
None/SSC/None/Covered Occurs in riparian and upland thickets as well as dry overgrown pastures. Prefers to nest in dense scrub along streams or at the edges of ponds or swamps.

Polioptila californica californica/Coastal California gnatcatcher THR/SSC/None/Covered Occurs in dry coastal slopes, washes, and mesas with areas of low vegetation and coastal sage scrub. USFWS-designated critical habitat for this species is located within the City.

Vireo bellii pusillus/Least Bell’s
vireo
END/END/None/Covered Occurs within willows and riparian forest, scrub, and woodlands.

Breeds in low dense growth, especially in second-growth scrub or brushy fields.

MAMMALS
Dipodomys merriami parvus/San Bernardino kangaroo
rat
END/END and
SSC/None/Covered
Occurs in alluvial sage scrub, flood plains, washes, and upland areas adjacent to desert habitat.

Dipodomys stephensi/Stephen’s kangaroo rat
THR/THR/None/ Covered Occurs in coastal scrub and valley and vegetated temperate foothill grasslands. Endemic to southern California, primarily in western Riverside County.
1536

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR/Additional Information
October 2024 Page 3-15
Table 5.4-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Identified in the Literature Review Scientific Name/Common Name
Federal/State/USFS/MSHCP
Status Habitats
Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus/Los Angeles pocket
mouse
None/SSC/None/ Covered Occurs in arid and semi-arid habitats such as coastal sage scrub, grasslands, and washes.

Onychomys torridus ramona/Southern grasshopper
mouse
None/SSC/None/Not CoveredOccurs in arid Mojavean desert habitats, alkali desert scrub, succulent shrub, wash, and riparian areas. Also occurs in coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, sagebrush, and bitterbrush habitats
Eumops perotis californicus/Western mastiff batNone/SSC/None/Not CoveredOccurs in a variety of habitats including dry desert washes, flood plains, chaparral, oak woodland, open ponderosa pine forest, grassland, montane meadows, and agricultural areas.

Puma concolor/Mountain lion None/Candidate/None/Covered Occurs in a diverse range of habitat including temperate redwood forest, coniferous and deciduous forest, coastal chaparral, foothills, and mountains. In California, the petition to list the Southern California/Central Coast evolutionary significant unit (ESU), which includes mountain lions found within the Santa Ana Mountains, was accepted by the California Fish and Game Commission in 2020 and the ESU is considered a Candidate species.

Lasiurus xanthinus/Western
yellow bat
None/SSC/None/Not CoveredOccurs in valley foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis habitat.

Source: ECROP 2023 (Appendix 5.4-1)
FED: Federal Classifications
END: Taxa listed as endangered
THR: Taxa listed as threatened
CAN: Candidate for threatened or endangered status
None: No listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act United States Forest Service (USFS)
S: Listed as sensitive under the United States Forest Service None: No listing under the United States Forest Service STATE: State Classifications
END: Listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act THR: Listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act FP: Fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code CT: Candidate for threatened listing
SSC: Species of special concern in California
None: No listing under the California Endangered Species Act Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Covered: Covered Species
Not Covered: Not covered species
Pages 5.4-64, Section 5.4, Biological Resources, under Impact 5.4-1. The following revisions are made.

Within the City limits and its vicinity, there are several sensitive plant and animal species known to occur. As listed in Table 5.4-1 and Table 5.4-2, respectively, there are a total of 36 special-status plant species and 43 special-status wildlife species potentially occurring within and adjacent to the area. Some of the sensitive wildlife species that have been observed or potentially occurring within and adjacent to the City include, but not limited to, fairy shrimp species, Cooper’s hawk, burrowing owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, Stephens’ kangaroo rat, and mountain lion. The City is urbanized and bisected by I-15, and therefore provides minimal habitat value for sensitive and special status species. However, less developed areas of the City—such as vacant land, open space areas, water features, and agricultural land as well as the foothills of the Cleveland National Forest (located in the southwestern portion of the City) and the Santa Margarita and Elsinore Mountains—have the potential to support native species and natural communities/habitat that may allow for wildlife migration. 1537

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

As stated previously, the City is within the Elsinore Area Plan, which is a part of the MSHCP—specifically, Subunit 3–Elsinore and Subunit 4–Sedco Hills. Subunit 3–Elsinore is in and adjacent to the western portion of the City, and Subunit 4–Sedco Hills covers most of the mountains from the northeastern portion to the southeastern portion of the City, as shown on Figure 5.4-2. Land within the Subunits contains habitat that is more suitable for sensitive or special-status species as opposed to the rest of the City, which is urbanized and may not contain suitable habitat. Within these Subunits, 15 sensitive plant and 25 animal species have been known to occur, as mentioned in Section 5.4.1.2. One of the main goals of the Elsinore Area Plan is to conserve existing habitat for the various plant and animal species and link existing suitable habitats.

A majority of Subunit 3–Elsinore is developed, while the majority of Subunit 4–Sedco Hills is undeveloped hills and mountains. Under the proposed project, the areas in and adjacent to Subunit 3–Elsinore would remain mostly developed with residential and light industrial uses. Additionally, Subunit 4–Sedco Hills would be developed with a mix of low residential designations and open space lands. Compared to existing conditions, the addition of low-density development would increase impacts to sensitive species in Subunit 4–Sedco Hills.

Buildout of the City in accordance with the Proposed General Plan could impact special status vegetation communities, special status plants, or special status wildlife.

The MSHCP identifies mountain lion (a candidate for state listing) as a planning species in Existing Cores A, B, C, F, G, I, J, K, L and M; Proposed Cores 3, 4, 6 and 7; Existing Linkage A; Proposed Linkage 1, 5, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18; and Proposed Constrained Linkage 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 14. The following Cores are considered “live in” Core areas for mountain lion:
• Existing Core B – Cleveland National Forest,
• Existing Core G – Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, • Existing Core K – San Bernardino National Forest,
• Existing Core L – Beauty Mountain,
• Existing Core M – Agua Tibia Mountains,
• Existing Linkage A – BLM land east of Rainbow Creek
• Proposed Core 3 – Badlands/ Potrero
The City is not within the key Core areas and linkages within the MSHCP Plan Area for conservation of the mountain lion and therefore buildout of the City would not result in significant impacts to mountain lion movements. Mountain lion is a Covered Species Adequately Conserved per the MSHCP, and therefore, as long as the terms of the MSHCP are implemented, Wildlife Agencies would not require additional mitigation. Furthermore, development of a property outside the MSHCP Conservation Area (both within and outside of the Criteria Area) shall receive Take Authorization for Covered Species Adequately Conserved provided a payment of a mitigation fee is made in compliance with MSHCP Section 6.0. Payment of the mitigation fee and compliance with the requirements of Section 6.0 will provide full mitigation under the CEQA, FESA, CESA for impacts to species and habitats covered by the MSHCP per the agreements with the USFWS and CDFW.

MSHCP has identified key habitat areas and linkages within the MSHCP Plan Area for the conservation of mountain lions. Areas considered critical for mountain lion movement include Proposed Constrained Linkage 1 and 2 (connection between Cleveland National Forest and Chino Hills State Park under Highway 91), 1538

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR/Additional Information
October 2024 Page 3-17
Proposed Linkage 1 and Constrained Linkage 5 (connection between Cleveland National Forest and Lake Matthews/Estelle Mountain under I-15), Proposed Linkage 9 (connection between Cleveland and the Santa Rosa Plateau), and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 (connection between Santa Ana Mountains and the Palomar Mountains). These Conservation Areas also include habitat linkages and movement corridors between large habitat blocks that allow dispersal and movement of mountain lions throughout the MSHCP Plan Area and to areas outside of the MSHCP Plan Area.

The Proposed General Plan provides policies which would reduce impacts to Wildomar’s biological resources, including the following:
• Policy LU-1.3 Development Clustering and Density Transfers. Allow development clustering and/or density transfers to preserve open space, natural resources, cultural and/or biological sensitive resources.
• Policy LU-7.1 Design to Respect Natural Settings. Require that new development conform building massing to topographic forms and minimize alteration of natural landforms and vegetation, incorporating natural drainage systems, allowing development clustering to maintain slopes, restricting grading of steep slopes, and encouraging the preservation of significant hillsides, canyon edges and hilltops as prominent visual features.
• Policy LU-13.1 Preservation of Open Space Lands. Provide for permanent preservation of open space lands that contain important natural resources, hazards, water features, watercourses, and scenic and recreational value.
• Policy OS-1.1 Habitat Conservation. Require and enforce provisions of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan to protect environmentally-sensitive lands, habitats, and vulnerable species. • Policy OS-1.2 Wetland and Riparian Area Protection. To the maximum extent possible, development shall avoid and conserve remaining habitats in wetlands and riparian areas that are critical to the feeding, hibernation, or nesting of wildlife species associated with these areas. • Policy OS-1.5 Wildlife Corridors. Protect existing wildlife corridors by reducing habitat fragmentation from new developments. Work with the Riverside Conservation Agency (RCA) to pursue land purchase opportunities to preserve available lands.
• Policy OS-1.6 Natural Vegetation Conservation. Maintain and conserve mature and historic examples of native trees, natural vegetation, stands of established trees, and other features for ecosystem, aesthetic, and water conservation purposes.
• Policy OS-1.8 Protect Ridgelines. Protect ridgelines from incompatible development that diminishes their scenic value, and ensure their conservation, preservation, and management. 1539

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

These policies provide for the permanent preservation of open space lands, protection of habitats containing special status plant and wildlife species, and enforcement of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan provisions. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update would increase the level of protection of these plant and wildlife species within the City’s regulatory framework.

In addition, the following policy requires proposed development projects to conduct biological assessments to determine if sensitive biological resources and wildlife corridors would be impacted and to adopt a process and mitigation regulations for potential resource impacts, as required by USFWS and CDFW.  Policy OS-1.3 Biological Reports. Require biological reports that comply with the MSHCP for new development projects, transportation projects, and other planning efforts in the City. such as Policy LU-13.1, which provides for the permanent preservation of open space lands, and Policy OS1.1, which requires the enforcement of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan provisions.

The City is a participant in the Western Riverside County MSHCP which encompasses approximately 1.26 million acres of land. The MSHCP provides a framework for the USFWS and CDFW to grant take authorization (i.e., incidental take permits) for species covered by the MSHCP that are FESA and/or CESA listed as threatened or endangered. Approval of the MSHCP and execution of the implementing agreement by the USFWS and CDFW allow the agencies to issue Take Authorizations, including the City of Wildomar. Issuance of Take Authorization to the local jurisdictions allows plan participants to implement land use decisions consistent with the MSHCP without project-by-project review and permitting by USFWS and CDFW, a key goal of the MSHCP (RCTLMA 2023a). However, mitigation for impacts to both listed and unlisted species would be required pursuant to CEQA or other regulatory processes, and the MSHCP’s Conservation Area provides an avenue for this mitigation.

If a future project has the potential to adversely impact plant species, and the project site is within a Section

6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) and Section 6.3.2 Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area (CAPSSA), then the MSHCP would require that an environmental analysis and site visit (habitat assessment) be performed in order to determine the potential for narrow endemic and/or criteria area plant species to occur within the project site. If the habitat assessment determines that suitable habitat for narrow endemic and/or criteria area plant species is present, then focus surveys during the appropriate blooming season would be required and conducted in accordance with accepted botanical survey protocols according to the CDFW, CNPS, and USFWS’ General Rare Plant Survey protocols. If narrow endemic and/or criteria area plant species are identified onsite and a future project cannot avoid (permanent or temporary) at least 90 percent of the occupied portion of the property that contributes to the long-term conservation value of the species, a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) would be required. If a project site is not within a NEPSSA or CAPSSA, then a statement to this effect shall be included in the and the results shall be included in the habitat assessment and no further action is required per the MSHCP.

In addition to the MSHCP, there is a long-term (30-year) HCP for Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi).

The HCP is administered by the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency. While the core reserves established by the Stephens’ kangaroo rat HCP are managed as part of the MSHCP Conservation Area, the 1540

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR/Additional Information
October 2024 Page 3-19
Stephens’ kangaroo rat HCP still provides take authorization for Stephens’ kangaroo rat within its boundaries.

Although there are no core reserves within the City, the majority of the City is within the Stephens’ kangaroo rat plan area, and therefore is subject to fees (See Figure 5.4-1). The MSHCP provides take authorization outside of the area already covered by the Stephens’ kangaroo rat HCP.

Figure 5.4-6, Flow Chart to Guide Development Applications, Figure 5.4-7, Flow Chart Based on Project Action, Figure

5.4-8, Flow Chart to Guide Special-Status Wildlife (Amphibians) Recommendations, Figure 5.4-9, Flow Chart to Guide Burrowing Owl Recommendations, Figure 5.4-10, Flow Chart to Guide Vernal Pools and Fairy Shrimp Recommendations, Figure 5.4-11, Flow Chart to Guide Riparian Bird Species Recommendations, Figure 5.4-12, Flow Chart to Guide Coastal California Gnatcatcher Recommendations, Figure 5.4-13, Flow Chart to Guide Special-Status Wildlife (Including Protected Birds/Nests) Recommendations, and Figure 5.4-14, Flow Chart to Guide Covered Roads Recommendations, provide flow charts to assist future developers on the steps required to ensure future projects minimize impacts to biological resources. Future development under the project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the MSHCP, FESA, CESA, and CEQA, as well as with the proposed General Plan Update goals, objectives, and policies discussed above, which would reduce potential impacts on special status plant and wildlife species within the City. Policies under the proposed General Plan Update that require measures such as site-specific biological studies and compliance with the MSHCP would ensure that the assessment of potential impacts to candidate, listed, and special status species be made on a project by project basis. Additionally, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9, and Mitigation Measure BIO-14 would be implemented at the project level, as applicable, to reduce impacts to biological resources. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 require worker environmental awareness training for biological resources and appropriate measures to avoid impacts to biological resources, Mitigation Measures BIO-3 through BIO-9 provide provisions to reduce impacts to wildlife species, and Mitigation Measure BIO-14 would reduce impacts to wildlife corridors/movement.

While compliance with applicable regulations, MSHCP, and implementation of the Proposed General Plan policies and the mitigation measures identified in this EIR would protect special status species, it is uncertain as to whether changes in project design or mitigation would fully reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Future development projects would require more detailed evaluations of biological resources and formulation of mitigation measures, if needed, by a qualified biologist. As project-specific information is unknown at this time, it would be speculative to make such determinations. Therefore, impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species are conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.

Pages 5.4-64, Section 5.4, Biological Resources, under Impact 5.4-3. The following revisions are made.

In the southwestern area of the City limits are the foothills of the Cleveland National Forest, which contain a large expanse of natural habitat that may allow for wildlife migration and nursery sites. The City also encompasses the foothills of the Santa Margarita Mountains and Elsinore Mountains. However, due to development within the City, movement from the City into the Cleveland National Forest and mountain ranges, and vice versa, is limited. The City is developed and I-15 bisects the City in a north-south direction, which further limits the success of wildlife dispersal. An additional movement corridor, Murrieta Creek, exists within the City; creeks and drainages often provide wildlife with ways to move throughout developed areas. The San Andreas Rift Zone within and adjacent to the City provides unique topographical characteristics, microclimates, and 1541

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

habitats that allow for habitat linkages and can facilitate movement. The City provides wildlife movement opportunities in other forms, such as open land and preserved areas. Although the City’s developed environment lessens the value of wildlife corridors within the City, such corridors still exist.

The MSHCP has proposed to create a linkage (Proposed Linkage 8), which is composed largely of upland habitat in the Sedco Hills and Wildomar area, that would connect the Core Areas in the Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain, Alberhill, and Cleveland National Forest areas with the Core Areas in French Valley, Johnson Ranch, Diamond Valley Lake, and San Jacinto Mountains. This proposed linkage would provide live-in habitat for over 50 pairs of coastal California gnatcatcher, as well as a connection to other key populations of gnatcatcher known to occur in Alberhill, North Peak, and the Ramsgate area. Other planning species for which habitat is provided include Quino checkerspot butterfly, Stephens’ kangaroo rat, and bobcat (RCTLMA 2023b). The grasslands in this proposed linkage also provide foraging habitat for a number of raptors. Maintenance of large intact interconnected habitat blocks is important for these species. The northern portion of this linkage includes a portion of the lower San Jacinto River extending under I-15 to connect with Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3, which is in the northeast region of the MSHCP area (RCTLMA 2023b).

The MSHCP identifies mountain lion as a planning species in Existing Cores A, B, C, F, G, I, J, K, L and M; Proposed Cores 3, 4, 6 and 7; Existing Linkage A; Proposed Linkage 1, 5, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18; and Proposed Constrained Linkage 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 14. The following Cores are considered “live in” Cores for mountain lion:
• Existing Core B – Cleveland National Forest,
• Existing Core G – Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, • Existing Core K – San Bernardino National Forest,
• Existing Core L – Beauty Mountain,
• Existing Core M – Agua Tibia Mountains,
• Existing Linkage A – BLM land east of Rainbow Creek
• Proposed Core 3 – Badlands/ Potrero
The MSHCP has identified key habitat areas and linkages within the MSHCP Plan Area for the conservation of mountain lions. These Conservation Areas are comprised of large blocks of open space and include the Santa Rosa Plateau-Santa Ana Mountains, Agua Tibia Wilderness-Palomar Mountains, Badlands-San Jacinto Mountains-Santa Rosa Mountains, and San Bernardino Mountains, among others (RCTLMA 2003). These Conservation Areas also include habitat linkages and movement corridors between large habitat blocks that allow dispersal and movement of mountain lions throughout the MSHCP Plan Area and to areas outside of the MSHCP Plan Area. Areas considered critical for mountain lion movement include Proposed Constrained Linkage 1 and 2 (connection between Cleveland National Forest and Chino Hills State Park under Highway 91), Proposed Linkage 1 and Constrained Linkage 5 (connection between Cleveland National Forest and Lake Matthews/Estelle Mountain under I-15), Proposed Linkage 9 (connection between Cleveland and the Santa Rosa Plateau), and Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 (connection between Santa Ana Mountains and the Palomar Mountains). These Conservation Areas also include habitat linkages and movement corridors between large habitat blocks that allow dispersal and movement of mountain lions throughout the MSHCP Plan Area and to areas outside of the MSHCP Plan Area. The City is not within the key habitat areas and linkages within 1542

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR/Additional Information
October 2024 Page 3-21
the MSHCP Plan Area for conservation of the mountain lion. Therefore, buildout of the City in accordance with the Proposed General Plan would not result in a significant impact on wildlife movement of the mountain lion. Pursuant to the MSHCP, mountain lion is a Covered Species Adequately Conserved and because the City is not identified by the MSHCP as part of any existing or proposed linkages, corridors, or conservation areas and as long as the terms of the MSHCP are implemented, the Wildlife Agencies will not require additional mitigation. Furthermore, development of a property outside the MSHCP Conservation Area (both within and outside of the Criteria Area) shall receive Take Authorization for Covered Species Adequately Conserved provided a payment of a mitigation fee is made in compliance with MSHCP Section 6.0. Payment of the mitigation fee and compliance with the requirements of Section 6.0 will provide full mitigation under the CEQA, FESA, CESA for impacts to species and habitats covered by the MSHCP per the agreements with the USFWS and CDFW.

Migratory birds can also be found within the City limits. Migratory birds, some of which are listed in Table

5.4-2, may use the surrounding areas, including the City, as a stopping point in their migratory journey. These birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The MBTA implements international treaties between the U.S. and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, and any of their parts, eggs, and nests, from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. All future development within the City would be required to comply with the MBTA.

Additionally, the MSHCP does not allow take of any nesting birds, regardless of the time of year, pursuant to the MBTA and applicable Fish and Game Codes.

Figure 5.4-17, Flow Chart to Guide Wildlife Corridor and Movement Protection Recommendations, provides a flow chart to assist future developers on the steps required to ensure future projects minimize impacts to wildlife corridors.

The Proposed General Plan includes policies aimed at reducing impacts to wildlife corridors including the following:
• Policy LU-13.1 Preservation of Open Space Lands. Provide for permanent preservation of open space lands that contain important natural resources, hazards, water features, watercourses, and scenic and recreational value.
1543

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

• Policy OS-1.4 Rewilding and Habitat Restoration. Pursue opportunities for rewilding and restoring critical habitats for sensitive species that include, but are not limited to the following: preserving, enhancing, restoring, and expanding an integrated network of open space to support beneficial uses, such as habitat, recreation, natural resources, historic and tribal resources, water management, and aesthetics. • Policy OS-1.5 Wildlife Corridors. Protect existing wildlife corridors by reducing habitat fragmentation from new developments. Work with the Riverside Conservation Agency (RCA) to pursue land purchase opportunities to preserve available lands.
• Policy OS-1.8 Protect Ridgelines. Protect ridgelines from incompatible development that diminishes their scenic value, and ensure their conservation, preservation, and management.

The Proposed General Plan includes policies aimed at reducing impacts to wildlife corridors, such as Policy LU-13.1, which provides for the permanent preservation of open space lands, and Policy OS-1.4, which aims to pursue opportunities for rewilding and restoring critical habitats. Additionally, Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-7, BIO-8, and BIO-9, as well as Mitigation Measure BIO-14, which requires measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for significant impacts to wildlife corridors to be implemented in consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency.

Future development under the project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the MSHCP, FESA, CESA, and CEQA, as well as with the proposed General Plan Update goals, objectives, and policies discussed above, which would reduce potential impacts on wildlife movement within the City. Policies under the proposed General Plan Update that require measures such as site-specific biological studies and compliance with the MSHCP would ensure that the assessment of potential impacts to wildlife movement be made on a project-byproject basis. With the implementation of the Proposed General Plan policies and Mitigation Measures BIO1, BIO-2, BIO-7, BIO-8, BIO-9, and BIO-14, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impact 5.4-3 would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
See Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-7, BIO-8, and BIO-9, and BIO-14.

BIO-14 If an action requiring a discretionary approval is within or adjacent to a Core Area, Linkage, or wildlife movement corridor identified in the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) or a project-specific biological analysis, a qualified biologist shall, prior to any ground disturbance, prepare and submit to the City a wildlife movement evaluation for the proposed project to assess whether the project has the potential to substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The City shall review the evaluation and in doing so may confer with any/all applicable resource agencies (e.g. CDFW, USFWS, NMFS) to assess the extent of any such impacts and impose conditions requiring the implementation of appropriate and feasible measures such as avoidance, design alteration, overcrossings, or other measures to reduce any such potentially significant impacts to the greatest extent feasible. 1544

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR/Additional Information
October 2024 Page 3-23
If an action will substantially impact wildlife movement, established wildlife corridors, or impede the use of nursery sites, measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for significant impacts shall be determined in consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency (e.g., CDFW, USFWS, NMFS) and implemented prior to the start of ground disturbing activities. Refer to Figure 5.4-17, Flow Chart to Guide Wildlife Corridor and Movement Protection Recommendations.

In response to Letter R1, Appendix 5.5-1, Cultural Resources Assessment, of the DEIR, was revised to clarify information about Margaret Collier.

The revised technical report has been included as Appendix D, Revised Cultural Resources Assessment, of this FEIR.

Based on the revisions to the proposed land use maps and designations, and road name change, Appendix 3-1, Draft General Plan, has been revised.

The revised Draft General Plan has been included as Appendix E, Draft General Plan, of this FEIR.

In response to Letter A3, a link to the interactive map has been added to the project description in Chapter 3, Project Description, on page 3-5, of the DEIR.

Proposed General Plan Land Use Changes
Changes to the land use designations fall into three categories: Administrative Changes, Land Use Changes Reflecting Ground Conditions, and Focus Area Changes. Figure 3-3, Existing Land Use Plan, and Figure 3-4, Proposed Land Use Plan, show the existing and proposed land use designations in the City. Further, in addition to the existing and proposed land use plans shown in Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4, and for informational purposes, the proposed General Plan Land Use designations for every parcel in the City can be found by accessing the online interactive map available at: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/06e5893cf3094547a8066eded0fb9ae7/.

In response to Letter A3, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 listed in Table 1-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, of Chapter 1, Executive Summary, and in Section 5.3, Air Quality, of this DEIR, has been revised to clarify that this mitigation measure includes construction HRAs under specific parameters.

AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Wildomar for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project 1545

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Wildomar Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts.

Specifically, project applicants of discretionary projects within 1,000 feet of sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, day care facilities, and nursing homes, etc.), as measured from the property line of the project site, that utilize off-road equipment of 50 horsepower or more, and that occur for more than 2 months of active construction (i.e., exclusive of interior renovations) shall prepare a construction health risk assessment (HRA) in accordance with policies and procedures of the South Coast AQMD. If the construction HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds 10 in a million, the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds

1.0, or the thresholds as determined by the South Coast AQMD, then the project applicant shall identify and demonstrate measures, such as those listed below, that can reduce potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level.

If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Wildomar Building & Safety department shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions.

Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include but are not limited to the following:
 Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
• Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. • Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities. • Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
 Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits.  Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.  Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
 Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/compliance/vocs/architectural-coatings/super-compliant-coatings. 1546

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR/Additional Information
October 2024 Page 3-25
These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Department.

In response to Letter A3, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 listed in Table 1-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, of Chapter 1, Executive Summary, and in Section 5.3, Air Quality, of this DEIR, has been revised to clarify that this mitigation measure includes operational HRAs.

AQ-3 Industrial and Warehouse Development Health Risk Assessments. Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Wildomar, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit an operational health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Wildomar Planning Department for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast AQMD. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer hazard index exceeds the respective threshold, as established by the South Coast AQMD at the time a project is considered, the project applicant will be required to identify best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) and appropriate enforcement mechanisms and demonstrate that they are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to restricting idling on-site or electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan.

In response to Letter A3, construction localized significance thresholds (LSTs) discussion on page 5.3-46 (Impact 5.3-4) in Section 5.3, Air Quality, of this DEIR, has been relocated to Impact 5.3-2 to address regional and localized construction emissions under the same impact. Additionally, the last statement under Impact 5.3-2 on page 5.3-43 in Section 5.3, Air Quality, of this DEIR, has been revised to clarify that construction-related regional and localized air quality impacts would be potentially significant.

Impact 5.3-2: Construction activities associated with future development that would be accommodated under the Proposed General Plan could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of the South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria. [Threshold AQ-2 and AQ-3] Construction activities under the proposed project would also temporarily increase PM10, PM2.5, VOC, NOX, SOX, and CO regional emissions in the SoCAB. The primary source of NOX, CO, and SOX emissions is the operation of construction equipment. The primary sources of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions 1547

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

are activities that disturb the soil, such as grading and excavation, road construction, and building demolition and construction. The primary sources of VOC emissions are the application of architectural coating and offgas emissions associated with asphalt paving. A discussion of health impacts associated with air pollutant emissions generated by construction activities is included under “Air Pollutants of Concern” in Section 5.3.1.2, Regulatory Framework.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would occur over the buildout horizon of the plan, causing short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. However, information regarding specific development projects, soil types, and the locations of receptors would be needed to quantify the level of impact associated with construction activity. Due to the scale of development activity associated with buildout of the proposed project, emissions would likely exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds. In accordance with the South Coast AQMD methodology, emissions that exceed the regional significance thresholds would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB.

Air quality emissions related to construction must be addressed on a project-by-project basis. For the proposed project, which is a broad-based policy plan, it is not possible to determine whether the scale and phasing of individual projects would exceed the South Coast AQMD's short-term regional or localized construction emissions thresholds. In addition to regulatory measures—e.g., South Coast AQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, Rule 1113 for architectural coatings, and CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measures—mitigation imposed at the project level may include extension of construction schedules and/or use of special equipment. Policy

2.2 in Open Space and Conservation Element would also require compliance with South Coast AQMD regulations and support appropriate future measures to reduce fugitive dust emanating from new project construction sites.

Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs)
Implementation of the Proposed General Plan could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations during construction activities if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevating those levels.

Unlike regional emissions as shown in Table 5.3-10, localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or µg/m3) and can be correlated to potential health effects. LSTs are the amount of project-related emissions at which localized concentrations (ppm or µg/m3) would exceed the ambient air quality standards for criteria air pollutants for which the SoCAB is designated a nonattainment area.

Construction LSTs
Buildout of the Proposed General Plan would occur over the buildout horizon of the plan via several smaller projects, each with its own construction time frame and equipment. Because an LST analysis can only be conducted at a project-level, quantification of LSTs is not applicable for the program-level environmental analysis of the Proposed General Plan. Because potential development and redevelopment could occur close to existing sensitive receptors, future development projects that would be accommodated by the Proposed General Plan have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction equipment exhaust combined with fugitive particulate matter emissions has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutant emissions and result in potentially significant impacts. 1548

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR/Additional Information
October 2024 Page 3-27
While individual projects under the proposed project may not exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds, the likely scale and extent of construction activities associated with future development projects under the Proposed General Plan would likely continue to exceed the relevant South Coast AQMD thresholds for some projects. Construction-related regional and localized air quality impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the proposed project would be potentially significant.

The proposed land use maps (Figure 1-4, Proposed Land Use Plan, and Figure 3-4, Proposed Land Use Plan) have been revised to show the correct street name for the roadway extending east of I-15 (label has been changed from “Baxter Road” to “Wildomar Trail”) and to revert the land use designation from “Estate Density Residential (EDR)” to “Low Density Residential (LDR) for the parcels to north of Grand Avenue. Additionally, revisions were made to maintain the current General Plan land use designations for residential sites included in Appendix A of the adopted and certified 2021-2029 Housing Element. As such, the revisions to this map ensure that no changes to the housing sites in the 2021-2029 Housing Element would occur as part of the proposed project.
1549
Source: ERI 2024; City of Wildomar 2020; PlaceWorks 2024.

PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Miles)
1 City of Wildomar Boundary
Figure 1-4 - Proposed Land Use Plan

1. Introduction

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR
LLR
EDR
VLDR
LDR
MDR
MHDR
HDR
HHDR
VHDR
Large Lot Residential
Estate Density Residential
Very Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Very High Density Residential
Highest Density Residential
OS-R
OS-CH Conservation Habitat
Open Space Recreation
RM Rural Mountainous
Other Jurisdictions
Parcels
15 MUL
MUH
PF
BP
CO
CR
LI
Mixed-Use Low
Mixed-Use High
Public Facilities
Business Park
Commercial Offi ce
Commercial Retail
Light Industrial
1550
Source: ERI 2024; City of Wildomar 2020; PlaceWorks 2024.

PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Miles)
1 City of Wildomar Boundary
Figure 3-4 - Proposed Land Use Plan

3. Project Description

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR
15 LLR
EDR
VLDR
LDR
MDR
MHDR
HDR
HHDR
VHDR
Large Lot Residential
Estate Density Residential
Very Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Very High Density Residential
Highest Density Residential
OS-R
OS-CH Conservation Habitat
Open Space Recreation
RM Rural Mountainous
Other Jurisdictions
Parcels
MUL
MUH
PF
BP
CO
CR
LI
Mixed-Use Low
Mixed-Use High
Public Facilities
Business Park
Commercial Offi ce
Commercial Retail
Light Industrial
1551

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

In response to Letter A3, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 listed in Table 1-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, of Chapter 1, Executive Summary, and in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this DEIR, has been revised to clarify that this mitigation measure would require new development that resulted in significant GHG emissions impacts to be required to implement the City’s GHG reduction measures or best management practices.

GHG-1 The City of Wildomar shall participate in implementation and future updates of the Subregional Climate Action Plan (CAP) led by the Western Riverside Council of Government (WRCOG) with a focus on strategies that provide community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions in the City’s planning area. The City shall conduct regular monitoring and reporting of community-wide GHG emissions to ensure progress toward reducing community-wide GHGs and work with WRCOG and partners to update the Subregional CAP on a regulator basis to ensure long-term reduction in GHG emissions.

The City shall prepare a list of quantified GHG reduction measures or best management practices for use by new development subject to the City’s discretionary review process, that are consistent with the Subregional CAP. The City shall require that Applicants for new development that would result in significant GHG emissions impacts, be required to implement the GHG reduction measures or best management practices identified on the list prepared by the City, if determined to be applicable for the project.

Examples of mitigation measures that may be considered, include the following:
 Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share pro-grams, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
 Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies;  Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles;  Improve or increase access to transit;
 Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care;
 Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network;  Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;  Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service;  Provide traffic calming measures;
 Limit or eliminate park supply;
 Unbundle parking costs;
 Provide parking cash-out programs;
 Implement or provide access to commute reduction program;  Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations;
1552

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR/Additional Information
October 2024 Page 3-31
 Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs  Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations;
 Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that:
 Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs;  Provide transit passes;
 Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for exam-ple providing ride-matching services;
 Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single occupancy vehicle;
 Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for car-pools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;  Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; and  Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes.  Provide maximum future coverage of solar panels and installing the maximum solar power generation capacity feasible;
 Oversizing electrical rooms by 25 percent or providing a secondary electrical room to accommodate future expansion of electric vehicle charging capability;  Running conduit to designated locations for future electric truck charging stations.

Page 5 ends

the infeasibility of special roadway paving.

Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would substantially reduce impacts associated with a substantial increase in traffic noise levels. However, several measures were considered for mitigating or avoiding traffic noise impacts.

Special Roadway Paving
Notable reductions in tire noise have been achieved via the implementation of special paving materials, such as rubberized asphalt or open-grade asphalt concrete overlays. For example, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) conducted a study of pavement noise along Interstate 80 in Davis and found an average improvement of 6 dBA to 7 dBA compared to conventional asphalt overlay (Caltrans 2011). Due to the cost associated with rubberized paving, estimated to be 20-25 percent more than conventional mixes, along with the associated increase in mobilization and setup, the use of rubberized asphalt is not feasible Citywide, however on a case-by-case basis, it could be used as part of project mitigation (CalRecycle, 2024). 1553

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

Minor revisions to the 2021-2029 Safety Element were made to update references to the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in the text, fix typographical errors, and incorporate newer data into Figure 1-0, Regional Fault Lines, Figure 5-0, Flood Hazard Zones, and Figure 8-0, Wildland-Urban Interface. The revised 2021-2029 Safety Element has been included as Appendix F, 2021-2029 Safety Element, to this FEIR.

Pages SE-3 – SE-4 of the 2021-2029 Safety Element:

City of Wildomar Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City of Wildomar’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is a plan to identify and profile hazard conditions, analyze risk to people and facilities, and develop mitigation actions to reduce or eliminate hazard risks in Wildomar. The City prepared the LHMP in accordance with the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) LHMP guidance. The mitigation actions in the LHMP include both short-term and long-term strategies, and involve planning, policy changes, programs, projects, and other activities. The LHMP and Safety Element address similar issues, but the Safety Element provides a higherlevel framework and set of policies, while the LHMP focuses on more specific mitigation, often short-term, actions. The LHMP, as its name implies, focuses on mitigation-related actions, while the Safety Element also includes policies related to emergency response, recovery, and preparation activities. The current LHMP, as certified by FEMA, is incorporated into this Safety Element by reference, as permitted by California Government Code Section 65302.6. It is available online at: https://www.cityofwildomar.org/314/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.

Page SE-13 of the 2021-2029 Safety Element:

GOAL S-1: To provide development regulations consistent with State of California requirements and best practices.

POLICY S-1 Enforce state laws aimed at identification, inventory, and retrofit of existing vulnerable structures and mitigate hazard impacts through adoption and strict enforcement of current building codes, which will be amended as necessary when local deficiencies are identified.

POLICY S-2 Continue to enforce penalties against grading without permits and ensure the restoration of land damaged or degraded from grading activities. Continue to educate the public about the benefits of grading with permits and the penalties for grading without them. If the penalties are determined to be ineffective, explore whether levying greater penalties would be more effective in deterring illegal grading and ensuring proper restoration of damaged lands. 1554

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR/Additional Information
October 2024 Page 3-33
POLICY S-3 Incorporate the current City of Wildomar Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, as adopted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, into this Safety Element by reference, as permitted by California Government Code Section 65302.6.

Pages SE-41 – SE-42 of the 2021-2029 Safety Element:

Wildland-Urban Interface Fires
The wildland-urban interface is an area where buildings and infrastructure (e.g., cell towers, schools, water supply facilities) mix with areas of flammable wildland vegetation. The WUI is made up of three distinct zones.

The intermix zone contains housing development or improved parcels interspersed in an area dominated by wildland vegetation subject to wildfire. The interface zone contains dense housing next to vegetation, but not dominated by wildland vegetation, that can burn in a wildfire. The influence zone contains wildfire-susceptible vegetation within 1.5 miles from the WUI or wildland-urban intermix zones. This interface is sometimes divided into the defense zone (areas in close proximity to communities, usually about a quarter-mile thick) and threat zones (an approximately one and a quarter mile buffer around the defense zone). Hundreds of homes now border major forests and brush areas. With thousands of people living near and visiting wildland areas, the probability of human-caused fires is growing. Wildfires and urban interface fires have occurred close to or encroached into the city, especially in large areas of grassland, scrub, and chapparal. The most recent fire was the 2019 Tenaja Fire, located south of Wildomar in the rural community of La Cresta. The fire burned approximately 1,926 acres and damaged three structures but did not encroach into the city. Other notable fires that occurred within Wildomar are listed in Table S-2.

In the wildland-urban interface, efforts to prevent ignitions and limit wildfire losses hinge on hardening structures and creating defensible space through a multi-faceted approach, which includes engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and economic incentive. Different strategies in the defense and threat zones of the wildland-urban interface help to limit the spread of fire and reduce the risk to people and property.

Wildfire threat within California is described by Wildfire Hazard Severity Zones, which designate hazardous areas within State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) as moderate, high, or very high. However, incorporated areas such as Wildomar are considered Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs) and only designate very high fire hazard severity zones. Significant portions of the city are located within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Figure 7-0 shows the wildfire risk zones in and around Wildomar and Figure 8-0 identifies the wildland-urban interface.

The highest threat occurs along the eastern side of I-15, as well as the western side of Grand Avenue, on land that is on and adjacent to hillsides with large areas of dry grass and chapparal. Areas adjacent to the city that are susceptible to wildfires are also of concern as these conditions could exacerbate vulnerabilities within the city. As illustrated in Figure 7-0, the highest threat for vulnerable communities occurs in the northern region of the city, north of Lemon Street and east of I-15. These communities are entirely within a very high fire hazard severity zone.
1555

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

Pages SE-50 – SE-51 of the 2021-2029 Safety Element:

GOAL S-4: To avoid the risk of loss of life and injury and minimize risk of property damage, community disruption, and economic loss resulting from urban and wildland fires.

Building Code and Performance Standards
POLICY S-44 All proposed development and construction within Fire Hazard Severity Zones shall be reviewed by the Riverside County Fire Department and Wildomar Building and Safety Department for consistency with the following requirements before the issuance of any building permits:
(1) All proposed development and construction shall meet minimum state, county, and local standards for fire safety, as defined in the City of Wildomar Building or Fire Codes, or by City zoning, or as dictated by the Building Official or the Transportation Land Management Agency based on building type, design, occupancy, and use.
(2) In addition to the standards and guidelines of the California Building Code, California Fire Code, the Wildomar Municipal Code, and other appropriate fire safety provisions, developments shall incorporate additional standards for high-risk, high-occupancy, and dependent facilities where appropriate under the City of Wildomar Fire Code. These shall include assurance that structural and nonstructural architectural elements of the building will not impede emergency egress for fire safety staffing/personnel, equipment, and apparatus; nor hinder evacuation from fire, including potential blockage of stairways or fire doors. (3) Proposed development and construction in Very Fire Hazard Severity Zones shall provide secondary public access, in accordance with City of Wildomar ordinances.

There shall be multiple points of ingress and egress that allow for emergency response vehicle access. Points of access shall also include visible street signs and sufficient water supplies and infrastructure for structural fire suppression. (4) Proposed development and construction in Very Fire Hazard Severity Zones shall use single loaded roads to enhance fuel modification areas, unless otherwise determined by the Riverside County Fire Chief. (5) Proposed development and construction in Very Fire Hazard Severity Zones shall provide a fire protection plan that includes defensible space or fuel modification 1556

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR/Additional Information
October 2024 Page 3-35
zones to be located, designed, constructed, and maintained to provide adequate defensibility from wildfires.
(6) Prior to the approval of all parcel maps and tentative maps, the City shall require as a condition of approval, the developer meet or exceed the California Fire and Building code including Title 14 Regulations, particularly those regarding road standards for ingress, egress, and fire equipment access (see California Government Code, Section 66474.02.).

POLICY S-45 Monitor fire-prevention measures (e.g., fuel reduction) required through a site-specific fire-prevention plan to reduce long-term fire risks in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

POLICY S-46 For existing non-conforming development, the City shall work with property owners to improve or mitigate access, water supply and fire flow, signing, and vegetation clearance to meet current State and/or locally adopted fire safety standards.

POLICY S-47 Require proposed development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to be located where fire and emergency services are available or will be constructed as part of the proposed development activities. These services shall meet the minimum travel times identified in Riverside County Fire Department Fire Protection and Emergency Management Services’ Strategic Master Plan.

POLICY S-48 The City shall require all new development projects with land classified as state responsibility areas (Public Resources Code Section 4102), land classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZs; Section 51177), or within areas defined as a “wildland urban interface” (WUI), to prepare a long-term comprehensive fuel reduction and management program, including provisions for multiple points of ingress and egress to improve evacuation and emergency response access and adequate water infrastructure for water supply and fire flow, and fire equipment access.

POLICY S-49 Require that conceptual landscaping plans for development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones identified by CAL FIRE and shown in Figure 7-0 be reviewed by Planning and Fire Departments prior to the issuance of development permits. The conceptual landscaping plan of the proposed development shall, at a minimum, include:
1557

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

(1) Site plan, planting plan, planting palette, and irrigation plan to reduce the risk of fire hazards with consideration to site conditions, including slope, structures, and adjacencies.
(2) Defensible space maintenance plan.
(3) Provision of multiple points of ingress and egress to improve evacuation and emergency response access and adequate water infrastructure for water supply and fire flow, and fire equipment access.

POLICY S-50 Site design for development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones shall be required to account for topographical conditions and reduce the increased risk for sites located near ridgelines, plateau escarpments, saddles, hillsides, peaks, or other areas where the terrain or topography affect its susceptibility to wildfires by:
(1) Providing fuel modification zones with removal of combustible vegetation while minimizing visual impacts and limiting soil erosion.
(2) Replacing combustible vegetation with fire-resistant vegetation to stabilize slopes. (3) Submitting topographic map with site-specific slope analysis. (4) Submitting erosion and sedimentation control plans. (5) Providing a minimum 30-foot setback from the edge of the fuel modification zones.
(6) Minimizing disturbance of 25 percent or greater natural slopes. 1558

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR
Appendices
October 2024
Appendix A Extraneous Pages from Comment Letter A3
1559

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR
Appendices
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
1560
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigationand RemediationStrategies
LitigationSupport and Testifying Expert
IndustrialStormwaterCompliance
CEQAReview
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

ProfessionalCertifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
ProfessionalExperience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment A
A-1
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
1561
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications forlarge solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.

A-2
1562
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted A-3
1563
4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific A-4
1564
5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peerreview of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

A-5
1565
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

A-6
1566
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

A-7
1567
8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.

A-8
1568

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment B
A-9
lswAPEI Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
1569
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

A-10
1570
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

A-11
1571
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

A-12
1572
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

A-13
1573
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

A-14
1574
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

A-15
1575
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
A-16
1576
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
A-17
1577
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
A-18
1578
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
A-19
1579
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case No. cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009
A-20
1580

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR
Appendices
October 2024
Appendix B Revised Biological Resources Assessment
1581

CITY OF WILDOMAR PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR

CITY OF WILDOMAR
Appendices
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

1582
Biological Resources Assessment
for the
City of Wildomar General Plan Update
Riverside County, California
Prepared For:

Placeworks, Inc.
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
Prepared By:
2861 Pullman Street
Santa Ana, California 92705
November 2023 (revised October 2024)
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
1583
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
i October 2024
2022-077

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.1 City Location ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Purpose of this General Plan Update .......................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Context ........................................................................... 5

1.4.1 Conserved Lands and Criteria Cells ............................................................................................. 5

1.4.2 Public/Quasi-Public Lands .............................................................................................................. 7

1.4.3 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Conserved Lands ........................................ 7

1.4.4 Covered Roads ..................................................................................................................................... 9

1.4.5 Wildlife Crossings ............................................................................................................................... 9

1.5 Reserve Assembly Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 9

1.5.1 Conservation Goals of Area Plans within and adjacent to the City ............................. 15

1.5.2 Conservation within Criteria Cells ............................................................................................. 18

1.5.3 Public Quasi-Public Lands ............................................................................................................ 22

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING ................................................................................................................................................... 22

2.1 Federal Regulations ......................................................................................................................................... 22

2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................... 22

2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ............................................................................................................. 24

2.1.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .................................................................................... 24

2.1.4 Federal Clean Water Act ............................................................................................................... 24

2.1.5 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ................................ 25

2.1.6 Federal Rivers and Harbors Act ................................................................................................. 26

2.1.7 Executive Order 11990-Protection of Wetlands .................................................................. 26

2.1.8 Executive Order 13112-Invasive Species Protection.......................................................... 26

2.1.9 National Environmental Policy Act ........................................................................................... 26

2.2 State Regulations.............................................................................................................................................. 27

2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act ........................................................................................... 27

2.2.2 Fully Protected Species ................................................................................................................. 27

2.2.3 Native Plant Protection Act ......................................................................................................... 28

2.2.4 California Fish and Game Code ................................................................................................. 28

2.2.5 California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act ...................................................................................... 30

2.2.6 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act ........................................................................... 30

2.2.7 California Environmental Quality Act....................................................................................... 30

2.3 Local Policies, Ordinances, and Other Plans .......................................................................................... 33 1584
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
ii October 2024
2022-077

2.3.1 Riverside County/Wildomar General Plan ............................................................................. 33

2.3.2 Riverside County Oak Tree Management Guidelines ........................................................ 37

2.3.3 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ................... 37

2.3.4 Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Conservation Plan ......................................................................... 40

3.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 41

3.1 Literature Review .............................................................................................................................................. 41

4.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 41

4.1 Site Characteristics and Land Use .............................................................................................................. 42

4.2 Soils ....................................................................................................................................................................... 42

4.3 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ................................................................................ 62

4.3.1 Agricultural Land ............................................................................................................................. 79

4.3.2 Chaparral ............................................................................................................................................. 79

4.3.3 Coastal Sage Scrub ......................................................................................................................... 79

4.3.4 Grassland ............................................................................................................................................ 79

4.3.5 Meadows and Marshes ................................................................................................................. 80

4.3.6 Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest.................................................................................... 80

4.3.7 Water .................................................................................................................................................... 80

4.3.8 Woodland and Forests .................................................................................................................. 80

4.3.9 Developed/Disturbed .................................................................................................................... 80

4.4 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 81

4.4.1 Open Water ........................................................................................................................................ 81

4.5 Special-Status Species Documented to Occur in the City ............................................................... 97

4.5.1 Plants .................................................................................................................................................... 98

4.5.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................... 104

4.6 Critical Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................................ 112

4.7 Riparian Habitats and Sensitive Natural Communities ................................................................... 113

4.8 Wildlife Movement/Corridors and Nursery Sites .............................................................................. 114

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 116

5.1 General Biological Measures ..................................................................................................................... 116

5.2 Special-Status Species .................................................................................................................................. 117

5.2.1 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................... 117

5.3 Riparian Habitat/Riverine Areas, and Vernal Pools ........................................................................... 120

5.4 Aquatic Resources, Including Waters of the U.S. and State .......................................................... 121

5.5 Wildlife Movement/Corridors and Nursery Sites .............................................................................. 121

5.6 Local Policies, Ordinances, and Other Plans ........................................................................................ 122 1585
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
iii October 2024
2022-077

6.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 123

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Criteria Cell Reserve Assembly Analysis Acreages ............................................................................................... 11 Table 2. Conservation within Criteria Cells .............................................................................................................................. 18 Table 3. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Types ............................................................................................ 42 Table 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ................................................................................................. 62 Table 5. Special-Status Plant Species Identified in the Literature Review ................................................................... 99 Table 6. Special-Status Wildlife Species Identified in the Literature Review ............................................................ 106

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2A. MSHCP Reserve Assembly .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2B. MSHCP Criteria Area Species, Critical Habitat, and Conserved Lands ....................................................... 8 Figure 2C. RCA Information ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 3. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Types ......................................................................................... 47 Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ............................................................................................... 64 Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory ..................................................................................................................................... 82

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Biological Resources Recommendations Flow Charts Appendix B – 2023 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Fee Schedule Appendix C – Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat Plan Area
Appendix D – Literature Review and Database Results

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
BA Biological Assessment
BCC Birds of Conservation Concern
BO Biological Opinion
CAPSSA Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
City City of Wildomar
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
1586
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
iv October 2024
2022-077
Term Definition
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CWA Clean Water Act
DBESP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation DSFLF Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EO Executive Order
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMP Fishery Management Plan
HANS Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Process HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
I Interstate
IA Implementing Agreement
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MSL Mean Sea Level
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NEPSSA Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
PQP Public/Quasi-Public
RCA Regional Conservation Authority
RCD Resource Conservation District
RCHCA Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency
RCIP Riverside County Integrative Project
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAA Streambed Alteration Agreement
SKR Stephen’s kangaroo rat
SSC Species of Special Concern
USC United States Code
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1587
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
1 October 2024
2022-077

1.0 INTRODUCTION
On behalf of the City of Wildomar (City), ECORP Consulting, Inc. is providing this General Plan Update. The City does not currently have its own General Plan; instead, it refers to the County of Riverside General Plan (Riverside County Integrative Project [RCIP] 2003a). This current General Plan will be the first City-specific update of the General Plan. The purpose of this General Plan is to provide information on the current biological resources within the City; evaluate the potential for special-status species and their habitats to occur within the City; assess potential biological-related constraints to future development; identify potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for the City’s review; and provide this information within the context of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).

1.1 City Location
The City is within the County of Riverside, south of Lake Elsinore and north of Murrieta (Figure 1).

Riverside County is the fourth largest county in California encompassing approximately 7,300 square miles. The western half of the County is more populated than the eastern half; located in the western half of the County, the population of Wildomar was documented at 36,445 in 2019 and has been experiencing a steady incline since. The City is bisected by Interstate (I) 15, which runs northwest–southeast and is located just east of the Santa Ana Mountains and Elsinore Mountains. Due to its location at the foothill of these mountain ranges, the topography varies throughout the City. The City is depicted on the U.S.

Geological Survey Wildomar, Murrieta, Romoland, and Lake Elsinore 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles.

Elevations range from 2,324 to 1,566 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) from west to east and 1,187 to 1,777 feet above MSL from south to north.

1.2 Project Description
The City currently utilizes the Adopted Riverside County General Plan which was published in 2003 and has since undergone numerous amendments. Its latest full revision was in 2015 (Riverside County Planning Department 2015). A summary of amendments, pertaining primarily to land use designation, can be found at the Riverside County Planning Department website (Riverside County Planning Department 2021a). The 2015 revisions to the Riverside County General Plan included the development of Area Plans.

The City is included within the Elsinore Area Plan (Riverside County Planning Department 2021b), and this document, along with the 2003 Riverside County General Plan and 2015 Riverside County General Plan Amendment, are the City’s principal policy documents for future conservation and development.

This document will be used for the City’s Envision Wildomar 2040 and will serve as the first City-specific General Plan since the City was incorporated in 2008.
1588
0 2,000
I Sca le in F e e t
3 1
2 ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\Wildomar_LnV.mxd (MAG)-trotellini 10/6/2023 Map Features
City Limits
Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity
Sheet 1 of 3
Map Date: 10/6/2023
2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update
Murietta (1988, rev 1997, NAD27)
Romoland (1988, rev 1997, NAD27)
Wildomar (1953, rev 1979, NAD27)
Lake Elsinore (1953, rev 1979, NAD27)
CA 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle
US Geological Survey
Riverside County, California
§17, 18, 19, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 T06S R03W SBBM
§10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 T06S R04W SBBM
§5, 6, 7 T07S R03W SBBM
§1, 4 T07S R04W SBBM
La Laguna (Stearns), Temecula, and
Santa Rosa (Morino) Land Grants
Latitude (NAD83): 33.614977°
Longitude (NAD83): -117.253996°
;i M
L El
inore C
nyon L e
L
El 1nor
Murrieta
1589
0 2,000
I Sca le in F e e t
3 1
2 ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\Wildomar_LnV.mxd (MAG)-trotellini 10/6/2023 Map Features
City Limits
Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity
Sheet 2 of 3
Map Date: 10/6/2023
2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update
Murietta (1988, rev 1997, NAD27)
Romoland (1988, rev 1997, NAD27)
Wildomar (1953, rev 1979, NAD27)
Lake Elsinore (1953, rev 1979, NAD27)
CA 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle
US Geological Survey
Riverside County, California
§17, 18, 19, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 T06S R03W SBBM
§10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 T06S R04W SBBM
§5, 6, 7 T07S R03W SBBM
§1, 4 T07S R04W SBBM
La Laguna (Stearns), Temecula, and
Santa Rosa (Morino) Land Grants
Latitude (NAD83): 33.614977°
Longitude (NAD83): -117.253996°
suiting, In~~
L CO SULTA 1590
0 2,000
I Sca le in F e e t
3 1
2 ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\Wildomar_LnV.mxd (MAG)-trotellini 10/6/2023 Map Features
City Limits
Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity
Sheet 3 of 3
Map Date: 10/6/2023
2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update
Murietta (1988, rev 1997, NAD27)
Romoland (1988, rev 1997, NAD27)
Wildomar (1953, rev 1979, NAD27)
Lake Elsinore (1953, rev 1979, NAD27)
CA 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle
US Geological Survey
Riverside County, California
§17, 18, 19, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 T06S R03W SBBM
§10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 T06S R04W SBBM
§5, 6, 7 T07S R03W SBBM
§1, 4 T07S R04W SBBM
La Laguna (Stearns), Temecula, and
Santa Rosa (Morino) Land Grants
Latitude (NAD83): 33.614977°
Longitude (NAD83): -117.253996°
g, Inc. UL TATS
El 1nor
L :.El inore
:i
C nyon L e
C
C:

Murrieta
1591
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
5 October 2024
2022-077

1.3 Purpose of this General Plan Update
To better guide development in the City, the Wildomar General Plan strategy is to identify existing and future biological resources in the City and ensure compliance with applicable laws before these resources are altered or impacted. This document summarizes the existing biological resources that will serve as the basis for development of the comprehensive General Plan and associated Programmatic Environmental Impact Report.

1.4 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Context
The City is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The MSHCP provides information on plant and wildlife species of concern and their associated habitats to the County of Riverside (Planning Species) and outlines goals for their conservation while addressing the requirements of the State and federal Endangered Species Acts (ESAs). Information on the MSHCP can be found at www.rctlma.org (Riverside County Land Management Agency 2023).

To guide the City and its residents on navigating the MSHCP, flow charts depicting the steps to development within the context of the MSHCP are provided in Appendix A. These flowcharts help guide development by providing an overview of and recommendations for: development applications; specialstatus plant and wildlife species; riparian/riverine habitat and sensitive natural communities; wildlife corridors and movement; and covered roads.

Generally, any entity looking to construct a project first needs to determine if their property is located within a Criteria Cell. This will influence what permits or additional applications an entity may need to complete. As required by Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Board Resolution No. 06-05, permit applicants are responsible for the costs of a Joint Project Review and an initial deposit is required with the submittal of the application. Costs and expenditures incurred during the process will be billed against the deposit amount. The applicant will be billed any difference should the costs exceed the initial deposit amount. The applicant will be refunded any difference should the costs be less than the initial deposit amount. MSHCP Fees are adjusted annually using the Consumer Price Index. A copy of the 2024 Fiscal Year Fee Schedule is provided in Appendix B. The latest MSHCP Fee Schedule can be located at https://www.wrc-rca.org/development-applications/permits-and-fees/.

Section 7 of the MSHCP outlines covered activities and allowable uses as they pertain to Conserved Lands, Criteria Areas, and Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands. Each of these, in the context of the City, will be described below.

1.4.1 Conserved Lands and Criteria Cells
The City overlaps with all or portions of the following Criteria Cells: 5342, 5240, 5131, 4838, 4847, 4848, 4849, 4745, 4747, 4749, 4945, 4946, 4951, 5044, 5045, 5049, 5046, 5149, 5145, 5248, 5247, 5245, 5350, 5351, 5352, 5354, 5455, 5456, 5457, 5558, 5559, 5458, and 5561. The locations of the Criteria Cells are depicted on Figure 2A.
1592
California Oaks Road California Oaks Road
Clint
o
n Ke
ith Road Clinton Keith Road
Railroad
C
anyo
n
Ro
a
d
Ra
ilroad
C
anyo
n
Ro
a
d
15 4646 4647 4648 4649 4651 4656
4740 4742 4743 4745 4747
5342 5350 5351 5352 5354 5355 5356 5357
5455 5456 5457 5458 5459 5460
5558 5559 5561 5562
5988 5983
6100 6098 6095
5038 5036 5033 5044 5045 5049 5046
5140 5137 5131 5149 5145
5240 5248 5247 5245 5252 5253 5254
4759 4749
4843 4844 4845 4846 4838 4847 4848 4849
4940 4939 4937 4945 4946 4951 0 0.75
I Miles
Location: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Biological_Resources\Biological Resources.aprx - Wildomar MSHCP Reserve (trotellini - 11/17/2023) Figure 2A. MS+CP ReserYe AssemEly Map Date: 11/17/2023
Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, RCIT
Other Related Info if Needed
2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update
Map Contents
City Limits
:RMS+CP ReserYe AssemEly
Wildomar WRMSHCP Criteria Cells
WRMSHCP Criteria Cells
Area Plan Subunits - Within City Limits
SU3 - Elsinore
SU4 - Sedco Hills
Area Plan Subunits - Outside City Limits
SU1 - Murrieta Creek
SU2 - Lower Sedco Hills
SU5 - French 9alley/Lower Sedco Hills
Habitat Management Units
Forest Service 7rabuco
Menifee
Santa Ana Mountains
Consulting, Inc.

ENTAL CO SULTA TS
1111
1111
1593
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
7 October 2024
2022-077
Covered activities within the Criteria Area are discussed in Section 7.3 of the MSHCP. Covered activities include:
 Public and private development consistent with MSHCP Criteria (MSHCP Section 7.3.1)  Single-family homes on existing parcels within the Criteria Area (MSHCP Section 7.3.2)  Agricultural Lands within the Criteria Area (MSHCP Section 7.3.3)  Existing roads within the Criteria Area (MSHCP Section 7.3.4); for additional information on covered road maintenance activities within the Criteria Area, please reference MSHCP, Section 7.3.4.
 Planned roads within the Criteria Area (MSHCP Section 7.3.5)  State Park facilities (MSHCP Section 7.3.6)
 Flood control facilities (MSHCP Section 7.3.7)
 Waste management facilities (MSHCP Section 7.3.8)
 Future facilities necessary to support planned development including water/wastewater facilities, electrical utility facilities, and natural gas facilities (MSHCP Section 7.3.9)

1.4.2 Public/Quasi-Public Lands
PQP Lands exist within the eastern portion of the City. These are listed in Table 1.

According to Section 7.2 of the MSHCP, covered activities within existing PQP Lands include:
 Existing roadways such as interstates, freeways, State highways, city and county-maintained roads, and local roads not city or county maintained that provide property access; for additional information on covered road maintenance activities within PQP Lands, please reference MSHCP, Section 7.2.1.
 Planned roads within existing PQP Lands (MSHCP Section 7.2.2)  Future facilities including water, sewer, electrical, gas and solid waste facilities (MSHCP Section 7.2.4)
 Maintenance of other existing facilities (MSHCP Section 7.2.5)  Existing Agricultural Uses (Section MSHCP 7.2.6)

1.4.3 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Conserved Lands There are currently 842 acres of MSHCP Conserved Lands throughout the MSHCP Plan Area. Conserved Lands are located throughout the City and depicted in Figure 2B. 1594
° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° California Oaks
Road
California Oaks
Road
Clinton Keith Road Clinton Keith Road
Railroad Canyon Road
Railroad Canyon Road
15 4646 4647 4648 4649 4651 4656
4740 4742 4743 4745 4747
5342 5350 5351 5352 5354 5355 5356 5357
5455 5456 5457 5458 5459 5460
5558 5559 5561 5562
5988 5983
6100 6098 6095
5038 5036 5033 5044 5045 5049 5046
5140 5137 5131 5149 5145
5240 5248 5247 5245 5252 5253 5254
4759 4749
4843 4844 4845 4846 4838 4847 4848 4849
4940 4939 4937 4945 4946 4951
0 0.75 I Miles
Location: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Biological_Resources\Biological Resources.aprx - Wildomar WRMSHCP_CritHab_92 (trotellini - 11/17/2023) Figure 2%. MS+CP Criteria Area Species Critical +aEitat and ConserYed Lands Map Date: 11/17/2023 Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, RCIT, US)WS
Other Related Info if Needed
2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update
Map Contents
City Limits
Wildomar WRMSHCP Criteria Cells
WRMSHCP Criteria Cells
Critical Habitat
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Western Riverside MSHCP Conserved Lands
Public 4uasi-Public (P4P) Conserved Lands
MSHCP Conserved Lands
MSHCP Easements
Western Riverside MSHCP Criteria Area Species Areas
° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °
San jacinto valley crownscale (Atriple[ coronata var.
notatior), Parish's saltbush (Atriple[ parishii),
Davidson's saltbush (Atriple[ serenana var.
davidsonii), 7hread leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea
filifolia), Round leaved filaree (Erodium
macrophyllum), Smooth tarplant (Centromadia
pungens ssp. laevis), Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia
glaErata ssp. coulteri), Little mouse tail (Myosurus
minimus) Area
° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °
Davidson's saltbush (Atriple[ serenana var.
davidsonii), Parish's saltbush (Atriple[ parishii),
7hread leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia), Smooth
tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), Round
leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum), Coulter's
goldfields (Lasthenia glaErata ssp. coulteri), Little
mouse tail (Myosurus minimus) Area
° ° ° ° ° ° ° °
Davidson's saltbush (Atriple[ serenana var.
davidsonii), Parish's saltbush (Atriple[ parishii),
Round leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum),
Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia glaErata ssp. coulteri) Santa ana pitchersage (Lepechinia cardiophylla),
Prostrate navarretia (Navarretia prostrata) Area
Consulting, Inc.

ENTAL CO SULTA TS
CJ
CJ
CJ
CS2Sl
IZ2l
1111
1111
CJ
CJ
1595
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
9 October 2024
2022-077
According to Section 7.4 of the MSHCP, the following uses are considered allowable uses within the MSHCP Conservation Area:
 Reserve management, monitoring, and scientific research activities (MSHCP Section 7.4.1)  Emergency, safety, and police services (MSHCP Section 7.4.1)  Emergency repairs (MSHCP Section 7.4.1)
 Conditionally compatible uses such as public access and recreation (MSHCP Section 7.4.2)

1.4.4 Covered Roads
The City includes numerous Covered Roads according to the MSHCP. These include Major, Arterial, Secondary, Collector, and Urban Arterial roads (Figure 2C). These are summarized in Table 1.

1.4.5 Wildlife Crossings
As it pertains to wildlife crossings within the Criteria Area and PQP Lands, Section 7.5.2 of the MSHCP outlines guidelines for the construction of wildlife crossings for various wildlife species.

1.5 Reserve Assembly Analysis
The City is located in the Elsinore Area Plan in Subunit 3- Elsinore and Subunit 4- Sedco Hills. The City is also adjacent to the Southwest Area Plan in Subunit 1- Murrieta Creek and Subunit 5, French Valley/Lower Sedco Hills and adjacent to the Sun City/Menifee Area Plan in Subunit 2- Lower Sedco Hills. The City is within the Santa Ana Mountains and Menifee Habitat Management Units and adjacent to the Forest Service Trabuco Habitat Management Unit.

The City is within Species Survey Areas for Narrow Endemic Plants, Criteria Area Species, and Burrowing Owl. The City is within the Criteria Area Species Survey Area for San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior), Parish’s brittlescale (Atriplex parishii), Davidson’s saltscale (Atriplex sernana var. davidsonii), thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia), round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla), smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri), little mousetail (Myosurus minimus ssp. apus), and mud nama (Nama stenocarpa). The City is within the Narrow Endemic Plants Survey Area for Munz’ onion (Allium munzii), San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila), many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis), spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis), California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica), and Wright’s trichocoronis (Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii). Table 1 contains acreage summaries for each Criteria Cell.

The City is adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest of which portions of this area are PQP lands. Table 1 summarizes information related to Criteria Cells, Covered Roads, PQP Lands, and Additional Reserve Lands within the City according to Criteria Cell Number.
1596
California O aks Road California Oaks Road
CClilinton K nton Keeith Road ith Road
Railroad
C
anyo
n
Ro
a
d
Ra
ilroad
C
anyo
n
Ro
a
d
15 0 0.75
I Miles
Location: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Biological_Resources\Biological Resources.aprx - Wildomar RCA (trotellini - 11/3/2023) Figure 2C. RCA Information Map Date: 11/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, RCIT
Other Related Info if Needed
2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update
Map Contents
City Limits
RCA Information
Stephens’ kangaroo rat Habitat
Burrowing Owl Survey Area
Amphibian Survey Areas
California Red-legged Frog
Narrow Endemic Plant Survey Areas
Many-stemmed dudleya, California Orcutt grass,
Spreading navarretia, San Miguel savory,
Hammitt's clay-cress, Wright's trichocoronis
Munz's onion, San Diego ambrosia, Manystemmed dudleya, Spreading navarretia, California Orcutt grass, Wright's trichocoronis
Munz's onion, San Diego ambrosia, Manystemmed dudleya, spreading navarretia, California orcutt grass, Hammitt's clay-cress,
Wright's trichocoronis
MSHCP Covered Roads
Urban Arterial
Arterial
Major
Secondary
Collector
Consulting, Inc.

ENTAL CO SULTA TS
12'.:Z]
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1597
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
11 October 2024
2022-077
Table 1. Criteria Cell Reserve Assembly Analysis Acreages Criterial
Cell
Number
Criteria
Cell Size
Total
(acres)
Criteria Cell
Size within
the City
(acres)
Subunit Covered Roads and Type
(acres)
PQP Lands
(acres)*
Additional Reserve Lands within City
(acres)*
4745 159.50 0.02 Sedco Hills – – –
4747 159.83 0.08 Sedco Hills – – Archer, Timothy, & Marlene = 0.06 4749 160.73 0.53 Sedco Hills – – Archer = 0.01
4838 159.66 140.96 Sedco Hills Casino Dr (Major) = 0.03 Malaga Rd (Major) = 0.33 – Patterson, Kenneth, & Patricia = 25.86 4847 159.70 159.22 Sedco Hills – – Archer, Timothy, & Marlene = 21.11 Patterson, Kenneth, & Patricia = 2.12
4848 159.19 158.85 Sedco Hills – –
Archer = 37.07
Nelson, Jack = 37.78
Tet Sedco Hills Conservation Bank = 39.38
4849 158.93 158.93 Sedco Hills Lost Rd (Collector) = 2.29 – Nelson, Jack = 41.81 4945 158.28 158.28 Sedco Hills – – Nelson, Jack = 37.63 Tet Sedco Hills Conservation bank = 118.73
4946 158.02 158.02 Sedco Hills Lost Rd (Connector) = 4.73 Lost Rd (Secondary) = 0.31 – Nelson, Jack = 1.75Tet Sedco Hills Conservation Bank = 1.42 4951 161.24 161.24 Sedco Hills – – –
5044 159.46 159.46 Sedco Hills Lemon St (Collector) = 3.54 Lost Rd (Collector) = 0.97 – Tet Sedco Hills Conservation Bank = 21.53 5045 159.09 159.09 Sedco Hills Lost Rd (Collector) = 3.42 Lost Rd (Secondary) = 0.04 – Tet Sedco Hills Conservation Bank = 0.02 5046 162.29 162.29 Sedco Hills Bundy Canyon Rd (Urban
Arterial) = 1.88 – Casa Modelo = 1.20
1598
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
12 October 2024
2022-077
Table 1. Criteria Cell Reserve Assembly Analysis Acreages Criterial
Cell
Number
Criteria
Cell Size
Total
(acres)
Criteria Cell
Size within
the City
(acres)
Subunit Covered Roads and Type
(acres)
PQP Lands
(acres)*
Additional Reserve Lands within City
(acres)*
5049 162.37 162.37 Sedco Hills – – Hunter = 18.97
5131 167.14 19.72 Elsinore Corydon St (Arterial) = 2.67 Garden St (Major) = 2.19 – –
5145 162.46 162.46 Sedco Hills Bundy Canyon Rd (Urban
Arterial) = 11.87 –
Casa Modelo = 68.94
Clark = 3.97
Katz, William = 12.24
Rullo = 0.61
5149 162.66 162.66 Sedco Hills Bundy Canyon Rd (Urban
Arterial) = 2.47 –
Clark = 40.23
Hunter = 0.21
Rullo = 79.82
5240 176.07 5.33 Elsinore
Corydon St (Arterial) = 1.36
Palomar St (Secondary) =

0.00 – –
5245 163.53 163.43 Sedco Hills – – –
5247 161.53 161.53 Sedco Hills – USA 362 =

52.05 –
5248 162.18 162.18 Sedco Hills Bundy Canyon Rd (Urban
Arterial) = 0.70
USA 362 =

1.38 Casa Modelo = 1.26
Clark = 0.03
Katz, William = 0.56
5342 179.66 121.08 Elsinore Corydon St (Arterial) = 2.65 Grand Ave (Arterial) = 0.38 – –
5350 162.01 162.01 Sedco Hills –
USA 362 and
Riv Co Parks &
OS = 3.96
Borchard = 32.07
Borchard, Tr = 76.34
1599
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
13 October 2024
2022-077
Table 1. Criteria Cell Reserve Assembly Analysis Acreages Criterial
Cell
Number
Criteria
Cell Size
Total
(acres)
Criteria Cell
Size within
the City
(acres)
Subunit Covered Roads and Type
(acres)
PQP Lands
(acres)*
Additional Reserve Lands within City
(acres)*
5351 163.63 163.63 Sedco Hills – USA 362 =

78.94 Schleuniger = 0.93
5352 163.91 163.91 Sedco Hills – USA 362 =

0.40 –
5354 164.32 162.74 Sedco Hills – – Evandel– Bergstein = 0.02 5455 160.60 160.60 Sedco Hills La Estrella St (Secondary) =

5.72 USA 362 =

0.96 Delgado Phase 1 = 0.52
Delgado Phase 4 = 0.53
Schleuniger = 57.60
5456 160.24 160.24 Sedco Hills La Estrella St (Secondary) =

5.28 USA 362 =

78.34 Delgado (Phase 2) = 13.17
Delgado Phase 1 = 39.32
Delgado Phase 3 = 13.29
Delgado Phase 4 = 12.89
5457 158.77 158.77 Sedco Hills La Estrella St (Secondary) =

2.35 RCA and USA
362 = 133.58 Evandel – Bergstein = 0.00
5458 161.41 0.77
French
Valley/
Lower
Sedco Hills
– RCA and USA
362 = 0.73
Lennar Greer Ranch = 0.03
Evandel– Begstein = 0.00
5558 159.52 159.52 Sedco Hills
Clinton Keith Rd (Arterial) =

6.32 La Estrella St (Secondary) =

0.42 – Schleuniger = 0.10
1600
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
14 October 2024
2022-077
Table 1. Criteria Cell Reserve Assembly Analysis Acreages Criterial
Cell
Number
Criteria
Cell Size
Total
(acres)
Criteria Cell
Size within
the City
(acres)
Subunit Covered Roads and Type
(acres)
PQP Lands
(acres)*
Additional Reserve Lands within City
(acres)*
5559 160.13 160.13 Sedco Hills
Clinton Keith Rd (Arterial) =

6.80 La Estrella St (Secondary) =

0.76 RCA = 0.03 –
5561 162.51 0.58
French
Valley/
Lower
Sedco Hills
La Estrella Rd (Secondary) =

0.00 La Estrella St (Secondary) =

0.07 Team RCD and
RCA = 0.35 –
Notes: City = City of Wildomar; PQP = Public/Quasi-Public; RCA = Regional Conservation Authority; RCD = Resource Conservation District *Taken from the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Geographic Information Systems data; names and/or acronyms were not always defined – provided as “Project Names.”
This information is current as of October 3, 2023. Acreages are subject to change based on coordination with RCA. Coordination with RCA is recommended for exact acreages.
1601
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
15 October 2024
2022-077

1.5.1 Conservation Goals of Area Plans within and adjacent to the City

1.5.1.1 Elsinore Area Plan
Wildomar is located within the Elsinore Area Plan. local Conservation goals of the Elsinore Area Plan that pertain to the City include preserving core areas and linkages as well as sensitive plant and wildlife species and their habitat. The target conservation acreage range for this Area Plan is 66,500 to 73,315 acres. This includes approximately 54,800 acres of existing PQP Lands and 11,700 to 18,515 acres of Additional Reserve Lands (RCIP 2003b).

Subunit 3 – Elsinore
The target acreage range for Additional Reserve Lands within the Elsinore subunit is 925 to 1,815 acres.

Species of conservation focus within this subunit are American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), Bell’s sage sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas Editha quino), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), bobcat (Lynx rufus), western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), Munz’s onion, San Diego ambrosia, and smooth tarplant. Biological issues and considerations from the MSHCP are:
 Conserve wetlands including Temescal Wash, Collier Marsh, Alberhill Creek, Lake Elsinore, and the floodplain east of Lake Elsinore (including marsh habitats) and maintain water quality.  Conserve clay soils that support Munz’s onion.
 Conserve Travers-Willow-Domino soil series.
 Conserve foraging habitat for raptors, providing a sage scrub-grassland ecotone.  Conserve grassland habitat for mountain plover.
 Conserve breeding habitat for northern harrier.
 Maintain linkage areas for bobcat.
 Conserve San Diego ambrosia at Alberhill and Nichols Road or finding new populations that would allow for the loss of known populations.
 Maintain core and linkage habitats for western pond turtle.  Maintain core areas for Riverside fairy shrimp.
 Maintain opportunities for core and linkage habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly. 1602
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
16 October 2024
2022-077
Subunit 4 – Sedco Hills
The target acreage range for Additional Reserve Lands within the Sedco Hills subunit is 2,415 to 3,845 acres. Species of conservation focus within this subunit are Bell’s sage sparrow, coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), least Bell’s vireo, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), southwestern willow flycatcher, Quino checkerspot butterfly, bobcat, Stephens’ kangaroo rat (SKR; Dipodomys stephensi), and western pond turtle. Biological issues and considerations from the MSHCP are:
 Provide a northwest-southeast connection between Estelle Mountain and Sedco Hills for sage scrub species including coastal California gnatcatcher.  Conserve habitat in Sedco Hills to maintain the connection between Granite Hills and Bundy Canyon Road.
 Conserve wetlands in lower San Jacinto River.
 Provide upland linkage connections for Sedco Hills to Wildomar.  Conserve foraging habitat for raptors, providing a sage scrub-grassland ecotone.  Maintain core and linkage habitat for bobcat and SKR.  Maintain linkage areas for western pond turtle.
 Maintain opportunities for linkage areas for Quino checkerspot butterfly.

1.5.1.2 Southwest Area Plan
The City is located adjacent to the Southwest Area Plan. Conservation goals of the Southwest Area Plan that pertain to the City include preserving core areas and linkages as well as sensitive plant and wildlife species and their habitat (RCIP 2003c). The target conservation acreage range for this Area Plan is 58,295 to 72,155 acres. This includes approximately 35,795 acres of existing PQP Lands and 22,500 to 36,360 acres of Additional Reserve Lands. Criteria Cells within this Area Plan are adjacent to the City and are included in conservation considerations for Criteria Cells within the City, hence their discussion and inclusion here.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
17 October 2024
2022-077
 Maintain habitat connectivity between Murrieta Creek and Lower Warm Springs Creek to facilitate wildlife movement and conserve wetland species.
 Maintain linkage area for bobcat.
 Maintain the area of Murrieta Creek at the confluence of Pechanga Creek, Temecula Creek and Santa Margarita River for mountain lion Linkage.
 Maintain Habitat for arroyo chub, California red-legged frog and western pond turtle within Murrieta Creek and Cole Creek.
 Maintain the area of Murrieta Creek at the confluence of Pechanga Creek, Temecula Creek and Santa Margarita River for mountain lion Linkage.
 Maintain Habitat for arroyo chub, California red-legged frog and western pond turtle within Murrieta Creek and Cole Creek.

Subunit 5 – French Valley/Lower Sedco Hills
The target acreage range for Additional Reserve Lands within this subunit is 4,360 to 7,395 acres. Species of conservation focus within this subunit are Bell’s sage sparrow, California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), coastal California gnatcatcher, Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, Quino checkerspot butterfly, bobcat, Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), western pond turtle, longspined spine flower (Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina), Munz’s onion, Palmer’s grapplinghook (Harpagonella palmeri). Biological issues and considerations from the MSHCP are:
 Conserve large blocks of habitat east of I-215 and south of Scott Road for narrow endemic species.
 Provide connection to the Southwestern Riverside County Multi Species Reserve.  Conserve clay soils supporting long-spined spine flower, Munz’s onion, and Palmer’s grapplinghook.
 Maintain core and linkage habitat for bobcat and Quino checkerspot butterfly.  Determine presence of potential core areas for Los Angeles pocket mouse along Warm Springs Creek.
 Maintain core areas for western pond turtle and Riverside fairy shrimp.

1.5.1.3 Sun City/Menifee Area Plan
The Sun City/Menifee Area Plan is adjacent to the City. The target conservation acreage range for this Area Plan is 1,545 to 2,010 acres. This includes approximately 425 acres of existing PQP Lands and 1,120 to 1,585 acres of Additional Reserve Lands. Criteria Cells within this Area Plan are adjacent to the City and 1604
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
18 October 2024
2022-077
are included in conservation considerations for Criteria Cells within the City, hence their discussion and inclusion here.

Subunit 2: Lower Sedco Hills
The target acreage range for Additional Reserve Lands within this Subunit is 725 to 1,020 acres. Species of conservation focus within this Subunit are Bell’s sage sparrow, coastal California gnatcatcher, grasshopper sparrow, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, and Quino checkerspot butterfly. Biological issues and considerations from the MSHCP follow:
 Contribute to lower Sedco Hills portion of a habitat connection between the new Core Area in Antelope Valley and the Estelle Mountain/Lake Mathews Reserve area.  Conserve existing populations and Habitat of the coastal California gnatcatcher.  Maintain wetlands for purposes of connection and wildlife dispersal as well as wetland species Conservation.
 Maintain Core and Linkage Habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly.

1.5.2 Conservation within Criteria Cells
Table 2 summarizes the conservation criteria within Criteria Cells within the City and as outlined in the MSHCP.

Table 2. Conservation within Criteria Cells
Criterial Cell Number Conservation Criteria
4745
Conservation within this cell will contribute to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 8.

Conservation within this cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland, and forest habitat associated with the San Jacinto River and adjacent coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitat. Areas conserved within this cell will be connected to coastal sage scrub, riparian scrub, woodland, and forest habitat proposed for conservation in cell 4648 to the north and to coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitat proposed for conservation in cell 4838 to the south and in Cell Group F' to the east. Conservation within this cell will range from 70% to 80% of the cell focusing in the northern and eastern portions of the cell. 4747
Conservation within this Cell Group will contribute to the assembly of Proposed Linkage

8. Conservation within this Cell Group will focus on chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and grassland habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell Group will be connected to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group D' to the north, in cell 4745 and 4838 both to the west, and in Cell Groups E’ and G’ both to the east.

Conservation within this Cell Group will range from 70% to 80% of the Cell Group focusing in the northern portion of the Cell Group.
1605
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
19 October 2024
2022-077
Table 2. Conservation within Criteria Cells
Criterial Cell Number Conservation Criteria
4749
Conservation within this cell will contribute to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 8.

Conservation within this cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland, and forest habitat associated with the San Jacinto River and adjacent coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell Group will be connected o chaparral, coastal sage scrub, riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group D’ to the west and cell 4559 to the east, to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group G’ to the south, and to chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and grassland habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group F’ to the west and in cell 4656 to the east. Conservation within this cell group will range from 60% to 70% of the Cell Group focusing in the southern and eastern portions of the Cell Group.
4838
Conservation within this cell will contribute to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 8.

Conservation within this cell will focus on chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat. Areas conserved will be connected to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in cell 4745 to the north and in Cell Group F’ to the east. Conservation within this cell will range from 15% to 25% of the cell focusing in the northeastern portion of the cell.
4847
Conservation within this Cell Group will contribute to the assembly of Proposed Linkage

Conservation within this Cell Group will range from 70% to 80% of the Cell Group focusing in the northern portion of the Cell Group.
4848, 4945, 5044
Conservation within this Cell Group will contribute to the assembly of Proposed Linkage

8. Conservation within this Cell Group will focus on chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell Group will be connected to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Groups F’ to the west, E’ to the north, and H’ to the east. Conservation within this Cell Group will range from 65% to 75% of the Cell Group, focusing in the northern portion of the Cell Group. 4849, 4946, 5045
Conservation within this Cell Group will contribute to the assembly of Proposed Linkage

8. Conservation within this Cell Group will focus on chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell Group will be connected to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Groups G’ to the west and I’ to the east. Conservation within this Cell Group will range from 60% to 70% of the Cell Group focusing in the northern portion of the Cell Group. 4951, 5049
Conservation within this Cell Group will contribute to the assembly of Proposed Linkage

8. Conservation within this Cell Group will focus on chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell Group will be connected to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group H’ to the west and to chaparral habitat proposed for conservation in cell #5149 to the south and in Cell Group J’ to the east. Conservation within this Cell Group will range from 50% to 60% of the Cell Group focusing in the southern portion of the Cell Group. 1606
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
20 October 2024
2022-077
Table 2. Conservation within Criteria Cells
Criterial Cell Number Conservation Criteria
5046, 5145, 5248
Conservation within this Cell Group will contribute to the assembly of Proposed Linkage

8. Conservation within this Cell Group will focus on chaparral, coastal sage scrub, grassland, woodland, and forest habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell Group will be connected to chaparral habitat proposed for conservation in the Cell Group and in cell #5149 both to the west and to chaparral, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group K’ to the east. Conservation within this Cell Group will range from 50% to 60% of the Cell Group focusing in the northern portion of the Cell Group. 5131
Conservation within this cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3. Conservation within this cell will focus on grassland habitat. Areas conserved within this cell will be connected to grassland habitat proposed for conservation in cell #5137 to the west. Conservation within this cell will range from 30% to 40% of the cell focusing in the southwestern portion of the cell. 5149
Conservation within this cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 8.

Conservation within this cell will focus on chaparral, woodland, and forest habitat. Areas conserved within this cell will be connected to chaparral habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Groups I’ to the north and J’ to the east. Conservation within this cell will range from 70% to 80% of the cell focusing in the northern and eastern portions of the cell.
5240
Conservation within this cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3. Conservation within this cell will focus on grassland and coastal sage scrub habitat. Areas conserved within this cell will be connected to grassland habitat proposed for conservation in cell #5137 to the north and to coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in cell #5342 to the south. Conservation within this cell will range from 45% to 55% of the cell focusing in the northern and central portions of the cell.
5245
Conservation within this Cell Group will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 8.

Conservation within this Cell Group will focus on chaparral, coastal sage scrub, grassland, woodland, and forest habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell Group will be connected to chaparral, coastal sage scrub, woodland, and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group J’ to the west and to coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group L' to the south and in cell #5352 to the east. Conservation within this Cell Group will range from 40% to 50% of the Cell Group focusing in the southwestern portion of the Cell Group.
5247, 5350, 5351 No conservation criteria listed.
5342
Conservation within this cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3. Conservation within this cell will focus on coastal sage scrub habitat.

Areas conserved within this cell will be connected to coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in cell #5240 to the north. Conservation within this cell will range from 5% to 15% of the cell focusing in the northern central portion of the cell. 1607
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
21 October 2024
2022-077
Table 2. Conservation within Criteria Cells
Criterial Cell Number Conservation Criteria
5352
Conservation within this cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 8.

Conservation within this cell will range from 45% to 55% of the cell focusing in the southern portion of the cell.
5354
Conservation within this cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 8.

Conservation within this cell will focus on coastal sage scrub, riparian scrub, woodland, and forest habitat. Areas conserved within this cell will be connected to coastal sage scrub, riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in cell #5352 to the west, to existing Public/Quasi-Public lands in cell#5457 to the south and to chaparral, coastal sage scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group C in the Sun City/Menifee Area Plan to the east. Conservation within this cell will range from 40% to 50% of the cell focusing in the southern portion of the cell. 5456
Conservation within this cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 8.

Conservation within this cell will focus on coastal sage scrub habitat. Areas conserved within this cell will be connected to coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group L’ to the west and in Cell #5457 to the east and to grassland habitat proposed for conservation in cell #5559 to the south. Conservation within this cell will range from 45% to 55% of the cell focusing in the southern portion of the cell. 5457
Conservation within this cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 8.

Conservation within this cell will focus on coastal sage scrub, riparian scrub, woodland, and forest habitat. Areas conserved within this cell will be connected to coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in cell #5456 to the west. Conservation within this cell will range from 20% to 30% of the cell focusing in the southwestern portion of the cell.
5458, 5561
Conservation within this Cell Group will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 8.

Conservation within this Cell Group will focus on coastal sage scrub and grassland habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell Group will be connected to coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group I’ to the east and in Cell Group C in the Sun City/Menifee Area Plan to the north, and to existing Public/Quasi-Public land in cell #5457 in the Elsinore Area Plan to the west. Conservation within this Cell Group will range from 55% to 65% of the Cell Group focusing in the northern portion of the Cell Group.
5455, 5558
Conservation within this Cell Group will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 8.

Conservation within this Cell Group will focus on coastal sage scrub, grassland, riparian scrub, woodland, and forest habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell Group will be connected to coastal sage scrub and grassland habitat proposed for conservation in cell #5558 to the east, to coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in cell #5456 also to the east and to existing Public/Quasi-Public lands in Cell Group K’ to the north.

Conservation within this Cell Group will range from 60% to 70% of the Cell Group focusing in the northeastern portion of the Cell Group. 1608
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
22 October 2024
2022-077
Table 2. Conservation within Criteria Cells
Criterial Cell Number Conservation Criteria
5559
Conservation within this cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 8.

Conservation within this cell will focus on coastal sage scrub and grassland habitat. Areas conserved within this cell will be connected to coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for conservation in cell #5456 to the north and to grassland, coastal sage scrub, riparian scrub, woodland, and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Group L’ to the west. Conservation within this cell will be approximately 5% of the cell focusing in the northwestern portion of the cell.

A majority of the portion of the City north of I-15 is within a Criteria Area (i.e., contains Criteria Cells).

Table 2 provides a summary of the conservation criteria outlined in the MSHCP for each of these Criteria Cells.

1.5.3 Public Quasi-Public Lands

1.5.3.1 Public/Quasi-Public Lands in Reserve Assembly Analysis The eastern portion of the City contains PQP Lands. These are located north of I-15 and consist of PQP Lands owned by RCA; these areas are listed with respect to the Criteria Cells they overlap with or are adjacent to in Table 1.

The City also contains Additional Reserve Lands. These are located throughout the northern portion of the City, north of I-15. These are listed with respect to the Criteria Cells they overlap with or are adjacent to in Table 1.

A portion of the City is located in an area designated as Rural/Mountainous in the MSHCP Area; this area corresponds to where Bundy Canyon and Iodine Springs are found. The City is not located within areas designated as American Indian Lands or Lake.

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING

2.1 Federal Regulations

2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
The federal ESA protects plants and animals that are listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the taking of endangered wildlife, where taking is defined as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct” (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.3). For plants, this statute governs removing, possessing, maliciously damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on federal land and removing, cutting, digging up, damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on non-federal land in knowing violation of state law (16 U. S. Code [USC] 1538). Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS if their actions, including 1609
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
23 October 2024
2022-077
permit approvals or funding, could adversely affect a listed (or proposed) species (including plants) or its Critical Habitat. Through consultation and the issuance of a biological opinion, the USFWS may issue an incidental take statement allowing take of the species that is incidental to an otherwise authorized activity provided the activity will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Section 10 of the ESA provides for issuance of incidental take permits where no other federal actions are necessary provided a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is developed.

2.1.1.1 Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in Section 3 of the ESA as:

1. the specific areas within the geographical area, occupied by a species at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, that contain physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection; and

2. specific areas outside the geographical area, occupied by a species at the time it is listed, after a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed must first have features that are essential to the conservation of the species.

Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known and using the best scientific data available, the physical or biological features needed for life processes. Physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to:
 space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;  food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;  cover or shelter;
 sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; or  habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.

2.1.1.2 Section 7
Section 7 of the ESA mandates that all federal agencies consult with USFWS or NMFS to ensure that federal agencies’ actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify critical habitat for listed species. If adverse effects to a species or its critical habitat are likely, the applicant must conduct a Biological Assessment (BA) for the purpose of analyzing the potential effects of the project on listed species and critical habitat to establish and justify an "effect determination." The USFWS or NMFS reviews the BA; if it concludes that the project may adversely affect a listed species or its habitat, it prepares a Biological Opinion (BO). Through consultation and the issuance of a BO, the USFWS or NMFS may issue an incidental take statement allowing take of the species that is incidental to an otherwise 1610
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
24 October 2024
2022-077
authorized activity provided the activity will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The BO may require implementation of "reasonable and prudent measures" to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on the species population(s) or adverse modification of critical habitat.

2.1.1.3 Section 10
When no discretionary action is being taken by a federal agency, but a project may result in the take of listed species, an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under Section 10 of the federal ESA is necessary. The purpose of the ITP is to authorize the take of federally listed species that may result from an otherwise lawful activity. In order to obtain an ITP under Section 10, an application must be submitted that includes an HCP. In some instances, applicants, USFWS, or NMFS may determine that an HCP is necessary or prudent, even if a discretionary federal action will occur. The purpose of the HCP planning process associated with the permit application is to ensure that adequate minimization and mitigation for impacts to listed species and/or their habitat will occur.

2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements international treaties between the U.S. and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, and any of their parts, eggs, and nests, from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit (USFWS 1918). As authorized by the MBTA, the USFWS issues permits to qualified applicants for the following types of activities: falconry, raptor propagation, scientific collecting, special purposes (e.g., rehabilitation, education, migratory game bird propagation, and salvage), take of depredating birds, taxidermy, and waterfowl sale and disposal. The regulations governing migratory bird permits can be found in 50 CFR Part 13 General Permit Procedures and 50 CFR Part 21 Migratory Bird Permits. The State of California has incorporated the protection of birds in Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513, and 3800 of the California Fish and Game Code.

2.1.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act was enacted in 1940 and prohibits anyone, without a permit, from “taking” bald or golden eagles including their parts, nests, or eggs. Take is defined as pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb. In addition to these protections, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides protection for nesting sites. Nesting sites are protected not only when active but also when previously used. These nests are protected in the event that an eagle may return to the same nesting site.

2.1.4 Federal Clean Water Act
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Discharges of fill material is defined as the addition of fill material into waters of the U.S., including, but not limited to the following: placement of fill necessary for the construction of any structure, or impoundment requiring rock, sand, dirt, or other material for its construction; site development fills for recreational, industrial, commercial, residential, and 1611
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
25 October 2024
2022-077
other uses; causeways or road fills; and fill for intake and outfall pipes, and subaqueous utility lines (33 CFR Section 328.2[f]).

In addition, Section 401 of the CWA (33 USC 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the U.S. to obtain a certification that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. Section 401 Certification, “gives states and authorized tribes the authority to grant or waive certification of proposed federal licenses or permits that may discharge into waters of the U.S.” (33 USC 1251).

On May 25, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted a narrower definition of Waters of the U.S. in the case Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. Under the majority opinion, Waters of the U.S. refers to “geographical features that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes’ and to adjacent wetlands that are “indistinguishable” from those bodies of water due to a continuous surface connection.”
On August 29, 2023, the Agencies issued a final rule to amend the final “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’” rule, published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2023. This final rule conforms the definition of “waters of the United States” to the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 25, 2023 decision in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. Parts of the January 2023 Rule are invalid under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the CWA in the Sackett decision. Therefore, the Agencies have amended key aspects of the regulatory text to conform it to the Court’s decision.

Substantial impacts to wetland and non-wetland Waters of the U.S. (over 0.5 acre of impact) may require an individual permit. Projects that only minimally affect Waters of the U.S. (less than 0.5 acre of impact) may meet the conditions of one of the existing Nationwide Permits. A Water Quality Certification or waiver pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA is required for Section 404 permit actions. In California, this certification or waiver is typically issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). However, in the case of tribal lands that are held in trust, this certification or waiver is issued by the USACE.

2.1.5 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (Magnuson-Stevens Act), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), establishes a requirement to describe and identify Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in each federal Fishery Management Plan (FMP). EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” (16 USC Section 1802[10]). Only species in a fishery management unit managed under a federal FMP are covered under EFH. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires federal agencies to consult with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service (also known as the NMFS) when any activity proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken by a federal agency may adversely affect designated EFH. An adverse effect includes direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alteration and includes adverse changes to waters or substrate, species and their habitat, other ecosystem components, and quality and/or quantity of EFH.
1612
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
26 October 2024
2022-077

2.1.6 Federal Rivers and Harbors Act
The Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, commonly known as the Rivers and Harbors Act, requires permits for all structures such as bridges, causeways, riprap and for other activities such as dredging which occur within navigable waters of the U.S. Navigable waters are defined as those that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and susceptible to use in their natural condition or by reasonable improvements as means to transport interstate or foreign commerce. The USACE grants or denies permits based on the effects on navigation.

2.1.7 Executive Order 11990-Protection of Wetlands
President Carter signed Executive Order (EO) 11990 on May 24, 1977, requiring federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. The term “wetlands” is defined as those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Examples of wetlands are also provided in the EO: wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas, such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds. An Individual EO 11990 “Wetlands Only Practicable Alternative Finding” is required from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) if a state project is federally aided and involves fill in wetlands requiring a USACE Section 404 Individual or Nationwide Permit. An additional requirement is to provide early public involvement in projects affecting wetlands.

2.1.8 Executive Order 13112-Invasive Species Protection President Clinton signed EO 13112 on February 3, 1999, requiring federal agencies to combat the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States. The order defines invasive species as “…any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” FHWA guidance issued August 10, 1999, directs the use of the state’s noxious weed list to define the invasive plants that must be considered as part of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis for a proposed project.

2.1.9 National Environmental Policy Act
Signed into law on January 1, 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires all federal agencies to analyze the environmental impacts related to their proposed actions prior to making and implementing decisions or actions. This framework for evaluation of environmental and associated economic and social effects of proposed actions, described in 42 USC 4321, also provides the public opportunity to review and comment. Actions that are covered by NEPA include decision-making related to publicly owned facilities such as highways, permit applications, and federal land management. 1613
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
27 October 2024
2022-077

2.2 State Regulations

2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act
The California ESA generally parallels the main provisions of the ESA but, unlike its federal counterpart, the California ESA also applies the take prohibitions to species proposed for listing (called candidates by the State). Section 2080 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the taking, possession, purchase, sale, and import or export of Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate species, unless otherwise authorized by permit or in the regulations. Take is defined in Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The California ESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects. State lead agencies are required to consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to ensure that any action they undertake is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any Endangered or Threatened species or result in destruction or adverse modification of essential habitat.

2.2.2 Fully Protected Species
The State of California first began to designate species as “fully protected” prior to the creation of the federal and California ESAs. Lists of fully protected species were initially developed to provide protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction, and included fish, amphibians and reptiles, birds, and mammals. Fully protected species are identified in the California Fish and Game Code Section 4700 for mammals, Section 3511 for birds, Section 5050 for reptiles and amphibians, and Section 5515 for fish. Most fully protected species have since been listed as threatened or endangered under the federal and/or California ESAs. The regulations that implement the Fully Protected Species Statute (California Fish and Game Code Section 4700) provide that fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time. Furthermore, CDFW prohibits any state agency from issuing ITPs for fully protected species, except for necessary scientific research.

On July 10, 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 147 into law and thereby amending California’s statutes for fully protected species. The amendments create a temporary, 10-year permitting regime that allows proponents of a limited, defined set of projects to pursue authorization from CDFW to proceed even where there could be take of one or more fully protected species. Activities for which project proponents may seek a permit are:
 A maintenance, repair, or improvement project to the State Water Project undertaken by the Department of Water Resources.
 A maintenance, repair, or improvement project to critical regional or local water agency infrastructure.
 A transportation project undertaken by a state, regional, or local agency that does not increase highway or street capacity for automobile or truck travel.  A wind project and any appurtenant infrastructure improvement.  A solar photovoltaic project and any appurtenant infrastructure improvement. 1614
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
28 October 2024
2022-077

2.2.3 Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) of 1977 (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1900-1913) was created with the intent to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and endangered plants in this State.” The NPPA is administered by CDFW. The California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) has the authority to designate native plants as “endangered” or “rare” and to protect endangered and rare plants from take. The California ESA of 1984 (California Fish and Game Code Section 2050-2116) provided further protection for rare and endangered plant species, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code.

2.2.4 California Fish and Game Code

2.2.4.1 Section 86, 2000, and 3007
Section 86 defines “take” as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill. Section 2000 states that it is unlawful to take a bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian. Section 3007 states that it is unlawful to take a bird or mammal without a license or entitlement to do so.

2.2.4.2 Section 1600
Section 1600 provides for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife resources throughout the state.

2.2.4.3 Section 1602
Section 1602 requires any person, state, local government agency, or public utility proposing a project that may affect a river, stream, or lake to notify CDFW before beginning the project. A Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) is required if activities will result in the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow of a stream; substantially alter its bed, channel, or bank; impact riparian vegetation; or adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources. In Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section

1.72, the CDFW defines a stream (including creeks and rivers) as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that support or has supported riparian vegetation.”
CDFW jurisdiction includes drainages with a definable bed, bank, or channel with the jurisdictional limit being the top of bank. It also includes areas that support intermittent, perennial, or subsurface flows; supports fish or other aquatic life; or supports riparian or hydrophytic vegetation.

CDFW reviews the proposed actions and, if necessary, submits to the Applicant a proposal for measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and the Applicant is the SAA. Often, projects that require an SAA also require a permit from the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA. In these instances, the conditions of the Section 404 permit and the SAA may overlap.
1615
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
29 October 2024
2022-077

2.2.4.4 Section 2014
Section 2014 states that it is the policy of the State to conserve its natural resources and prevent the willful or negligent destruction of birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, or amphibia. The Section further explains that the State may recover damages if destruction is caused to these resources and outlines how damages are measured, actions to recover damages, persons or agencies that are excluded from coverage of this Section, and a definition of local agency.

2.2.4.5 Section 4150
Section 4150 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits incidental or deliberate “take” of non-game mammals, including bats. Disturbance (e.g., noise, lighting) and displacement of bats from roosts and important foraging areas can potentially result in increased susceptibility to predation, reduced quality of thermal and social environments, reduced foraging efficiencies, and reduced reproductive success of maternity roosts (California Department of Transportation 2016).

2.2.4.6 Special Protection for Birds
In addition to protections contained within the California ESA, the California Fish and Game Code includes several sections that specifically protect certain birds:
 Section 3800 states that it is unlawful to take nongame birds, such as those occurring naturally in California that are not resident game birds, migratory game birds, or fully protected birds, except when in accordance with regulations of the California Fish and Game Commission or a mitigation plan approved by CDFW for mining operations.
 Section 3503 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird.
 Section 3503.5 protects birds of prey (which includes eagles, hawks, falcons, kites, ospreys, and owls) and prohibits the take, possession, or destruction of any birds and their nests.  Section 3505 makes it unlawful to take, sell, or purchase egrets, ospreys, and several exotic nonnative species, or any part of these birds.  Section 3513 specifically prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA.

2.2.4.7 California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990
The California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 aims to protect, enhance, and restore wildlife habitat and fisheries that are vital to the quality of life in California. This Act was established after the passing of Proposition 117 by California voters and applies to wildlife endemic to the state, including mountain lions (Puma concolor), and their habitat. To aid in the protection of wildlife and their habitat, the Act established the Habitat Conservation Fund where funds would be used to acquire habitat necessary to protect deer 1616
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
30 October 2024
2022-077
and mountain lion; protect rare, endangered, threatened, or fully protected species; and restore and enhance wetlands, riparian habitat, and aquatic habitats necessary for aquatic species.

2.2.5 California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
The California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act establishes a policy that certain rivers which possess extraordinary scenic, recreational, fishery, or wildlife values be preserved in their free-flowing state, together with their immediate environments. Where applicable, FHWA consults with the managing agencies on projects that affect designated rivers or their immediate environments to reduce potential conflicts with wild and scenic river values that are protected by the act.

2.2.6 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires “any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the waters of the State to file a report of discharge” with the RWQCB through State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures) (CCR, Title 23, Section 3855) (State Water Resources Control Board 2021). Waters of the State is defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state (California Water Code Section 13050[e]). Pollution is defined as an alteration of the quality of the waters of the State by waste to a degree that unreasonably affects its beneficial uses (California Water Code Section 13050) and includes filling in waters of the State. Note that CCR, Title 23, Section 3855 applies only to individual water quality certifications, but the new Procedures extend the application of Section 3855 to individual waste discharge requirements for discharges of dredged or fill material to waters of the State and waivers thereof.

2.2.7 California Environmental Quality Act
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, a species or subspecies not specifically protected under the federal or California ESAs or NPPA may be considered endangered, rare, or threatened for CEQA review purposes if the species meets certain criteria specified in the CEQA Guidelines. These criteria parallel the definitions used in the ESA, California ESA, and NPPA. Section 15380 was included in the CEQA Guidelines primarily to address situations in which a project under review may have a significant effect on a species that has not been listed under the ESA, California ESA, or NPPA, but that may meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened. Animal species identified as Species of Special Concern (SSC) by CDFW, birds identified as Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) by USFWS, and plants identified by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as rare, threatened, or endangered may meet the CEQA definition of rare or endangered.

2.2.7.1 Species of Special Concern
CDFW defines an SSC as a species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to California that are not legally protected under the federal ESA, California ESA, or California Fish and Game Code, but currently satisfies one or more of the following criteria:
1617
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
31 October 2024
2022-077
 The species has been completely extirpated from the state or, as in the case of birds, it has been extirpated from its primary seasonal or breeding role.
 The species is federally (but not state) listed as threatened or endangered or meets the state definition of threatened or endangered but has not been formally listed.  The species has or is experiencing serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for state threatened or endangered status.
 The species has naturally small populations that exhibit high susceptibility to risk from any factor that, if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for state threatened or endangered status.
 SSC are typically associated with habitats that are threatened.

Depending on the policy of the lead agency, projects that result in substantial impacts to SSC may be considered significant under CEQA.

2.2.7.2 California Rare Plant Ranks
The CNPS maintains the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2023a), which provides a list of plant species native to California that are threatened with extinction, have limited distributions, or low populations. Plant species meeting one of these criteria are assigned to one of six California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPRs). The ranking system was developed in collaboration with government, academia, non-governmental organizations, and private sector botanists, and is jointly managed by CDFW and the CNPS. The CRPRs are currently recognized in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).

The following are definitions of the CNPS CRPRs:
 Rare Plant Rank 1A – presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere.  Rare Plant Rank 1B – rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.  Rare Plant Rank 2A – presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere.  Rare Plant Rank 2B – rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.  Rare Plant Rank 3 – a review list of plants about which more information is needed.  Rare Plant Rank 4 – a watch list of plants of limited distribution.

Additionally, CNPS has defined Threat Ranks that are added to the CRPR as an extension. Threat Ranks designate the level of threat on a scale of 1 through 3, with 1 being the most threatened and 3 being the least threatened. Threat Ranks are generally present for all plants ranked 1B, 2B, or 4, and for the majority of plants ranked 3. Plant species ranked 1A and 2A (presumed extirpated in California) and some species ranked 3, which lack threat information, do not typically have a Threat Rank extension. The following are definitions of the CNPS Threat Ranks:
1618
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
32 October 2024
2022-077
 Threat Rank 0.1 – Seriously threatened in California (more than 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat).
 Threat Rank 0.2 – Moderately threatened in California (20 to 80 percent occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat).
 Threat Rank 0.3 – Not very threatened in California (less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known).

Factors such as habitat vulnerability and specificity, distribution, and condition of occurrences are considered in setting the Threat Rank; and differences in Threat Ranks do not constitute additional or different protection (CNPS 2023a).

Depending on the policy of the lead agency, substantial impacts to plants ranked 1A, 1B, 2, and 3 are typically considered significant under CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. Significance under CEQA is typically evaluated on a case-by-case basis for plants ranked 4 and at the discretion of the CEQA lead agency.

2.2.7.3 Sensitive Natural Communities
The CDFW maintains the California Natural Community List (CDFW 2023a), which provides a list of vegetation alliances, associations, and special stands as defined in The Manual of California Vegetation (CNPS 2023b), along with their respective state and global rarity ranks. Natural communities with a state rarity rank of S1, S2, or S3 are considered sensitive natural communities. Depending on the policy of the lead agency, impacts to sensitive natural communities may be considered significant under CEQA.

2.2.7.4 California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act
The California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act was passed in 2001 and provides funding for conservation and protection of California oak woodlands. This act mandates the California Wildlife Conservation Board to establish a grant program designed to protect and restore oak woodlands using conservation easements, cost-share and long-term agreements, technical assistance, and public education and outreach. The grant program provides incentives designed to foster the voluntary conservation of oak woodlands.

To participate in the Oak Woodlands Conservation Program, a county or city shall adopt an Oak Woodlands Management Plan through a resolution. The county or city must prepare statements expressing support for landowners that participate in the Oak Woodlands Conservation Program and must certify that individual proposals are consistent with the county or city Oak Woodlands Management Plan.

2.2.7.5 California Environmental Quality Act Significance Criteria Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines encourages local agencies to develop and publish the thresholds the agency uses in determining the significance of environmental effects caused by projects under its review. However, agencies may also rely upon the guidance provided by the expanded Initial Study checklist contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Appendix G provides examples of impacts that 1619
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
33 October 2024
2022-077
would normally be considered significant. Based on these examples, impacts to biological resources would normally be considered significant if the project would:
 have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
 have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFW or USFWS;  interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
 conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and
 conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP.

An evaluation of whether an impact on biological resources would be substantial must consider both the resource itself and how that resource fits into a regional or local context. Substantial impacts would be those that would diminish, or result in the loss of, an important biological resource, or those that would obviously conflict with local, state, or federal resource conservation plans, goals, or regulations. Impacts are sometimes locally important but not significant according to CEQA. The reason for this is that although the impacts would result in an adverse alteration of existing conditions, they would not substantially diminish, or result in the permanent loss of an important resource on a population-wide or region-wide basis.

2.3 Local Policies, Ordinances, and Other Plans

2.3.1 Riverside County/Wildomar General Plan
The City does not currently have an independent, city-specific General Plan. Rather, it has adopted the Riverside County General Plan (Riverside County/Wildomar General Plan). The Riverside County/Wildomar General Plan is currently the City’s principal policy document for future conservation and development.

The General Plan addresses all aspects of development, including land use; circulation and transportation; open space, natural resources, and conservation; public facilities and services; safety; and noise.

2.3.1.1 Open Space, Habitat, and Natural Resource Preservation Within the Riverside County General Plan the following policies are in place to allow for the preservation of open space, habitat, and natural resources. Those that pertain to biological resources are listed below; however, a complete list can be found in the General Plan document (RCIP 2003a):
1620
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
34 October 2024
2022-077
LU 8.1 Provide for permanent preservation of open space lands that contain important natural resources, hazards, water features, watercourses, and scenic and recreational values.

LU 8.2 Require that development protect environmental resources by compliance with the Multipurpose Open Space Element of the General Plan and Federal and State regulations such as CEQA, NEPA, the Clean Air Act, and the CWA.

LU 8.4 Allow development clustering and/or density transfers in order to preserve open space, natural resources, and/or biologically sensitive resources.

OS 5.5 New development shall preserve and enhance existing native riparian habitat and prevent obstruction of natural watercourses. Incentives shall be utilized to the maximum extent possible.

OS 5.6 Identify and, to the maximum extent possible, conserve remaining upland habitat areas adjacent to wetland and riparian areas that are critical to the feeding, hibernation, or nesting of wildlife species associated with these wetland and riparian areas.

OS 6.1 During the development review process, ensure compliance with the CWA’s Section 404 in terms of wetlands mitigation policies and policies concerning fill material in jurisdictional wetlands.

OS 6.2 Preserve buffer zones around wetlands where feasible and biologically appropriate.

OS 6.3 Consider wetlands for use as natural water treatment areas that will result in improvement of water quality.

OS 8.1 Cooperate with federal and state agencies to achieve the sustainable conservation of forest land as a means of providing open space and protecting natural resources and habitat lands included within the MSHCPs.

The following policies were adopted in the update to the Riverside County General Plan in 2021 for the Land Use Element section. Those that pertain to biological resources are listed below, however, a complete list can be found in the updated General Plan document (Riverside County Planning Department 2015):

LU 9.1 Provide for permanent preservation of open space lands that contain important natural resources, cultural resources, hazards, water features, watercourses including arroyos and canyons, and scenic and recreational values. 1621
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
35 October 2024
2022-077
LU 9.2 Require that development protect environmental resources by compliance with the Multipurpose Open Space Element of the General Plan and federal and state regulations such as CEQA, NEPA, the Clean Air Act, and the CWA.

LU 9.4 Allow development clustering and/or density transfers in order to preserve open space, natural resources, cultural resources, and biologically-sensitive resources. Wherever possible, development on parcels containing 100-year floodplains, blueline streams, and other higher-order watercourses, and areas of steep slopes adjacent to them shall be clustered to keep development out of watercourse and adjacent steep slope areas, and to be compatible with other nearby land uses.

LU 24.1 With respect to properties designated either as Open Space-Conservation, Open Space- Conservation Habitat, or Open Space- Water on the area plan land use maps: Cooperate with the CDFW, USFWS, and any other appropriate agencies in establishing programs for the voluntary protection, and where feasible, voluntary restoration of significant environmental habitats.

The following policies were adopted in the update to the Riverside County General Plan in 2021 for the Multipurpose Open Space Element section. Those that pertain to biological resources are listed below; however, a complete list can be found in the updated General Plan document (Riverside County Planning Department 2015):

OS 5.1 Substantially alter floodways or implement other channelization only as a “last resort,” and limit the alteration to:
c. projects where the primary function is improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.

OS 5.2 If substantial modification to a floodway is proposed, design it to reduce adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent feasible, considering the following factors:
c. wildlife habitat and linkages.

OS 5.3 Based upon site, specific study, all development shall be set back from the floodway boundary a distance adequate to address the following issues:
c. riparian or wetland buffer;
d. wildlife movement corridor or linkage.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
36 October 2024
2022-077
OS 6.1 During the development review process, ensure compliance with the CWA’s Section 404 in terms of wetlands mitigation policies and policies concerning fill material in jurisdictional wetlands.

OS 6.2 Preserve buffer zones around wetlands where feasible and biologically appropriate.

OS 6.3 Consider wetlands for use as natural water treatment areas that will result in improvement of water quality.

OS 8.2 Support conservation programs to reforest privately held forest lands.

2.3.1.2 Watersheds, Floodplains, and Watercourse Policies The Elsinore Area Plan, part of the Riverside County General Plan, addresses conservation policies that pertain to cities within its sphere of influence. Watersheds, such as the Santa Margarita River watershed, and watercourses, such as Murrieta Creek, are described as providing corridors for wildlife movement and linkage to open spaces. To protect these areas the following policy is in place to protect these areas:

ELAP 14.1 Protect the Santa Margarita watershed and habitat and provide recreational opportunities and flood protection through adherence to the policies found in the Open Space, Habitat, and Natural Resources Preservation section of the General Plan Land Use Element and the Environmentally Sensitive Lands, Floodplain and Riparian Area Management, Wetlands, and Open Space, Parks and Recreation sections of the Multipurpose Open Space Element (Riverside County Planning Department 2015).

2.3.1.3 Oak Tree Preservation
The Elsinore Area Plan contains significant oak woodland areas that it aims to protect with the following policy:

ELAP 16.1 Protect viable oak woodlands through adherence to the Oak Tree Management Guidelines adopted by Riverside County and the Vegetation section of the Multipurpose Open Space Element of the General Plan (Riverside County Planning Department 2015).

The Riverside County General Plan (RCIP 2003a) also lists the following policies related to oak tree and native tree preservation:
1623
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
37 October 2024
2022-077
OS 9.3 Maintain and conserve superior examples of native trees, natural vegetation, stands of established trees, and other features for ecosystems, aesthetic, and water conservation purposes.

OS 9.4 Conserve the oak tree resources in the County.

The following policies were adopted in the update to the Riverside County General Plan in 2021 for the Open Space Element section and relate to Vegetation (Riverside County Planning Department 2015):

OS 9.6 Conserve important traditional Native American plant gathering resource areas.

2.3.2 Riverside County Oak Tree Management Guidelines
The Countywide guidelines presented in this section are meant to “address the treatment of oak woodlands in areas where zoning and/or general plan density restrictions will allow the effective use of clustering.” These guidelines are meant to reduce project impacts to oak trees to a level to a low level of significance, however, they do not exempt a project from being reviewed pursuant to CEQA.

Below is a summary of the guidelines. A complete list of all definitions and guidelines can be found here:
https://planning.rctlma.org/riverside-county-oak-tree-managementguidelines#:~:text=Landscaping%2C%20trenching%20or%20irrigation%20systems,oak%20tree%20shall% 20be%20avoided.
 A biological study will be required for all applications on properties that contain oak trees. This will include an inventory of vegetation including the location and size of individual oak trees that are two inches diameter-at-breast-height or larger. This includes the evaluation of dead or dying trees for their potential value to cavity nesting birds.  Impacts of the proposed development identified and quantified.  Options for mitigation measures if impacts cannot be avoided.  A biological report including mitigation, consistent with CEQA and applicable State or County codes and ordinances.

2.3.3 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional HCP focusing on conservation of species and their associated habitats in western Riverside County. The MSHCP identifies 146 species, referred to as “Covered Species,” for which the federal and California ESAs “take” authorization has been granted to signatories to the plan as long as they comply with its requirements. Of the 146 Covered Species within the MSHCP, 118 are considered to be “adequately conserved.” The remaining 28 Covered Species will be considered to be adequately conserved when certain landmark conservation requirements are met during the course of future development. The goal of the MSHCP is to maintain the biological and ecological diversity within a rapidly urbanizing region while also improving 1624
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
38 October 2024
2022-077
the future economic development in the county by providing an efficient, streamlined regulatory process through which development can proceed in and efficient way.

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 federally listed species, as well as other identified sensitive species and/or their habitats. Each city of 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 CEQA, NEPA, the California ESA, and the ESA will be granted. The Development Mitigation Fee varies according to project size and project description and is dependent on development density (Riverside County Ordinance No. 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, and the California and federal ESAs for impacts to the species and habitats covered by the MSHCP, pursuant to agreements with USFWS, CDFW, and/or any other appropriate participating regulatory agencies as set forth in the IA for the MSHCP.

2.3.3.1 Multipurpose Open Space Element
Within the Riverside County General Plan the following policies are in place to allow for the preservation of open space, habitat, and natural resources. Those that pertain to biological resources are listed below; however, a complete list can be found in the General Plan document (RCIP 2003a):

OS 17.1 Enforce the provisions of applicable MSHCP’s, if adopted, when conducting review of development applications.

OS 17.2 Enforce the provisions of applicable MSHCP’s, if adopted, when developing transportation or other infrastructure projects that have been designated as covered activities in the applicable MSHCP.

OS 17.3 Enforce the provisions of applicable MSHCP’s, if adopted, when conducting review of possible general plan amendments and/or zoning changes.

OS 17.4 Require the preparation of biological reports in compliance with Riverside County Planning Department Biological Report Guidelines for development related uses that require discretionary approval to assess the impacts of such development and provide mitigation for impacts to biological resources until such time as the Coachella Valley MSHCP and/or Western Riverside County MSHCP are adopted or should one or both MSHCP’s not be adopted.

OS 17.5 Establish baseline ratios for mitigating the impacts of development related uses to rare, threatened, and endangered species and their associated habitats to be used until such time as the Coachella Valley MSHCP and/or Western Riverside County MSHCP are adopted or should one or both MSHCP’s not be adopted.
1625
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
39 October 2024
2022-077
OS 18.1 Preserve multi-species habitat resources in the County of Riverside through the enforcement of the provisions of applicable MSHCP’s, if adopted.

OS 18.2 Provide incentives to landowners that will encourage the protection of significant resources in the County beyond the preservation and/or conservation required to mitigate project impacts.

The following policies were adopted in the update to the Riverside County General Plan in 2021 for the Multipurpose Open Space Element section. Those that pertain to biological resources are listed below, however, a complete list can be found in the updated General Plan document (Riverside County Planning Department 2015):

OS 17.1 Enforce the provisions of applicable MSHCP’s and implement related Riverside County policies when conducting review of possible legislative actions such as general plan amendments, zoning ordinance amendments, etc. including policies regarding the handling of private and public stand alone applications for general plan amendments, lot line adjustments and zoning ordinance amendments that are not accompanied by, or associated with, an application to subdivide or other land use development application. Every stand alone application shall require an initial Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Process (HANS) assessment and such assessment shall be made by the Planning Department’s Environmental Programs Division. Habitat assessment and species specific focused surveys shall not be required as part of this initial HANS assessment for stand alone applications but will be required when a development proposal or land use application to subsequently subdivide, grade or build on the property is submitted to the County.

OS 17.2 Enforce the provisions of applicable MSHCP’s and implement related Riverside County policies when conducting review of development applications.

OS 17.3 Enforce the provisions of applicable MSHCP’s and implement related Riverside County policies when developing transportation or other infrastructure projects that have been designated as covered activities in the applicable MSHCP.

OS 18.1 Preserve multi-species habitat resources in the County of Riverside through the enforcement of the provisions of applicable MSHCP’s and through implementing related Riverside County policies.

OS 18.2 Provide incentives to landowners that will encourage the protection of significant resources in the county beyond the preservation and/pr conservation required to mitigate project impacts.

OS 18.3 Prohibit the planting or introduction of invasive, non-native species to watercourses, their banks, riparian areas, or buffering setbacks.
1626
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
40 October 2024
2022-077

2.3.4 Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Conservation Plan
Within Riverside County there is an established Long-Term SKR HCP (Appendix C). The SKR conservation plan is administered by the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) and aims to conserve 15,000 acres of occupied SKR habitat. To date, more than 46,000 acres have been assembled in western Riverside County for this species. The RCHCA has a Section 10A permit granted by USFWS that allows for take of SKR as part of development activity. The federal ESA defines take as any attempt to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct as it relates to SKR. As individual projects are proposed and approved in the SKR Plan Area, public and private land developers are required to pay a SKR mitigation fee for land that is developed and removes SKR habitat. This streamlined process benefits developers in the SKR Plan Area because projects within this area do not require individual review and approval by the wildlife agencies.

Developers benefit from the streamlined process in the SKR Plan Area because projects within this area do not require individual review and approval by the wildlife agencies. The activities covered by the plan fall into three categories:

1. Actions by private landowners, local and regional public agencies, public and private utilities, and farmers that are otherwise lawful but constitute incidental take of SKR as defined by the federal and California ESA;

2. Establishment and management of permanent SKR reserves by the RCHCA in cooperation with other public agencies and individual landowners; and

3. Implementation by the RCHCA and its member agencies of the conservation, mitigation, and monitoring measures specified in this plan.

The Mitigation Fee is $500 per gross acre of the parcels proposed for development within the SKR HCP Fee Area.

2.3.5 City of Wildomar Municipal
Chapter 3.42 MSHCP Mitigation Fee
Chapter 3.42, MSHCP Mitigation Fee, of the Wildomar Municipal Code, ensures that all new development in the City pays its fair share of the costs of acquiring and preserving vegetation communities and natural areas that are known to support plant and wildlife species covered by the MSHCP. The development impact fees for residential, commercial, and industrial development have been set up as a funding source to pay for mitigating the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of development on the natural ecosystems. These fees will be used to finance the acquisition and perpetual conservation of the natural ecosystems and certain improvements necessary to implement the goals and objectives of the MSHCP.

Section 3.44.250, Tree Removal Fees
The City may charge a fee for a tree removal permit under Section 12.08.050 of the Municipal Code, as established by resolution of the City Council.
1627
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
41 October 2024
2022-077
Section 12.08.050 Tree Removal
Section 12.08.050 indicates that no tree within the right-of-way shall be removed or severely trimmed without first obtaining a permit from the Transportation Director. The Transportation Director may impose conditions as deemed necessary.

3.0 METHODS

3.1 Literature Review
The following resources were reviewed to determine the special-status species that have been documented in or in the vicinity of the City and therefore have a potential to occur within the City or may be potentially affected by activities within the City.
 CDFW CNDDB for City of Wildomar, California (CDFW 2023b).  Calflora Plant Database (Calflora 2023).
 USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Resource Report List for City of Wildomar, California (USFWS 2023a).
 CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California data for City of Wildomar, California (CNPS 2023a).
 NMFS Resources data for City of Wildomar, California (NOAA 2023a).  NOAA EFH Mapper (NOAA 2023b).
 USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI; USFWS 2023b).
 USFWS Online Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2023c).
 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2023a and 2023b).  2003 County of Riverside General Plan (RCIP 2003a).
 2015 County of Riverside General Plan (Riverside County Planning Department 2015).  Elsinore Area Plan (Riverside County Planning Department 2021b).

The results of the database queries are included in Appendix D.

4.0 RESULTS
This section includes an overview of the existing conditions of the City. The majority of the information in this section is from the Riverside County General Plan (RCIP 2003a; Riverside County Planning Department 2015) and Elsinore Area Plan (Riverside County Planning Department 2021b). 1628
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
42 October 2024
2022-077

4.1 Site Characteristics and Land Use
The City is located south of the City of Lake Elsinore in a valley between the Santa Ana Mountains and Gavilan and Sedco Hills. The City has an elevational range of approximately 2,324 to 1,566 feet above MSL from west to east and 1,187 to 1,777 feet above MSL from south to north. Due to its location, there is a variety of biological communities. The City includes one geographic subregion: Peninsular Ranges (Jepson eFlora 2023).

4.2 Soils
According to the NRCS, there are 112 soil units mapped within the City. Of these mapped soil units, there are 13 soil units that have a hydric rating and/or may contain hydric components. These are summarized in Table 3 and shown in Figure 3.

Table 3. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Hydric Rating
145 Cieneba-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes – 147 Corralitos loamy sand, moderately fine substratum Predominantly non-hydric 156 Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes –
187 Ramona gravelly fine sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes – 198 Soboba cobbly loamy sand, 0 to 15 percent slopes Predominantly non-hydric AtC2 Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded –
AtD2 Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded –
AtF3 Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 15 to 35 percent slopes, severely eroded –
AyF Auld cobbly clay, 8 to 50 percent slopes –
CaC2 Cajalco fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded – CaD2 Cajalco fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded – CaF2 Cajalco fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded – CbD2 Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded – CbF2 Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded – Ce Chino silt loam, drained –
Cf Chino silt loam, drained, saline-alkali –
Cg Chino silt loam, drained, strongly saline-alkali –
ChC Cieneba sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes –
1629
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
43 October 2024
2022-077
Table 3. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Hydric Rating
ChD2 Cieneba sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded – ChF2 Cieneba sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded – CkD2 Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded – CkF2 Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded – EcD2 Escondido fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded – EcE2 Escondido fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded – EnC2 Exeter sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded – EoB Exeter sandy loam, slightly saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes – EpA Exeter sandy loam, deep, 0 to 2 percent slopes –
EwB Exeter very fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes – FaD2 Fallbrook sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded – FbC2 Fallbrook sandy loam, shallow, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded – FbF2 Fallbrook sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded – FcF2 Fallbrook rocky sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded –
FfC2 Fallbrook fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded – FkD2 Fallbrook fine sandy loam, shallow, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded –
FwE2 Friant fine sandy loam, 5 to 25 percent slopes, eroded – GdD2 Garretson gravelly very fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded –
GhC Gorgonio loamy sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes –
GhD Gorgonio loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes –
GkD Gorgonio loamy sand, channeled, 2 to 15 percent slopes Predominately non-hydric GlC Gorgonio loamy sand, deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes –
GP Gravel pits –
GtA Grangeville fine sandy loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes – GuB Grangeville fine sandy loam, poorly drained, saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes Predominately non-hydric
GvB Grangeville fine sandy loam, saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes – GyA Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes –
1630
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
44 October 2024
2022-077
Table 3. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Hydric Rating
GyC2 Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded – GyD2 Greenfield sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded – GyE2 Greenfield sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes eroded – GzG Gullied land –
HcA Hanford coarse sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes –
HcC Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes –
HcD2 Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded – HdD2 Hanford cobbly coarse sandy loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes, eroded Predominately non-hydric
HfD Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes Predominately non-hydric HgA Hanford fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes –
HnC Honcut sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes –
HnD2 Honcut sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes –
HuC2 Honcut loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded –
LaC Las Posas loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes –
LaC2 Las Posas loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded –
LaD2 Las Posas loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded –
LaE3 Las Posas loam, 9 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded – LcD2 Las Posas stony loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded – LkD2 Las Posas rocky loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded – LkF3 Las Posas rocky loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, severely eroded – LoF2 Lodo gravelly loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded – LpE2 Lodo rocky loam, 9 to 25 percent slopes, eroded –
LpF2 Lodo rocky loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes, eroded – MmB Monserate sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes –
MmC2 Monserate sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded – MmD2 Monserate sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded – MmE3 Monserate sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded – MnD2 Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded – MnE3 Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded –
1631
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
45 October 2024
2022-077
Table 3. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Hydric Rating
PaA Pachappa fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes –
PaC2 Pachappa fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded – PlB Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes Predominantly non-hydric PlD Placentia fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes Predominantly non-hydric PoC Porterville clay, 0 to 8 percent slopes –
PsC Porterville clay, moderately deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes – RaB2 Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded – RaB3 Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, severely eroded – RaC2 Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded – RaC3 Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, severely eroded – RaD2 Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded – RaD3 Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded – RaE3 Ramona sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded – RdD2 Ramona sandy loam, moderately deep, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded –
ReC2 Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded – RmE3 Ramona and Buren sandy loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded –
RnD2 Ramona and Buren loams, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded – RnE3 Ramona and Buren loams, 5 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded –
RsC Riverwash Hydric
RuF Rough broken land –
SmE2 San Timoteo loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, eroded – TeG Terrace escarpments –
Tt2 Traver fine sandy loam, strongly saline-alkali, eroded – TvC Tujunga loamy sand, channeled, 0 to 8 percent slopes Predominately non-hydric VmA Visalia fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes –
VmC Visalia fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes –
VsC Vista coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes –
VsD2 Vista coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded – 1632
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
46 October 2024
2022-077
Table 3. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Hydric Rating
VsF2 Vista coarse sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded – VtF2 Vista rocky coarse sandy loam, 2 to 35 percent slopes, eroded – Wf Willows silty clay –
Wg Willow silty clay, saline-alkali –
WxD2 Wyman fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded – WyC2 Wyman loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded –
YbC Yokohl loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Predominately non-hydric YbD2 Yokohl loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded Predominately non-hydric YbE3 Yokohl loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded Predominately non-hydric YsE3 Ysidora gravelly very fine sandy loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded –
1633
MnE3
RaC2
GyD2
HcD2
HcD2
GyE2
HcD2
HcD2
HcC
GyD2
GyD2
GyC2
HcD2
HcC
TeG
GyD2
TeG
GyD2
RaC2
TeG
HcD2
TeG
GyD2
HcD2
TeG
ChC
ChF2
GyE2
W
CkF2
HdD2
TeG
GyD2
HcC HcC HcC
HcD2
HcD2
TeG
GyC2
GyE2 GyE2
ReC2
ChF2
ChF2
ChF2
VmA
MnD2
HcD2
ChD2
HcC
GyC2
GyE2
ChF2
RaB2
GhD
GyC2
GyC2
GyC2
GyC2
GyD2
CaF2
RaB2
CkF2
Wa
ChF2
GyC2
GyD2
0 750 I Sca le i n F e et
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Soils_and_Geology\WildomarGP_NRCS.mxd (TR)-trotellini 11/3/2023 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Series Designation - Series Description
CaF2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded CbF2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded ChC - Cieneba sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes
ChD2 - Cieneba sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded ChF2 - Cieneba sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded CkF2 - Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded GhD - Gorgonio loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes
GyC2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded GyD2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded GyE2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded HcC - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
HcD2 - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded HdD2 - Hanford cobbly coarse sandy loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MnD2 - Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MnE3 - Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded
RaC2 - Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded ReC2 - Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded TeG - Terrace escarpments
VmA - Visalia fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Figure 3. National Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Sheet 1 of 15
Map Date: 11/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, NRCS (gSSURGO)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
...
.....
..

D
-
CJ
-
D
-
D
-
..

D
-
D
-
D
-
-
~
-
,
1634
CaF2
HnD2
TeG
CbF2
ChC
CaF2
HcC
VsC
HcC
HcC
MnE3
MnE3
ChF2
TeG
ChF2
ChD2
MmB
GhD MmD2
CaD2
GhC
WxD2
CkF2
YbD2
HnD2
CkD2
TeG
HdD2
HcD2
HnD2
HdD2
ChC
MmD2
HcD2
CbF2
MnE3 TeG MnE3
MnE3
HcD2
VsD2
LaC
HnD2
CaF2
VsD2
CaD2
HcD2
TvC
0 750 I Sca le i n F e et
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Soils_and_Geology\WildomarGP_NRCS.mxd (TR)-trotellini 11/3/2023 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Series Designation - Series Description
CaD2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded CaF2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded CbF2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded ChC - Cieneba sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes
ChF2 - Cieneba sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded CkD2 - Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded CkF2 - Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded GhC - Gorgonio loamy sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes
GhD - Gorgonio loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes
HcD2 - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded HdD2 - Hanford cobbly coarse sandy loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes, eroded HnD2 - Honcut sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded LaC - Las Posas loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
MmB - Monserate sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
MmD2 - Monserate sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MnE3 - Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded
TeG - Terrace escarpments
VsC - Vista coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
VsD2 - Vista coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded WxD2 - Wyman fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded YbD2 - Yokohl loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
Figure 3. National Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Sheet 2 of 15
Map Date: 11/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, NRCS (gSSURGO)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
...
...

ECO RP Consulting, Inc. ,.......~ ..-r..l .... ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTA NTS D
D
-
-
-
-
-
D
D
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
D
D
-
D
-
,
1635
LaD2
CbF2
LaD2 CaD2
PoC
TeG
LaE3
YbD2
EcD2
CaD2
LaC
LaC2
HcC
TeG
YbC
HnD2
YbE3 WxD2
EcD2
ChF2
YbE3 LkD2
LaC
HcC
CaD2
LaC2
LaC
YsE3
YbD2
EcD2
MnE3
VsD2
GaC
HcD2
YbE3
CaD2
HcD2
YbD2
HaC
CaF2
LpF2
LoF2
LoF2
LaD2
LpE2
LpF2
HnD2
YbE3
LaD2
LaD2 LkD2
FwE2
EcE2
CkF2
TeG
LaE3
CaD2
RsC
LaD2
AyF
YbD2
CbF2
YbE3
YbD2
LaE3
LaE3
LaD2
CkF2
LaE3
EcD2
VsF2
HnC
CbF2
CbF2
CbF2
CbF2
CbF2
CbF2
CbF2
YbD2
YbC
FwE2
YsE3
LaD2
AyF
LpF2
ChF2
YbD2
LpE2
GyC2
YbE3
PlD
MmD2
TeG
YbC
WyC2 WyC2
GdD2
RuF
MmC2
LkF3
HnC
GyC2
LaE3
CaD2
YbD2
YbD2
HnC
LcD2
VtF2 VtF2
VtF2 FwE2
CbF2
LaC2
CaD2
CaD2
0 750 I Sca le i n F e et
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Soils_and_Geology\WildomarGP_NRCS.mxd (TR)-trotellini 11/3/2023 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Series Designation - Series Description
AyF - Auld cobbly clay, 8 to 50 percent slopes
CaD2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded CbF2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded ChF2 - Cieneba sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded CkF2 - Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded EcD2 - Escondido fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded EcE2 - Escondido fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded FwE2 - Friant fine sandy loam, 5 to 25 percent slopes, eroded GdD2 - Garretson gravelly very fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
GyC2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded HcC - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
HcD2 - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded HnC - Honcut sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
HnD2 - Honcut sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded LaC - Las Posas loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
LaC2 - Las Posas loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
LaD2 - Las Posas loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
LaE3 - Las Posas loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded LcD2 - Las Posas stony loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded LoF2 - Lodo gravelly loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded LpE2 - Lodo rocky loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, eroded
LpF2 - Lodo rocky loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes, eroded MmC2 - Monserate sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded MmD2 - Monserate sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded PlD - Placentia fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes PoC - Porterville clay, 0 to 8 percent slopes
RsC - Riverwash
RuF - Rough broken land
TeG - Terrace escarpments
WxD2 - Wyman fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded WyC2 - Wyman loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
YbC - Yokohl loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
YbD2 - Yokohl loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
YbE3 - Yokohl loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded YsE3 - Ysidora gravelly very fine sandy loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded
Figure 3. National Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Sheet 3 of 15
Map Date: 11/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, NRCS (gSSURGO)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
...
...

ECO RP Consulting, Inc . ........ _....~ Ill"' ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTA NTS D
-
-
CJ
-
D
D
D
D
-
D
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
CJ
-
-
-
-
D
~ "' D D
B
B
..

D
CJ
1636
GyD2
AtF3
MmD2
CbD2
PaC2
RaB2
Wm
Wn
GhC
ChF2
HaC
Tr2
RaD2
GyC2
CbD2
AtD2
MmB
AtF3
RaC2
Tp2
ReC2
Dw
Tr2
VmC
GyC2 RaB2
EwB
GvB
AtC2
Tp2
PaC2
ChD2
Wa
ReC2
RaD2
PlB
GyA
RaD3
W
MmB EoB
HcC
156
156
156
GyA
GsB
GyC2 RaD2
Tp2
GyC2
GyC2
GyC2
Cf
ReC2
ReC2
VmA
AtF3 AtF3
PlD
GyD2
RaB2
CaC2 VsC
GyC2
PlB
AtC2
GyC2 GyC2
GyC2
GyC2
PlD
HcC
GyC2
Wa
PaC2
Wa
GtA
TeG
RaD2
EnC2
EpA EpA
CaC2
GyC2
156
198
187
145
0 750 I Sca le i n F e et
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Soils_and_Geology\WildomarGP_NRCS.mxd (TR)-trotellini 11/3/2023 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Series Designation - Series Description
156 - Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
AtC2 - Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 2 to 8 percent slopes , eroded
AtD2 - Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
AtF3 - Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 15 to 35 percent slopes, severely eroded
CaC2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded CbD2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded ChD2 - Cieneba sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded EnC2 - Exeter sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded EpA - Exeter sandy loam, deep, 0 to 2 percent slopes
EwB - Exeter very fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes GhC - Gorgonio loamy sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes
GyA - Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
GyC2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded HcC - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
MmB - Monserate sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
MmD2 - Monserate sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded PaC2 - Pachappa fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded PlB - Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
PlD - Placentia fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes RaB2 - Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded RaC2 - Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded RaD2 - Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded RaD3 - Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded ReC2 - Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded VmA - Visalia fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
VmC - Visalia fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
VsC - Vista coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Figure 3. National Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Sheet 4 of 15
Map Date: 11/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, NRCS (gSSURGO)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
...

ECORP C l . ENv1RONME~~~~0hng, Inc. NSULTA NTS
D
-
-
D
-
iii
D
-
~ D
~
-
-
-
-
~
..

D
D
-
-
D
CJ
• ,
1637
RsC
CaF2
GyD2
ReC2
HnD2
PlD
MmD2
HcC
CaF2
YbE3
ReC2
CaF2
YbE3
RaD2
RaB2
GyC2
VsD2
ReC2
GyD2
YbE3
HgA
RaD3
RaC3
RaB2 GkD
GyC2
RaD2
MnD2 HcD2
HnC
MnD2
PaA
RaB2
GhD
GP
AtD2
MmD2
MmB
VsD2
RaC2
HcD2
HcC
GyA
TeG TeG
TeG
LaE3
LaD2
RaB3 YbE3
LaE3
MnD2
ReC2
LaD2
RaD2
ChF2
GyA
MmD2
PaC2
CaD2
MmD2
RaD3
CbF2
MnD2
YbD2
WxD2
GyC2 HcD2
RaD3
RaE3
YbD2
PlD
TvC
RaB2
HdD2
HcC
HnD2
PlD
GyA
CkF2
CkF2
CkF2
HcC
GyD2
ReC2
TvC
RaD2
GP
ReC2
ReC2
ReC2
ReC2
ReC2
CaF2
LaC2
AtF3
MnD2
MnD2
CbF2
LaD2
CbF2
RaB2
MnD2
HcC
ChD2
GyC2
HnC
PlD
RaB3
GyC2
GyC2
VsD2
HnD2
HnD2
LaD2
RaD2
HnD2
HcC
HnC
HcC
ReC2
GyC2 MnD2
CaD2
LaC2
RaD2
RaB2
ReC2
ReC2
RaD2
HcC
HgA MmC2
GyC2
HcC
HcC
0 750 I Sca le i n F e et
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Soils_and_Geology\WildomarGP_NRCS.mxd (TR)-trotellini 11/3/2023 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Series Designation - Series Description
AtD2 - Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
AtF3 - Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 15 to 35 percent slopes, severely eroded
CaD2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded CaF2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded CbF2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded ChD2 - Cieneba sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded ChF2 - Cieneba sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded CkF2 - Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded GP - Gravel pits
GhD - Gorgonio loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes
GkD - Gorgonio loamy sand, channeled, 2 to 15 percent slopes GyA - Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
GyC2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded GyD2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded HcC - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
HcD2 - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded HdD2 - Hanford cobbly coarse sandy loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes, eroded HgA - Hanford fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
HnC - Honcut sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
HnD2 - Honcut sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded LaC2 - Las Posas loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
LaD2 - Las Posas loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
LaE3 - Las Posas loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded MmB - Monserate sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
MmC2 - Monserate sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded MmD2 - Monserate sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MnD2 - Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded PaA - Pachappa fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
PaC2 - Pachappa fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded PlD - Placentia fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes RaB2 - Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded RaB3 - Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, severely eroded RaC2 - Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded RaC3 - Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, severely eroded RaD2 - Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded RaD3 - Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded RaE3 - Ramona sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded ReC2 - Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded RsC - Riverwash
TeG - Terrace escarpments
TvC - Tujunga loamy sand, channeled, 0 to 8 percent slopes VsD2 - Vista coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded WxD2 - Wyman fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded YbD2 - Yokohl loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
YbE3 - Yokohl loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded Figure 3. National Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Sheet 5 of 15
Map Date: 11/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, NRCS (gSSURGO)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
ECO RP Consulting, Inc . ......._...~wa,, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTA NTS D
D
-
D
D
-
D
)
-
..
-
D
-
B
D
D
-
D
D
D
-
D
-
D
,
1638
CbF2 LaD2
CaD2
LaC
LaE3
LaC
RsC
LaC
LaC
LaC
CaD2
AyF
LaC2
CaD2
HcD2
LaC2
TeG
LaC2
CaC2
LaC
LaC
CbD2
CaD2
LaC2
CaF2
GhD
LaE3
LaC
CaD2
LaC
CaD2
HcD2
CaD2
CaD2
YbD2
CaD2
LaD2
YbD2
CaC2
CaD2
CaC2
VtF2
LaD2
LaE3
HnD2
CkF2
CaD2
LaE3
LaD2
LaE3
LaE3
LaE3
CaF2
CbF2
CaD2
ChF2
CbF2
AyF LaD2
CaD2
CaD2
HuC2
HuC2
HnC
VtF2 CaF2
CaD2
CaD2
LaE3
AyF
PoC
TeG
LaD2
HfD
CaD2
LaE3
0 750 I Sca le i n F e et
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Soils_and_Geology\WildomarGP_NRCS.mxd (TR)-trotellini 11/3/2023 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Series Designation - Series Description
AyF - Auld cobbly clay, 8 to 50 percent slopes
CaC2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded CaD2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded CaF2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded CbD2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded CbF2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded ChF2 - Cieneba sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded CkF2 - Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded GhD - Gorgonio loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes
HcD2 - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded HfD - Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes
HnC - Honcut sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
HnD2 - Honcut sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded HuC2 - Honcut loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
LaC - Las Posas loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
LaC2 - Las Posas loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
LaD2 - Las Posas loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
LaE3 - Las Posas loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded PoC - Porterville clay, 0 to 8 percent slopes
RsC - Riverwash
TeG - Terrace escarpments
VtF2 - Vista rocky coarse sandy loam, 2 to 35 percent slopes, eroded YbD2 - Yokohl loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
Figure 3. National Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Sheet 6 of 15
Map Date: 11/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, NRCS (gSSURGO)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
ECO RP Consulting, Inc.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTA NTS
-
-
D
-
-
-
D
D
D
D
D
-
1639
CbF2
LkF3
LaE3
LaD2
LkF3
LcD2
AyF
LkF3
LaC2
LaE3
LaC2
CaD2 CbF2
LaC2
CbF2
LaC
CaD2
LaD2
LaC
CbF2
CaD2
LaE3
LkD2
LaD2
LaC
CaD2
ChF2
LaE3
CaD2
LaC
LkD2
LaD2
LaC2
LaE3
CbF2
CbF2
CbF2
ChF2
CaD2
CaC2
CaD2
CaF2
CaF2
LaC
LkF3 LkF3 LaE3
CaD2
CaC2
AyF
AyF
CaD2
CaD2
CaD2
LaE3
LaE3
CaD2
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Soils_and_Geology\WildomarGP_NRCS.mxd (TR)-trotellini 11/3/2023 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Series Designation - Series Description
AyF - Auld cobbly clay, 8 to 50 percent slopes
CaC2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded CaD2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded CaF2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded CbF2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded ChF2 - Cieneba sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded LaC - Las Posas loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
LaC2 - Las Posas loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
LaD2 - Las Posas loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
LaE3 - Las Posas loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded LcD2 - Las Posas stony loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded LkD2 - Las Posas rocky loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded LkF3 - Las Posas rocky loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, severely eroded Figure 3. National Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Sheet 7 of 15
Map Date: 11/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, NRCS (gSSURGO)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
----
Cl ----
D ---
,
ECO RP Consulting, Inc.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTA NTS 1640
MmB
CkF2
145
RaC2
GyC2
RaB2
EwB
AtC2
GtA
GyA
GvB
ReC2
GyD2
GyD2
147
GhD
GyC2
RaE3
156
GyA
RaD3
GyC2
RaD2
GhC
GyC2
GyC2
AtF3
VmC
ReC2
RaB2
RaB2
AtC2
RaC2
HcD2
VsD2
GyA
156
EpA
RaB2
HcC
HcC
156
198
198
187
145
143
156
198
147
198
0 750 I Sca le i n F e et
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Soils_and_Geology\WildomarGP_NRCS.mxd (TR)-trotellini 11/3/2023 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Series Designation - Series Description
145 - Cieneba-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes 147 - Corralitos loamy sand, moderately fine substratum 156 - Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
187 - Ramona gravelly fine sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes 198 - Soboba cobbly loamy sand, 0 to 15 percent slopes
AtC2 - Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 2 to 8 percent slopes , eroded
AtF3 - Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 15 to 35 percent slopes, severely eroded
CkF2 - Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded EpA - Exeter sandy loam, deep, 0 to 2 percent slopes
EwB - Exeter very fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes GhC - Gorgonio loamy sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes
GhD - Gorgonio loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes
GtA - Grangeville fine sandy loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent sl opes GvB - Grangeville fine sandy loam, saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes GyA - Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
GyC2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded GyD2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded HcC - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
HcD2 - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MmB - Monserate sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
RaB2 - Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded RaC2 - Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded RaD2 - Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded RaD3 - Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded RaE3 - Ramona sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded ReC2 - Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded VmC - Visalia fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
VsD2 - Vista coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded Figure 3. National Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Sheet 8 of 15
Map Date: 11/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, NRCS (gSSURGO)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
D
11111 ...
....
,
-
ECO RP Consulting, Inc. '-~ ~ .. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTA NTS 1641 RsC
HcC
Ce
Ce
GyC2
Ce Ce
MnD2
HcC
MmB
GyC2
RaB2
GuB
MmB
GyA
HcC
PlB
MmD2
MnD2
ChD2
HcD2
ReC2
MmB
VmC
ChF2
MmC2
MmC2
HcD2
RaD2
CkF2
GhD
AtD2
MnD2
MmD2
RaB2
MmD2
MnD2
GyA
PlB
ReC2
HcC
RaB2
MnE3
PlB
PlB
RaB2
MmB
PlD
MmB
AtD2
GyC2
MnD2
MmB
HcC
PaA
Ce
AtF3
GyC2
AtD2
RaB2
HcA
ReC2
GyD2
GyD2
MmB
GyC2
GyC2
RaC2
RaB2
RaE3
MnD2
RuF
PlB
MmC2
PlD
MnE3
MmC2
RaD3
ReC2
ReC2
CkF2
MmB
GyD2
PlD
GyC2
GyA
GyC2
ChD2
GyC2
MmD2
GhC
MmC2
ReC2
ReC2
GuB GyC2
AtF3
MnD2
MnD2
MnD2
MnD2
VsD2
HfD
PlD
ReC2
GtA
MmC2
MmB
MnE3
MnE3
RaC2
MmC2
MnD2
TeG
MmB
CbF2
CbF2
RnE3
RaC2
RaB2
MnD2
GyC2
RaB2
AtD2
MmB
RaB2
VsD2
RaB3
RaC2
HcD2
VsD2
GyC2
MmD2
RaC2
RaC2
MmC2
Cg PaC2
MnE3
HcC
ReC2
GyC2 MnD2
AtF3
156
RaD2
PlB
GyC2
GyE2
RaB2
GyD2
MmD2
RaB2
VsD2
PaC2
HcC
EoB
GyC2
RaD3
HgA
MmC2
PlD
PlD
ReC2
PaC2
HcC
HcC MnD2
0 750 I Sca le i n F e et
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Soils_and_Geology\WildomarGP_NRCS.mxd (TR)-trotellini 11/3/2023 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Series Designation - Series Description
156 - Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
AtD2 - Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
AtF3 - Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 15 to 35 percent slopes, severely eroded
CbF2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded Ce - Chino silt loam, drained
Cg - Chino silt loam, drained, strongly saline-alkali
ChD2 - Cieneba sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded ChF2 - Cieneba sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded CkF2 - Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded EoB - Exeter sandy loam, slightly saline-alkali, 0 to 5 perce nt slopes GhC - Gorgonio loamy sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes
GhD - Gorgonio loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes
GtA - Grangeville fine sandy loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent sl opes GuB - Grangeville fine sandy loam, poorly drained, saline-alk ali, 0 to 5 percent slopes
GyA - Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
GyC2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded GyD2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded GyE2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded HcA - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
HcC - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
HcD2 - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded HfD - Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes
HgA - Hanford fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
MmB - Monserate sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
MmC2 - Monserate sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded MmD2 - Monserate sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MnD2 - Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MnE3 - Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded
PaA - Pachappa fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
PaC2 - Pachappa fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded PlB - Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
PlD - Placentia fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes RaB2 - Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded RaB3 - Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, severely eroded RaC2 - Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded RaD2 - Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded RaD3 - Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded RaE3 - Ramona sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded ReC2 - Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded RnE3 - Ramona and Buren loams, 5 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded RsC - Riverwash
RuF - Rough broken land
TeG - Terrace escarpments
VmC - Visalia fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
VsD2 - Vista coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded Figure 3. National Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Sheet 9 of 15
Map Date: 11/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, NRCS (gSSURGO)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
....
....
,
1642
MmB
MmC2
GyC2
MnD2
FbC2
MmB
PlD
CkF2
GyC2
CkF2
CbF2
CkF2
HcD2
MnD2
ChD2
PlD
CkF2
ChD2 PlB
YbC
YbC
ChF2
VsD2
TeG
PlD
HcC
PlD
VsD2
MnD2
MnD2
MnD2
PlD
HnC
PlD
VsD2
MmD2
MmD2
PlD
MnD2
CkF2
MnD2
RaB2 FaD2
YbE3
YbE3
PlD
MmB
FaD2
CaD2
PlD
HfD
PlD
ChD2
CaF2
CaF2
VsD2
ChF2
MnD2
HcC
ChC
MmD2
FkD2
HnC
MmB
CkF2
YbE3
YbD2
MmB
YbC
FbC2
MmB
ReC2
CkF2
CkF2
CkF2
GyC2
HcC
PlD
ChD2
ChD2
ChD2
CkF2
FaD2
ChC
LaD2
PlD
ChF2
MnD2
VsD2
PlD
ChD2
PlD
PlD
MnE3
CbF2
MmB
MmD2
MnE3
MmD2
PlD
MnD2
MnD2
ChD2
MmB
PlD
CaD2
CbF2
RmE3
ChF2
TeG
MmB
PlD
MnD2
MnD2
FkD2
MmD2
PlD
YbE3
ChF2
TeG
MmD2
MmD2
ChF2
FcF2
HfD
ChF2
VsF2
PlD
CaD2 TeG
HcC
MmD2
PlD
ChF2
YbE3
ChC
HfD
MnE3 MnE3
VsD2
YbC
TeG
ChF2
ChD2
MmB
FaD2
PlD
TeG
MnD2
0 750 I Sca le i n F e et
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Soils_and_Geology\WildomarGP_NRCS.mxd (TR)-trotellini 11/3/2023 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Series Designation - Series Description
CaD2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded CaF2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded CbF2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded ChC - Cieneba sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes
ChD2 - Cieneba sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded ChF2 - Cieneba sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded CkF2 - Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded FaD2 - Fallbrook sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded FbC2 - Fallbrook sandy loam, shallow, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded FcF2 - Fallbrook rocky sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded
FkD2 - Fallbrook fine sandy loam, shallow, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded GyC2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded HcC - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
HcD2 - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded HfD - Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes
HnC - Honcut sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
LaD2 - Las Posas loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
MmB - Monserate sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
MmC2 - Monserate sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded MmD2 - Monserate sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MnD2 - Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MnE3 - Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded
PlB - Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
PlD - Placentia fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes RaB2 - Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded ReC2 - Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded RmE3 - Ramona and Buren sandy loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded
RnE3 - Ramona and Buren loams, 5 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded TeG - Terrace escarpments
VsD2 - Vista coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded VsF2 - Vista coarse sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded YbC - Yokohl loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
YbD2 - Yokohl loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
YbE3 - Yokohl loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded Figure 3. National Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Sheet 10 of 15
Map Date: 11/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, NRCS (gSSURGO)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
...

ECO RP Consulting, Ines

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTA NT
D
ii
-
-
-
D
-
D
-
-
D
~
-
■ D
-
D
-
-
~
-
~
-
D
D
~
,
Oaks
1643
CaF2
MnD2
MnD2 FfC2
ChF2
VsC
LcD2
ChF2
LaE3
PlD
PsC
CaD2
CbD2
AtF3
CkF2
YbD2
YbE3
RnE3
HcD2
MmD2
CaD2
PlD
CaD2 FaD2
PlD
CaD2
CaF2
ChD2
FaD2
ChC
LaD2
CaD2
CkF2
PlD FaD2
ChF2
MmB
ChF2
ChF2 ChF2
YbC
ReC2
CaF2
ChF2
ChF2
LaD2
GyC2
YbD2
RnD2
VsD2
YbE3
ChF2
CaF2
YbE3
VsD2
ChD2
FbF2
MnE3 RnE3
CaD2
ChD2
ChF2
ChF2
VsD2
HfD
CaD2
ChD2
VsC
TeG
HcC
LaE3
CbF2
CbF2
GyC2
CbD2
CaD2
ChD2
FbF2
PlD
CaC2
MmD2
PlD
CaF2
VsF2
ChD2
GyC2
LaC
LaD2
PlD
CaD2
CkF2
CaC2
PlD
TeG
PlD
MnD2
CaD2
ChF2
MmB
PlB
YsE3
0 750 I Sca le i n F e et
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Soils_and_Geology\WildomarGP_NRCS.mxd (TR)-trotellini 11/3/2023 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Series Designation - Series Description
AtF3 - Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 15 to 35 percent slopes, severely eroded
CaC2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded CaD2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded CaF2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded CbD2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded CbF2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded ChD2 - Cieneba sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded ChF2 - Cieneba sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded CkF2 - Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded FaD2 - Fallbrook sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded FbF2 - Fallbrook sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded FfC2 - Fallbrook fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded GyC2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded HcC - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
HcD2 - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded LaC - Las Posas loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
LaD2 - Las Posas loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
LaE3 - Las Posas loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded LcD2 - Las Posas stony loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MmB - Monserate sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
MmD2 - Monserate sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MnD2 - Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MnE3 - Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded
PlB - Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
PlD - Placentia fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes PsC - Porterville clay, moderately deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes ReC2 - Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded RnD2 - Ramona and Buren loams, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded RnE3 - Ramona and Buren loams, 5 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded TeG - Terrace escarpments
VsC - Vista coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
VsD2 - Vista coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded VsF2 - Vista coarse sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded YbC - Yokohl loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
YbD2 - Yokohl loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
YbE3 - Yokohl loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded YsE3 - Ysidora gravelly very fine sandy loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded
Figure 3. National Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Sheet 11 of 15
Map Date: 11/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, NRCS (gSSURGO)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
Oaks
1644
CkD2
CkD2 144
CkF2
145
CkD2
LkF3
GyC2
HcC
CkD2
CkD2
CbF2
CaC2
CkD2
145
144 145
144
0 750 I Sca le i n F e et
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Soils_and_Geology\WildomarGP_NRCS.mxd (TR)-trotellini 11/3/2023 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Series Designation - Series Description
145 - Cieneba-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes CkD2 - Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded CkF2 - Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded Figure 3. National Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Sheet 12 of 15
Map Date: 11/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, NRCS (gSSURGO)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
ECO RP Consulting, Inc.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTA NTS
D
D
-
-
,
1645
GyC2
RaC2
HcC
Ce
MmD2
ReC2
Ce
GlC
GuB
MmC2
RaD2
LkF3
MmD2
RaC2
MnD2
LkF3
GyC2
CkF2
RaD2
YsE3
Cg
HcD2 HcC
GlC
RaE3
RaB3
GyC2
RsC
RsC
HcC
TeG
RaD2
MmD2
MmB
HcC
HcC
GyD2
PaA
Ce
Tt2
ReC2
ReC2
GtA
MmD2
FwE2
RaC2
RaB2
MnD2
LkF3
RaC2
RaC2
Wf
RaC2
HcC
CkD2
GyC2 GuB
GyC2
GyC2
RnE3
HcC
Wg
GtA
Cf
ReC2
GlC
HaC
AlC
RaD2
Wf
RaD2
MnD2
RaC2 MnD2
ReC2
HcC
MmD2
HaC
TeG
VtF2
RaC2
HcC
MmC2
RaB2
RaB2
RaD2
MmC2
CkD2
MnD2
MmB
VsD2
PaC2
EoB
TeG LpF2
0 750 I Sca le i n F e et
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Soils_and_Geology\WildomarGP_NRCS.mxd (TR)-trotellini 11/3/2023 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Series Designation - Series Description
Ce - Chino silt loam, drained
Cf - Chino silt loam, drained, saline-alkali
Cg - Chino silt loam, drained, strongly saline-alkali
CkD2 - Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded CkF2 - Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded EoB - Exeter sandy loam, slightly saline-alkali, 0 to 5 perce nt slopes GlC - Gorgonio loamy sand, deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes
GtA - Grangeville fine sandy loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent sl opes GuB - Grangeville fine sandy loam, poorly drained, saline-alk ali, 0 to 5 percent slopes
GyC2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded GyD2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded HcC - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
HcD2 - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded LkF3 - Las Posas rocky loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, severely eroded MmB - Monserate sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
MmC2 - Monserate sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded MmD2 - Monserate sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MnD2 - Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded PaA - Pachappa fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
PaC2 - Pachappa fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded RaB2 - Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded RaB3 - Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, severely eroded RaC2 - Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded RaD2 - Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded RaE3 - Ramona sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded ReC2 - Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded RnE3 - Ramona and Buren loams, 5 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded Tt2 - Traver fine sandy loam, strongly saline-alkali, eroded VsD2 - Vista coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded Wf - Willows silty clay
Wg - Willows silty clay, saline-alkali
Figure 3. National Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Sheet 13 of 15
Map Date: 11/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, NRCS (gSSURGO)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
D
..
,
ECO RP Consulting, Inc.
'-'~r.,- ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTA NTS 1646
MmD2
MnE3
MmB
AtD2
RmE3
GyC2
MmD2
HcC
AtD2
MmD2
MmD2
GyC2
Ce
HfD
AtC2
MnD2
TvC
MmD2
CaF2
LkF3
SmE2 RdD2
AtD2
MmE3
GzG
MnD2
HcC
ReC2
HcC
HcD2
HcC
TeG
Ce
RnE3
RsC
TeG
HfD
SmE2 RaB3
HfD
MnD2
GyC2
ReC2
SmE2
GzG
FwE2 GyA LkD2
PlD
RaC2
TvC
GtA
CaC2
SmE2
GyC2
AtC2
MnE3
HcC
HcD2
HcC
AtC2
SmE2
SmE2
Wf
PlD
HcC
MmB
GyC2
RnE3
PlD
PlD PlD
PlD
GtA
SmE2
SmE2
HfD
AtD2
AtC2
GyC2
MmD2
PlD
GyD2
RnD2
SmE2
RaD2
RaD2
AtC2
AtC2
AtC2
RmE3
MnD2
Ce
MmC2
SmE2
HcC
MmD2
PlD
GyC2
RnE3
RnE3
HcC
ReC2
PlB
HcC
TeG
MmD2
MnD2
RuF
MmD2
CbF2
PlD
GzG
Cf
SmE2
HcD2
CaD2 HcD2
MmC2
RuF AtD2
MnD2
MnD2
MmD2
AtF3
RuF
RuF
MnE3
PaC2
MmB
CaD2
AtD2
LpF2
0 750 I Sca le i n F e et
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Soils_and_Geology\WildomarGP_NRCS.mxd (TR)-trotellini 11/3/2023 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Series Designation - Series Description
AtC2 - Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 2 to 8 percent slopes , eroded
AtD2 - Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
CaF2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded Ce - Chino silt loam, drained
Cf - Chino silt loam, drained, saline-alkali
GtA - Grangeville fine sandy loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent sl opes GyC2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded GzG - Gullied land
HcC - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
HcD2 - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded HfD - Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes
MmB - Monserate sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
MmC2 - Monserate sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded MmD2 - Monserate sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MmE3 - Monserate sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded MnD2 - Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MnE3 - Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded
PaC2 - Pachappa fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded PlB - Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
PlD - Placentia fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes RaB2 - Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded RaB3 - Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, severely eroded RaC2 - Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded RaD2 - Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded RdD2 - Ramona sandy loam, moderately deep, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
ReC2 - Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded RmE3 - Ramona and Buren sandy loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded
RnD2 - Ramona and Buren loams, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded RnE3 - Ramona and Buren loams, 5 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded RsC - Riverwash
RuF - Rough broken land
SmE2 - San Timoteo loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, eroded TeG - Terrace escarpments
TvC - Tujunga loamy sand, channeled, 0 to 8 percent slopes Wf - Willows silty clay
Figure 3. National Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Sheet 14 of 15
Map Date: 11/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, NRCS (gSSURGO)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
,.
-
D
-
D
D
-
...
-
-
D
D
D
-
D
D
-
-
,.
-
-
D
D
D
D
D
D
,
ECO RP Consulting, Inc . ......_.lllt.ill~ ..... ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTA NTS 1647 AtD2
AtC2
CaD2
GzG
RnE3
RnE3
AtD2
FcD2
AtF3
AtF3
VsC
VsC
SmE2
LaE3 ChF2
PlD
PsC
GlC
TvC
HcC
CbD2
AtD2
MnD2
AtF3
HcC
RsC
AtD2
HcC
CaF2
RaB2
RnE3
HcD2
GyD2
AtF3
AtD2
AtD2
RmE3
CbF2
CbF2
SmE2
SmE2
ChD2
HcC
MmB
AtC2
RnD2
AtD2
GzG
HcC
LaD2
HcC
RnD2 AtD2
CbF2
RnD2
AtD2
HcC
ChF2
ChF2
GlC
AtF3
HcC
GzG
MmD2
MmB
CaF2
CbF2
RnD2
VmC
ChD2
HfD
CaD2
CaD2
CaD2
MnD2
AtD2
ChC LkD2
LaC
GyC2
SmE2
SmE2
CbF2
CaC2
AtD2
CbF2
SmE2
AtF3
PlB
AtD2
AtD2
VsD2
RsC
GyC2 AtF3
AtC2
AtC2
HcC
AtF3
HcC
SmE2
SmE2
SmE2
SmE2
RnD2
GyD2
RnE3
RnE3
RaB2
GzG
CbF2
AtD2
SmE2
AtD2
VsD2 ChF2
HfD
CbF2
CbF2
CbF2
CbF2
CbF2 CbF2
CbF2
AtF3
PlD
HfD
CbF2
CkD2
CaD2
LaD2
SmE2
SmE2
GyC2
VmC
AtC2
GzG
GzG
GzG
HcC
ChD2
VsD2 ChD2
ChC
HcC
PlD
RnE3
CaD2
RnE3
GzG
AtD2
RnD2
AtC2
HcC SmE2
HcC
AtD2 AtD2
TeG
GzG
GzG
RnE3
GyC2
AtD2
FaD2
GzG
TeG
AtC2
AtF3
AtF3
GyD2
AtF3
CaF2
PlB
ChF2
0 750 I Sca le i n F e et
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Soils_and_Geology\WildomarGP_NRCS.mxd (TR)-trotellini 11/3/2023 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Series Designation - Series Description
AtC2 - Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 2 to 8 percent slopes , eroded
AtD2 - Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
AtF3 - Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 15 to 35 percent slopes, severely eroded
CaF2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, eroded CbD2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded CbF2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded ChC - Cieneba sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes
ChD2 - Cieneba sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded GzG - Gullied land
HcD2 - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded HfD - Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes
LaD2 - Las Posas loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
LaE3 - Las Posas loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded LkD2 - Las Posas rocky loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MmB - Monserate sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
MmD2 - Monserate sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MnD2 - Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded MnE3 - Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded
PlB - Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
PlD - Placentia fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes PsC - Porterville clay, moderately deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes RmE3 - Ramona and Buren sandy loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded
RnE3 - Ramona and Buren loams, 5 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded SmE2 - San Timoteo loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, eroded Figure 3. National Resources Conservation Service Soil Types Sheet 15 of 15
Map Date: 11/3/2023
Sources: ESRI, Placeworks, NRCS (gSSURGO)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
,
ECO RP Consulting, Inc . ......._...~wa,, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTA NTS 1648 Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
62 October 2024
2022-077

4.3 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
The City encompasses the foothills of the Santa Margarita Mountains and Elsinore Mountains and is located in the southwestern corner of Riverside County. Murrieta Creek flows through the western portion of the City, running north–south. The City is predominately developed; however, it does contain some additional land cover types and vegetation communities. Land cover types are primarily those that are not defined by a specific species of vegetation according to the CNPS.

The CNDDB database was reviewed to determine the general vegetation communities that occur within the City. Table 4 lists the general vegetation communities (collapsed and uncollapsed) and other land cover types within the City. Vegetation communities and land cover types according to the MSHCP are shown in Figure 4. It is important to note that the vegetation communities and land cover type descriptions that follow are according to broad community descriptions provided in the MSHCP. These descriptions are not representative of detailed vegetation communities within the City. Rather, they are generalized descriptions for the collapsed vegetation community/land cover type.

Table 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Vegetation Community/Land Cover
Type – Collapsed
Vegetation Community/Land Cover
Type – Uncollapsed
Agricultural Land
Dairy and Livestock Feedyards
Field Croplands
Grove/Orchard
Chaparral
Chamise Chaparral
Chaparral
Red Shank Chaparral
Semi-Desert
Coastal Sage Scrub
Coastal Scrub
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Riversidean Sage Scrub
Grassland Nonnative Grassland
Valley and Foothill Grassland
Meadows and Marshes
Meadow (Montane)
Wet Montane Meadow
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Marsh
1649
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
63 October 2024
2022-077
Table 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Vegetation Community/Land Cover
Type – Collapsed
Vegetation Community/Land Cover
Type – Uncollapsed
Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest
Arundo/Riparian Forest
Montane Riparian Forest
Montane Riparian Scrub
Mulefat Scrub
Riparian Forest
Riparian Scrub
Southern Cottonwood/Willow Riparian
Southern Sycamore/Alder Riparian Woodland
Southern Willow Scrub
Tamarisk Scrub
Water Open Water/Reservoir/Pond
Woodland and Forests
Black Oak Forest
Broadleaved Upland Forest
Coast Live Oak Woodland
Oak Woodland
Peninsular Juniper Woodland and Scrub
Developed/Disturbed Residential/Urban/Exotic
1650
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Vegetation_and_LandCover\WildomarGP_Vegetation.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Agriculture Mapping Unit
Brittlebush - California Buckwheat Mapping Unit
Brittlebush - California Sagebrush Association
California Annual Grassland Alliance
California Buckwheat Alliance
California Sagebrush - California Buckwheat - (Black Sage - Yellow Bush Penstemon) Mapping Unit
Chamise - Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbance Mapping Unit
Chamise - Hoaryleaf Ceanothus - Black Sage Association
Chamise - Hoaryleaf Ceanothus Alliance
Deerweed Alliance
Eucalyptus Alliance
Exotic Trees Mapping Unit
Urban Interface Mapping Unit
Urban or development Mapping Unit
Vacant (disturbed bare ground, <2% vegetative cover) Mapping Unit
White Sage - Brittlebush Association
Willow Mapping Unit
Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Sheet 1 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Vegetation (2012 CNPS) 2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
g, Inc. ULTA TS

D -----
D -
• ,
•
1651
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Vegetation_and_LandCover\WildomarGP_Vegetation.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Brittlebush - California Buckwheat Mapping Unit
Brittlebush - California Sagebrush Association
California Annual Grassland Alliance
California Buckwheat Alliance
California Sagebrush - California Buckwheat - (Black Sage - Yellow Bush Penstemon) Mapping Unit
California Sagebrush - White Sage Alliance
Chamise - Black Sage Alliance
Chamise - Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbance Mapping Unit
Chamise - Hoaryleaf Ceanothus - Black Sage Association
Chamise - Hoaryleaf Ceanothus Alliance
Chamise Pure Association
Coast Live Oak / Chaparral Association
Coast Live Oak Alliance
Exotic Trees Mapping Unit
Urban Interface Mapping Unit
Urban or development Mapping Unit
Vacant (disturbed bare ground, <2% vegetative cover) Mapping Unit
White Sage - Brittlebush Association
Willow Mapping Unit
Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Sheet 2 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Vegetation (2012 CNPS) 2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update

D ------
D

D ------
D -- /
,
1652
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Vegetation_and_LandCover\WildomarGP_Vegetation.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Brittlebush - California Buckwheat Mapping Unit
Brittlebush - California Sagebrush Association
California Annual Grassland Alliance
California Buckwheat Alliance
California Sagebrush - California Buckwheat - (Black Sage - Yellow Bush Penstemon) Mapping Unit
California Sycamore Alliance
Chamise - Black Sage Alliance
Chamise - California Buckwheat Association
Chamise - Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbance Mapping Unit
Chamise - Hoaryleaf Ceanothus - Black Sage Association
Chamise Alliance
Chamise Pure Association
Coast Live Oak / Chaparral Association
Coast Live Oak / Poison Oak Riparian Association
Coast Live Oak Alliance
Eucalyptus Alliance
Fremont Cottonwood - Willow Mapping Unit
Urban Interface Mapping Unit
Urban or development Mapping Unit
Vacant (disturbed bare ground, <2% vegetative cover) Mapping Unit
Water Mapping Unit
Willow Mapping Unit
Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Sheet 3 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Vegetation (2012 CNPS) 2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
, Inc.

TA TS
--
D
lllie:.llll .. -
-

CJ --------
D --
• ,
•
Oaks
1653
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Vegetation_and_LandCover\WildomarGP_Vegetation.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Agriculture Mapping Unit
Urban Interface Mapping Unit
Urban or development Mapping Unit
Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Sheet 4 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Vegetation (2012 CNPS) 2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
D -
D -
• ,
•
1654
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Vegetation_and_LandCover\WildomarGP_Vegetation.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Agriculture Mapping Unit
Brittlebush - California Buckwheat Mapping Unit
California Buckwheat Alliance
California Sagebrush - (California Buckwheat) - Annual GrassHerb Mapping Unit Chamise - Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbance Mapping Unit
Chamise - Hoaryleaf Ceanothus - Black Sage Association
Chamise - Hoaryleaf Ceanothus Alliance
Coast Live Oak Alliance
Exotic Trees Mapping Unit
Fremont Cottonwood - Willow Mapping Unit
Urban Interface Mapping Unit
Urban or development Mapping Unit
Vacant (disturbed bare ground, <2% vegetative cover) Mapping Unit
Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Sheet 5 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Vegetation (2012 CNPS) 2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
D ----

D -----
D --
1655
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Vegetation_and_LandCover\WildomarGP_Vegetation.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Agriculture Mapping Unit
Brittlebush - California Buckwheat Mapping Unit
Brittlebush - California Sagebrush Association
California Annual Grassland Alliance
California Buckwheat - Brittlebush Alliance
California Buckwheat Alliance
California Sycamore Alliance
Chamise - Black Sage Alliance
Chamise - California Buckwheat Association
Chamise - Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbance Mapping Unit
Chamise - Hoaryleaf Ceanothus - Black Sage Association
Chamise - Hoaryleaf Ceanothus Alliance
Chamise - Laurel Sumac Association
Chamise Pure Association
Coast Live Oak - Sycamore Riparian Mapping Unit
Coast Live Oak / Chaparral Association
Coast Live Oak Alliance
Eucalyptus Alliance
Exotic Trees Mapping Unit
Hoaryleaf Ceanothus Alliance
Laurel Sumac - California Buckwheat Association
Urban Interface Mapping Unit
Urban or development Mapping Unit
Vacant (disturbed bare ground, <2% vegetative cover) Mapping Unit
Water Mapping Unit
Willow Mapping Unit
Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Sheet 6 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Vegetation (2012 CNPS) 2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
,c~ 7 D
<:\:
--
/
-
/
-- ~ - ~ -
D -
D ----- ~ - / -----
D ----
1656
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Vegetation_and_LandCover\WildomarGP_Vegetation.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
California Annual Grassland Alliance
California Buckwheat - White Sage - (California Sagebrush) Mapping Unit
California Buckwheat Alliance
California Sagebrush - California Buckwheat - Laurel Sumac Association
Chamise - Black Sage Alliance
Chamise - Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbance Mapping Unit
Chamise - Hoaryleaf Ceanothus - Black Sage Association
Chamise - Laurel Sumac Association
Chamise Pure Association
Coast Live Oak - Sycamore Riparian Mapping Unit
Coast Live Oak / Chaparral Association
Coast Live Oak Alliance
Eucalyptus Alliance
Laurel Sumac Alliance
Urban Interface Mapping Unit
Urban or development Mapping Unit
Water Mapping Unit
Willow Mapping Unit
Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Sheet 7 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Vegetation (2012 CNPS) 2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
D -
D --
D

D --------
D ---
1657
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Vegetation_and_LandCover\WildomarGP_Vegetation.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Agriculture Mapping Unit
Brittlebush - California Buckwheat Mapping Unit
California Annual Grassland Alliance
California Buckwheat Alliance
California Chaparral Mapping Unit
Chamise - Black Sage Alliance
Chamise - California Buckwheat Association
Chamise - Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbance Mapping Unit
Chamise - Hoaryleaf Ceanothus Alliance
Chamise - Laurel Sumac Association
Coast Live Oak - Sycamore Riparian Mapping Unit
Coast Live Oak Alliance
Deerweed Alliance
Laurel Sumac - California Buckwheat Association
Unmapped Area
Urban Interface Mapping Unit
Urban or development Mapping Unit
Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Sheet 8 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Vegetation (2012 CNPS) 2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
-----
D -

D ------
[7J
D -
Oaks
1658
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Vegetation_and_LandCover\WildomarGP_Vegetation.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Agriculture Mapping Unit
Brittlebush - California Buckwheat Mapping Unit
California Annual Grassland Alliance
California Buckwheat Alliance
Chamise - California Buckwheat Association
Chamise - Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbance Mapping Unit
Chamise - Hoaryleaf Ceanothus Alliance
Eucalyptus Alliance
Exotic Trees Mapping Unit
Urban Interface Mapping Unit
Urban or development Mapping Unit
Willow Mapping Unit
Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Sheet 9 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Vegetation (2012 CNPS) 2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update

D -----
D ---
D --
7l
.,, .
1659
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Vegetation_and_LandCover\WildomarGP_Vegetation.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Agriculture Mapping Unit
Blue Elderberry - (Mulefat) Mapping Unit
Brittlebush - California Buckwheat Mapping Unit
California Annual Grassland Alliance
California Buckwheat - Brittlebush Alliance
California Buckwheat Alliance
California Sagebrush - (California Buckwheat) - Annual GrassHerb Mapping Unit Chamise - Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbance Mapping Unit
Chamise - Hoaryleaf Ceanothus - Black Sage Association
Chamise - Laurel Sumac Association
Chamise Alliance
Coast Live Oak - Sycamore Riparian Mapping Unit
Coast Live Oak / Chaparral Association
Coast Live Oak Alliance
Eucalyptus Alliance
Exotic Trees Mapping Unit
Fremont Cottonwood - Willow Mapping Unit
Hoaryleaf Ceanothus Alliance
Laurel Sumac - California Buckwheat Association
Red Willow Alliance
Urban Interface Mapping Unit
Urban or development Mapping Unit
Vacant (disturbed bare ground, <2% vegetative cover) Mapping Unit
Willow Mapping Unit
Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Sheet 10 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Vegetation (2012 CNPS) 2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update

D -------

D ------------
D ---
• ,
1660
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Vegetation_and_LandCover\WildomarGP_Vegetation.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Agriculture Mapping Unit
California Annual Grassland Alliance
California Buckwheat - Brittlebush Alliance
California Buckwheat Alliance
Chamise - Black Sage Alliance
Chamise - California Buckwheat Association
Chamise - Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbance Mapping Unit
Chamise - Hoaryleaf Ceanothus - Black Sage Association
Chamise - Laurel Sumac Association
Coast Live Oak - Sycamore Riparian Mapping Unit
Coast Live Oak / Chaparral Association
Coast Live Oak / Poison Oak Riparian Association
Coast Live Oak Alliance
Exotic Trees Mapping Unit
Hoaryleaf Ceanothus - Laurel Sumac Association
Laurel Sumac - California Buckwheat Association
Urban Interface Mapping Unit
Urban or development Mapping Unit
Willow Mapping Unit
Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Sheet 11 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Vegetation (2012 CNPS) 2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
----
D -

D ---------
D --
1661
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Vegetation_and_LandCover\WildomarGP_Vegetation.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Agriculture Mapping Unit
Brittlebush - California Buckwheat Mapping Unit
California Annual Grassland Alliance
Chamise - California Buckwheat Association
Chamise - Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbance Mapping Unit
Chamise - Hoaryleaf Ceanothus - Black Sage Association
Chamise - Hoaryleaf Ceanothus Alliance
Chamise - Laurel Sumac Association
Coast Live Oak - Sycamore Riparian Mapping Unit
Hoaryleaf Ceanothus - Laurel Sumac Association
Laurel Sumac - California Buckwheat Association
Scrub Oak - Southern Mixed Chaparral Association
Urban or development Mapping Unit
Willow Mapping Unit
Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Sheet 12 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Vegetation (2012 CNPS) 2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
D ----

D ---------
• ,
•
1662
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Vegetation_and_LandCover\WildomarGP_Vegetation.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Agriculture Mapping Unit
Brittlebush - California Buckwheat Mapping Unit
California Buckwheat Alliance
California Sagebrush - (California Buckwheat) - Annual GrassHerb Mapping Unit Chamise - Black Sage Alliance
Chamise - California Buckwheat Association
Chamise - Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbance Mapping Unit
Chamise - Hoaryleaf Ceanothus Alliance
Chamise - Laurel Sumac Association
Coast Live Oak - Sycamore Riparian Mapping Unit
Coast Live Oak / Chaparral Association
Coast Live Oak Alliance
Laurel Sumac - California Buckwheat - White Sage Association Laurel Sumac - California Buckwheat Association
Red Willow Alliance
Scrub Oak - Southern Mixed Chaparral Association
Urban Interface Mapping Unit
Urban or development Mapping Unit
Willow Mapping Unit
Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Sheet 13 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Vegetation (2012 CNPS) 2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
D ----
D -

D ---------
D --
7l
.,, .
1663
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Vegetation_and_LandCover\WildomarGP_Vegetation.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Agriculture Mapping Unit
Annual Herbaceous Grasslands and Forbs Mapping Unit
Bulrush - Cattail Mapping Unit
California Annual Grassland Alliance
California Buckwheat Alliance
California Sagebrush - (California Buckwheat) - Annual GrassHerb Mapping Unit California Sagebrush - California Buckwheat - White Sage Association
Chamise - Black Sage Alliance
Chamise - Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbance Mapping Unit
Chamise Pure Association
Coast Live Oak - California Sycamore - Red Willow Association Coast Live Oak - Sycamore Riparian Mapping Unit
Coast Live Oak / Chaparral Association
Coast Live Oak / Poison Oak Riparian Association
Coast Live Oak Alliance
Eucalyptus Alliance
Exotic Trees Mapping Unit
Fremont Cottonwood - Red Willow / Arroyo Willow / Mulefat Association
Fremont Cottonwood - Willow Mapping Unit
Fremont Cottonwood Dry Mapping Unit
Red Willow Alliance
Scrub Oak - Chamise Alliance
Urban Interface Mapping Unit
Urban or development Mapping Unit
Vacant (disturbed bare ground, <2% vegetative cover) Mapping Unit
Willow Mapping Unit
Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Sheet 14 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Vegetation (2012 CNPS) 2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
, Inc. TATS
D
1664
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Vegetation_and_LandCover\WildomarGP_Vegetation.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Agriculture Mapping Unit
California Annual Grassland Alliance
California Buckwheat Alliance
Chamise - Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbance Mapping Unit
Coast Live Oak - Sycamore Riparian Mapping Unit
Coast Live Oak Alliance
Exotic Trees Mapping Unit
Urban Interface Mapping Unit
Urban or development Mapping Unit
Willow Mapping Unit
Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Sheet 15 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Vegetation (2012 CNPS) 2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
---
D ---
D --
• ,
•
• •
1665
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
79 October 2024
2022-077

4.3.1 Agricultural Land
Agricultural areas consist of any areas of the City that are under active cultivation, either irrigated or not.

Areas mapped as agriculture include crop fields and orchards, dairy and livestock feedyards, field croplands, groves, and orchards.

4.3.2 Chaparral
This vegetation community is primarily shrub-dominated with evergreen species that range from 1 to 4 meters in height. Common shrubs associated with this general community include chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), wild lilac (Ceanothus spp.), oak (Quercus sp.), redberry (Rhamnus sp.), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), mission manzanita (Xylococcus bicolor), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), sages (Salvia spp.), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), and monkeyflower (Mimulus sp.). Herbaceous species are also common such as deerweed (Acmispon glaber), nightshade (Solanum sp.), Spanish bayonet (Yucca baccata), rock-rose (Cistus sp.), onion (Allium sp.), bunch grasses (Festuca spp.), wild cucumber (Marah sp.), bedstraw (Galium sp.), and lupine (Lupinus sp.).

4.3.3 Coastal Sage Scrub
This vegetation community is often found in distributed within other vegetation communities such as grassland and chapparal and oak or riparian woodlands. This community is often dominated by droughtdeciduous shrub and subshrub species. Species commonly associated with this community include California sagebrush, California buckwheat, laurel sumac, sages, brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), boxthorn (Lycium sp.), and sugarbush (Rhus ovata).

4.3.4 Grassland
This vegetation community can consist of two general types of grasslands: non-native dominated grassland dominated by annual grasses and native grassland dominated by perennial grass species. The latter is often referred to as Valley and Foothill Grassland while the former is referred to as Non-Native Grassland.

Within Valley and Foothill Grassland, common species include fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), common calyptridium (Calyptridium monospermum), suncup (Camissoniopsis sp.), Chinese houses (Collinsia heterophylla), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), tarweed (Hemizonia sp.), coast goldfields (Lasthenia californica), common tidy-tips (Layia platyglossa), lupine (Lupinus sp.), wild hyacinth (Dichelostemma capitatum), and blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum).

Within Non-Native Grassland, common species include slender oat (Avena barbata), wild oat (Avena fatua), fox tail chess (Bromus madritensis), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), barley (Hordeum sp.), rye grass (Lolium multiflorum), English ryegrass (Lolium perrene), rat-tail fescue (Vulpia myuros), and Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus). These species are often within landscapes that persist in disturbed areas.
1666
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
80 October 2024
2022-077

4.3.5 Meadows and Marshes
These vegetation communities are associated with the presence of flowing or standing water. Common species included within these communities include cattails (Typha sp.), bulrush (Scirpus sp.), sedges (Carex sp.), spike rushes (Eleocharis sp.), flat sedges (Cyperus sp.), smartweed (Polygonum sp.), watercress (Nasturtium sp.), and yerba mansa (Anemopsis californica).

4.3.6 Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest
These vegetation communities are often found within waterways and drainages. These communities often consist of one or more deciduous tree species with a variety of shrubs and herbs in the understory.

Common tree species within this community include box elder (Acer negundo), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii), California walnut (Juglans californica), blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), wild grape (Vitis girdiana), giant reed (Arundo donax), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), tamarisk (Tamarix sp.), and willows (Salix sp.). Within the understory, species such as salt grass (Distichlis spicata), wild cucumber (Marah macrocarpus), mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) may be present.

4.3.7 Water
Open water is typically unvegetated, however, it may have algae and some floating plant species such as duckweed (Lemna sp.), and mosquito fern (Azolla filiculoides). Open water included inland depressions, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, stream channels, and other areas commonly present with riparian vegetation communities.

4.3.8 Woodland and Forests
These communities are often dominated by Englemann oak (Quercus engelmannii), coast live oak, canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni), and black oak (Quercus kelloggii) in a canopy that is intermittent to continuous. Other tree species that may be present include pinyon (Pinus sp.) and California juniper (Juniperus californica). The understory can often contain species such as wild blackberry (Rubus sp.), snowberry (Symphoricarpos sp.), California walnut, California lilac (Ceanothus sp.), currant (Ribes sp.), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California bay (Umbellularia californica), manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.), laurel sumac, poison oak, and herbaceous plants such as miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata). These communities often occur along canyon bottoms and stream sides.

4.3.9 Developed/Disturbed
Developed/disturbed areas include forms of human development that have an impact on native communities, in some cases permanent impacts that cause a complete loss or conversion of native communities. Developed areas include buildings (residential and commercial) and other infrastructures, some smaller landscaped areas, roads, and paved areas. Paved parking areas, and driveways are included in the developed category. Retention basins associated with development are also included in this category. Many developed and disturbed areas contain non-native species and/or ornamental species. 1667
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
81 October 2024
2022-077
Areas devoid or mostly devoid of vegetation and containing no buildings or other development were classified as disturbed. The disturbed designation indicates a location that may be actively maintained to be free of vegetation or that has been compacted to such a degree that vegetation is very sparse.

Disturbed areas include areas that include dirt roads, off-highway vehicle use, bare soils, concrete, and flood control measures.

4.4 Aquatic Resources
Wetlands and waters, as well as vegetation communities associated with these features (e.g., riparian vegetation), may occur throughout the City and will commonly be associated with streambeds, drainages, and channels (i.e., Murrieta Creek). Features identified in the NWI can be seen in Figure 5. Riverine, Freshwater Ponds, Freshwater Emergent Wetlands, and Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland features are documented in NWI. These features have the potential to provide corridors that encourage the movement of wildlife and provide habitat for sensitive wildlife and plant species.

An aquatic resources delineation was not conducted for this General Plan Update; however, listed below are general descriptions of types of aquatic resources that may be present.

4.4.1 Open Water
Open water communities may include large reservoirs, small ponds, and riverine habitats. A general description of these types of open water communities is provided below.

4.4.1.1 Reservoirs
Reservoirs are one type of open water feature that are often large natural areas or artificial lakes that provide a source of water supply. Reservoirs may also serve as recreational sites.

4.4.1.2 Ponds
Ponds are one type of lacustrine habitat that include areas of shallow open water, although areas of rooted freshwater marsh or floating plants may occur within this habitat. Ponds may be naturally occurring or artificial for stock and other uses.

4.4.1.3 Drainages
Drainages can include perennial or ephemeral resources such as creeks. These often will flow into larger water features such as a river, a watershed, or a reservoir. Artificial canals and irrigation ditches can also fall into this category. Drainages are typically associated with riparian habitat (described in Section 4.3.6) and may support areas of freshwater marsh.
1668
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Hydro\WildomarGP_NWI.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
NWI Features
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory
Sheet 1 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), NWI (2020)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
, Inc.

TA TS
•
•
,
fl reer R
1669
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Hydro\WildomarGP_NWI.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
NWI Features
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory
Sheet 2 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), NWI (2020)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
D --
• ,
•
1670
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Hydro\WildomarGP_NWI.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
NWI Features
Riverine
Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory
Sheet 3 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), NWI (2020)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
D -
• ,
•
1671
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Hydro\WildomarGP_NWI.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
NWI Features
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory
Sheet 4 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), NWI (2020)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
D -
• ,
•
1672
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Hydro\WildomarGP_NWI.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
NWI Features
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory
Sheet 5 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), NWI (2020)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
Oaks
1673
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Hydro\WildomarGP_NWI.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
NWI Features
Riverine
Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory
Sheet 6 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), NWI (2020)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
D -
• ,
•
1674
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Hydro\WildomarGP_NWI.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
NWI Features
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Riverine
Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory
Sheet 7 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), NWI (2020)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
D --
• ,
•
1675
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Hydro\WildomarGP_NWI.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
NWI Features
Riverine
Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory
Sheet 8 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), NWI (2020)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
• ,
•
1676
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Hydro\WildomarGP_NWI.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
NWI Features
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory
Sheet 9 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), NWI (2020)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update 1677
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Hydro\WildomarGP_NWI.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
NWI Features
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory
Sheet 10 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), NWI (2020)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
D --
• ,
•
1678
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Hydro\WildomarGP_NWI.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
NWI Features
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory
Sheet 11 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), NWI (2020)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
D ---
• ,
•
1679
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Hydro\WildomarGP_NWI.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
NWI Features
Riverine
Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory
Sheet 12 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), NWI (2020)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
D -
• ,
•
1680
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Hydro\WildomarGP_NWI.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
NWI Features
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory
Sheet 13 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), NWI (2020)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update 1681
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Hydro\WildomarGP_NWI.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
NWI Features
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory
Sheet 14 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), NWI (2020)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update
D ---
• ,
•
1682
0 750
I Sca le i n F e et
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15
ECORP: N:\2022\2022-077 Wildomar General Plan Update\MAPS\Hydro\WildomarGP_NWI.mxd (TR)-trotellini 10/13/2023 Service Layer Credits: (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CCBY-SA) Map Features
Wildomar City Limits
NWI Features
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
Figure 5. National Wetlands Inventory
Sheet 15 of 15
Map Date: 10/13/2023
Sources: NAIP (2020), NWI (2020)
2022-077 City of Wildomar GP Update 1683
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
97 October 2024
2022-077

4.4.1.4 Wetlands
Wetlands can be subclassified in a variety of ways. Three main categories of wetlands are described below:
freshwater marsh, wet meadow, and vernal pool.

Freshwater Marsh
Freshwater marsh often occurs along the margins of drainages and open water habitats. They are nontidal and are often continuously or frequently flooded. They often occur in nutrient-rich soils that are slow-draining and often saturated.

Wet Meadow
Wet meadow habitat often occurs at higher elevations in the eastern portion of the City. Dominant species in wet meadows include herbaceous wetland plants, such as sedges, rushes, spike rush, bent grass (Agrostis spp.), and oatgrass (Danthonia spp.). There are generally sparse or no shrubs or trees in wet meadows.

Vernal Pool
Vernal pools are seasonal depressional wetlands that are covered by shallow water throughout periods from winter to spring and then often dry completely by the summer and fall. This habitat can range in size from a small puddle to a shallow lake and they are often connected to drainages. Vernal pools are the home to fairy shrimp species including the endangered Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) and other fairy shrimp species (Branchinecta sp.).

4.5 Special-Status Species Documented to Occur in the City For the purpose of this assessment, special-status biological resources are defined as:
 vegetation communities that are unique, or relatively limited distribution, or of particular value to wildlife;
 plant and animal species that have been designated as either rare, threatened, or endangered by CDFW or the USFWS, and are protected under either the federal or California ESAs;  plant and wildlife species that are considered Sensitive under the United States Forest Service (USFS);
 plant and wildlife species being considered or proposed for listing under the federal or California ESAs; and
 plant and wildlife species that are of expressed concern to resource and regulatory agencies or local jurisdictions.

Note: For the purposes of this report, special-status plant species with a CRPR of 3 or 4 were only included if they are included in the conservation criteria of the MSHCP and wildlife species that are watch list are only included if they are part of conservation criteria in the MSHCP. 1684
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
98 October 2024
2022-077

4.5.1 Plants
Special-status plant species include those classified as endangered or threatened, proposed or candidate species for listing by the USFWS or CDFW, monitored by CNPS, and considered to be those of greatest conservation need.

The federal ESA establishes critical habitat as a means to contain essential features for threatened or endangered species. Critical habitat requires special management and protection. When designating critical habitat, areas are assessed for if the species occupies the area and if there is space for the individual or population to grow and exhibit normal behavior; the space provides shelter and food resources; the space is adequate for breeding and offspring rearing; and the space contains habitat that can be protected from disturbances and is representative of the species’ geographical range and distribution. No critical habitat for plant species exists within the City.

Plant species listed under federal or California ESAs are discussed in more detail below. Table 5 lists all the special-status plant species (as defined in Section 2.2) that have been documented to occur within the City or may be potentially affected by activities in the City, as identified in the literature review. However, Table 5 should not be considered a complete list of special-status plant species that may occur within the City. Other species not identified in the literature review may occur in the City presently or in the future.

This table includes the listing status for each species, typical habitat requirements, typical blooming period across the species’ range in California, and general elevation range.

Munz’s onion (Allium munzii) is a federally listed endangered species, state-listed threatened species, CRPR 1B.1 species, and MSHCP covered species. It is a perennial bulbiferous herb that blooms from March through May. It can be found in a variety of habitats such as chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. It is often found in clay or mesic microhabitats.

San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) is a federally listed endangered species and CRPR 1B.1 species. It is a perennial rhizomatous herb that blooms April through October. It prefers sandy loam or clay soils and is often found in disturbed areas.

San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior) is a federally listed endangered species, CRPR 1B.1 species, and MSHCP covered species. It is an annual herb that blooms from April through August. It can be found in playas, vernal pools, and valley and foothill grasslands. It is often found in alkaline micro habitats.

Thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) is a federally threatened, state-endangered species, CRPR 1B.1 species, and MSHCP covered species. It is a perennial bulbiferous herb that produces several blue to redpurple flowers on a leafless stalk. The blooming period is March through June. Habitat is in vernal pools 1685
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
99 October 2024
2022-077
and wetlands, but it can also occur in non-wetlands. Urbanization is the most significant threat to the species.

Slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) is a federally endangered, state endangered species, CRPR 1B.1 species, and MSHCP covered species. It is an annual herb that blooms April through June and is found in sandy soil within chaparral, cismontane woodland, and alluvial fan habitat.

San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii) is a federally endangered, state-listed endangered species, CRPR 1B.1 species, and MSHCP covered species. It is an annual/perennial herb that blooms from April through June. It occurs in coastal scrub, vernal pools, and valley and foothill grasslands.

It often occurs in mesic microhabitats.

Parish’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes alba ssp. parishii) is a state-listed endangered species, CRPR 1B.2 species, and MSHCP covered species. It is an annual herb that blooms from April through June. It occurs in lower montane coniferous forests, meadows and seeps, and vernal pools. It often occurs in vernally mesic microhabitats.

Spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) is a federally listed threatened species, CRPR 1B.1 species, and MSHCP covered species. It is an annual herb that blooms from April through June. It occurs in a variety of habitats including chenopod scrub, shallow freshwater marshes and swamps, playas, and vernal pools.

California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica) is a federally listed endangered, state-listed endangered species, CRPR 1B.1 species, and MSHCP covered species. It is an annual herb that blooms from April through August. It occurs in vernal pools.

Table 5. Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring Within the Vicinity of the City Common and
Scientific Name
Status*
Federal/State/

CRPR/USFS/MSHCP
Habitats Blooming
Period
Elevation
Range
(feet)
Chaparral sand-verbena
Abronia villosa var.
aurita
None/None/
1B.1/S/None
Occurs in chaparral, coastal
dune, and desert dunes. (Jan) Mar–Sep 245–5250
Yucaipa onion
Allium marvinii
None/None/
1B.2/S/ Covered
Occurs in chaparral and
generally in clay soils and
openings.

Apr–May 2495–3495
Munz’s onion
Allium munzii

END/THR/
1B.1/None/Covered
Occurs in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, pinyon
and juniper woodland, and
valley and foothill grasslands.

Mar–May 975–3510
Alkali marsh aster
Almutaster pauciflorus
None/None/
2B.2/None/Not Covered Occurs in meadows and seeps. Jun–Oct 785–2625 1686
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
100 October 2024
2022-077
Table 5. Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring Within the Vicinity of the City Common and
Scientific Name
Status*
Federal/State/

CRPR/USFS/MSHCP
Habitats Blooming
Period
Elevation
Range
(feet)
San Diego ambrosia
Ambrosia pumila
END/None/
1B.1/None/Covered
Occurs in chaparral, coastal
scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, and vernal pools.

Apr–Oct 65–1360
Rainbow manzanita
Arctostaphylos
rainbowensis
None/None/
1B.1/S/ Covered Occurs in chaparral. Dec–Mar 675–2200
San Jacinto Valley
crownscale
Atriplex coronata var.
notatior
END/None/
1B.1/None/Covered
Occurs in playas, valley and
foothill grassland, and vernal
pools.

Apr–Aug 455–1640
Parish’s brittlescale
Atriplex parishii
None/None/
1B.1/None/Covered
Occurs in chenopod scrub,
playas, and vernal pools. Jun–Oct 80–6235
California ayenia
Ayenia compacta
None/None/
2B.3/None/Not Covered
Occurs in Mojavean and
Sonoran desert scrub. Mar–Apr 490–3595
Thread-leaved brodiaea
Brodiaea filifolia

THR/END/
1B.1/None/Covered
Occurs in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, playas,
valley and foothill grasslands,
and vernal pools. Often found
in clay soils.

Mar–Jun 80–3675
Santa Rosa Basalt
brodiaea
Brodiaea santarosae
None/None/
1B.2/S/Not Covered
Occurs in valley and foothill
grassland. May–Jun 1855–3430
Intermediate mariposalily
Calochortus weedii var.
intermedius
None/None/
1B.2/S/ Covered
Occurs in chaparral, coastal
scrub, and valley and foothill
grassland.

May–Jul 345–2805
Smooth tarplant
Centromadia pungens
ssp. laevis
None/None/
1B.1/None/Covered
Occurs in chenopod scrub,
meadows and seeps, playas,
riparian woodland, and valley
and foothill grassland.

Apr–Sep 0–2100
Parry’s spineflower
Chorizanthe parryi var.
parryi
None/None/
1B.1/S/ Covered
Occurs in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, and
valley and foothill grassland.

Apr–Jun 900–4005
1687
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
101 October 2024
2022-077
Table 5. Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring Within the Vicinity of the City Common and
Scientific Name
Status*
Federal/State/

CRPR/USFS/MSHCP
Habitats Blooming
Period
Elevation
Range
(feet)
Long-spined
spineflower
Chorizanthe
polygonoides var.
longispina
None/None/
1B.2/None/Covered
Occurs in chaparral, coastal
scrub, meadows and seeps,
valley and foothill grassland,
and vernal pools.

Apr–Jul 100–5020
San Miguel savory
Clinopodium chandleri
None/None/
1B.2/S/ Covered
Occurs in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub,
riparian woodland, and valley
and foothill grassland.

Mar–Jul 395–3525
Slender-horned
spineflower
Dodecahema leptoceras

END/END/
1B.1/None/Not Covered
Occurs in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and coastal scrub
(alluvial fans).

Apr–Jun 655–2495
Many-stemmed
dudleya
Dudleya multicaulis
None/None/
1B.2/S/ Covered
Occurs in chaparral, coastal
scrub, and valley and foothill
grassland.

Apr–Jul 50–2590
San Diego buttoncelery
Eryngium aristulatum
var. parishii

END/END/
1B.1/None/Covered
Occurs in coastal scrub, valley
and foothill grassland, and
vernal pools.

Apr–Jun 65–2035
Campbell’s liverwort
Geothallus tuberosus
None/None/
1B.1/None/Not Covered
Occurs in coastal scrub and
vernal pools. – 35–1970
Palmer’s grapplinghook
Harpagonella palmeri
None/None/

4.2/None/Covered
Occurs in chaparral, coastal
scrub, and valley and foothill
grassland.

Mar–May 65–3135
Tecate cypress
Hesperocyparis forbesii
None/None/
1B.1/S/Not Covered
Occurs in closed-cone
coniferous forest and chaparral. – 360–4920
Santa Lucia dwarf rush
Juncus luciensis
None/None/
1B.2/S/Not Covered
Occurs in chaparral, Great Basin
scrub, lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows and
seeps, and vernal pools.

Apr–Jul 985–6695
Coulter’s goldfields
Lasthenia glabrata ssp.
coulteri
None/None/
1B.1/None/Covered
Occurs in marshes and swamps,
playas, and vernal pools. Feb–Jun 5–4005
1688
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Wildomar General Plan Update
102 October 2024
2022-077
Table 5. Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring Within the Vicinity of the City Common and
Scientific Name
Status*
Federal/State/

CRPR/USFS/MSHCP
Habitats Blooming
Period
Elevation
Range
(feet)
Lemon lily
Lilium parryi
None/None/
1B.2/S/ Covered
Occurs in lower and upper
montane coniferous forest,
meadows and seeps, and
riparian forest.

Jul–Aug 4005–9005
Parish’s meadowfoam
Limnanthes alba ssp.
parishii
None/END/
1B.2/S/ Covered
Occurs in lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows and
seeps, and vernal pools.

Apr–Jun 1970–6560
Intermediate
monardella
Monardella hypoleuca
ssp. intermedia
None/None/
1B.3/None/Not Covered
Occurs in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and lower montane
coniferous forest.

Apr–Sep 1310–4100
Little mousetail
Myosurus minimus ssp.
apus
None/None/

3.1/None/Covered
Occurs in valley and foothill
grassland and vernal pools. Mar–Jun 65–2100
Spreading navarretia
Navarretia fossalis
THR/None/
1B.1/None/Covered
Occurs in chenopod scrub,
marshes and swamps, playas,
and vernal pools.

Wildomar City CouncilDecember 9, 2024

Wildomar City Council
December 9, 2024