Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04172024 PC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title 11]. AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA APRIL 17, 2024 - 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: Chair Bob Hagel FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Lanae Turley-Trejo ROLL CALL: Hagel, Ruiz, Solis, Turley-Trejo, Watts PUBLIC COMMENT A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Commission on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the Commission Secretary. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to PlanningCommission@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Commission on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the Commission Secretary. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images maybe displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to 6:00 p.m. and submitted to PlanningCommission@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 1. Minutes Recommendation: Approve the action minutes of March 20, 2024 Attachments: Minutes Page 1 Planning Commission Agenda April 17, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. For public hearings each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the Commission Secretary or by submitting an email to be included into the record. Email comments must be submitted to PlanningCommission@temeculaca.gov. Email comments on all matters, including those not on the agenda, must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. Any person dissatisfied with a decision of the Commission may file an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision. The appeal must be filed on the appropriate Community Development Department form and be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 2. Planning Application Numbers PA23-0030, PA23-0026, and PA23-0027, a Development Plan to allow the construction of two commercial structures totaling approximately 4,414 square feet and related Conditional Use Permits for drive-thru lanes. Structures will be used for a restaurant and coffee shop. The project is located at 29540 Rancho California Road, Eric Jones Recommendation: Adopt resolutions entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA23-0030, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 4,414 SQUARE FEET LOCATED AT 29540 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (APN 921-320-061) PC RESOLUTION NO. 2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA23-0027, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW RESTAURANT TO INCORPORATE A DRIVE-THRU LOCATED AT 29540 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (APN 921-320-061) PC RESOLUTION NO. 2024- Page 2 Planning Commission Agenda April 17, 2024 3. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA23-0026, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW COFFEE SHOP TO INCORPORATE A DRIVE-THRU LOCATED AT 29540 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (APN 921-320-061) Attachments: Agenda Report Vicinity Map PC Resolution (Development Plan) Exhibits A - Draft Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Plan Reductions PC Resolution (ONO Hawaiian BBQ - CUP) Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Statement of Operations Exhibit C - Plan Reduction PC Resolution (Better Buzz - CUP) Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Statement of Operations Exhibit C - Plan Reduction Notice of Public Hearing Draft Notice of Exemption Long Range Project Number LR21-1331, a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), Mark Collins Recommendation: Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT NO. LR21-1331, THE TEMECULA CREEK COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN (CWPP) AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER SECTION 15061(B)(3) AND SECTION 15262 Attachments: Agenda Report PC Resolution Exhibit A - CWPP Exhibit B - CWPP Appendices Notice of Public Hearing Draft Notice of Exemption Page 3 Planning Commission Agenda April 17, 2024 COMMISSIONER REPORTS COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR REPORT ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on Wednesday, May 1, 2024, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The full agenda packet (including staff reports and any supplemental material available after the original posting of the agenda), distributed to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the main reception area of the Temecula Civic Center during normal business hours at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. The material will also be available on the City's website at TemeculaCa.gov. and available for review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda, please contact the Community Development Department at (951) 694-6444. Page 4 Item No. 1 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA MARCH 20, 2024 - 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 PM: Chair Bob Hagel FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Fernando Solis ROLL CALL: Hagel, Ruiz, Solis, Turley-Trejo, Watts PUBLIC COMMENT - None CONSENT CALENDAR Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar. Approved the Staff Recommendation (5-0): Motion by Turley-Trejo, Second by Solis. The vote reflected unanimous approval. 1. Minutes Recommendation: Approve the action minutes of February 21, 2024 BUSINESS 2. Long Range Application No. LR24-0028, Amending Chapter 8.48, Heritage Tree Ordinance, of the Temecula Municipal Code in its Entirety to Establish the City of Temecula Protected Tree Ordinnnr.P Recommendation: Recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 8.48 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Motion to continue the item for further review and discussion. (5-0): Motion by Turley-Trejo, Second by Ruiz. The vote reflected unanimous approval. 3. Receive Presentation for the Quality of Life Master Plan Website and Provide General Recommendations Regarding - the Same (Long Range No. LR21-00211 Recommendation: That the Commission receive the presentation for the Quality of Life Master Plan Website and provide general recommendations regarding the same. Received presentation and provided general recommendations regarding the same. 4. Receive Budget Engagement Session and Provide General Recommendations Regarding the Same Recommendation That the Commission receive the budget engagement session and provide general recommendation regarding the same. Received presentation and provided general recommendations regarding the same. COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS COMMISSIONER REPORTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR REPORT ADJOURNMENT At 8:11 PM, the Planning Commission meeting was formally adjourned to Wednesday, April 3, 2024, at 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Bob Hagel, Chair Luke Watson, Deputy City Manager Item No. 2 STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Luke Watson, Deputy City Manager DATE OF MEETING: April 17, 2024 PREPARED BY: Eric Jones, Case Planner PROJECT Planning Application Numbers PA23-0030, PA23-0026, and PA23- SUMMARY: 0027, a Development Plan to allow the construction of two commercial structures totaling approximately 4,414 square feet and related Conditional Use Permits for drive-thru lanes. Structures will be used for a restaurant and coffee shop. The project is located at 29540 Rancho California Road. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution approving the project subject to Conditions of Approval CEQA: Categorically Exempt Section 15332, Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: Robert Vermeltfoort, on behalf of Better Buzz Coffee and Ono Hawaiian BBQ General Plan Designation: Community Commercial (CC) Zoning Designation: Community Commercial (CC) Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Site: Existing Vacant Restaurant Structure / Community Commercial (CC) North: Existing Parking Lot, Commercial Structure / Community Commercial (CC) South: Rancho California Road, Temecula Duck Pond / Open Space (OS) East: Existing Parking Lot, Gas Station / Community Commercial (CC) West: Existing Commercial Structure / Community Commercial (CC) Lot Area: Total Floor Area/Ratio: Landscape Area/Coverage: Existing/Proposed 1.6 Acres Existing 0.06 Proposed 0.21 Proposed Parking Provided/Required: 78 Spaces Provided (Reciprocal Access and Parking Agreement Provides Parking for Entire Center) AFFORDABLE/WORKFORCE HOUSING Min/Max Allowable or Required 0.6 Acres Minimum 0.30 Maximum 0.20 Minimum 61 Spaces Required Located in Housing Element Vacant Sites Inventory? ❑ Yes ® No Located in Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ)? ❑ Yes ® No AHOZ Gain/Loss: +/- N/A BACKGROUND SUMMARY On January 18, 2023, Robert Vermeltfoort submitted Planning Application Nos. PA23-0030 (Development Plan), PA23-0026 (Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru for Better Buzz Coffee Roasters), and PA23-0027 (Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru for Ono Hawaiian BBQ). Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS Bite Plan The project will consist of two structures. The first will house Ono Hawaiian BBQ and total approximately 2,839 square feet. The second will house Better Buzz Coffee Roasters and total approximately 1,719 square feet. The project site currently contains a vacant commercial structure that housed the former Claim Jumper restaurant. This structure will be demolished upon approval of a demolition permit. Vehicular access to the site is via any of the six drive aisles available for the Temecula Town Center. Once on the project site, drivers can park in any of the seventy-eight spaces and dine inside. Per the City of Temecula Municipal Code, the project must be parked at a rate of 1-75 square feet gross floor area. This calculation requires a total of sixty-one spaces. The project actually proposes to include seventy-eight spaces (a recorded Reciprocal Access and Parking Agreement also exists for the entire center). Drivers can also opt to enter the double laned drive-thru each establishment offers. Pedestrian access to the project site has not been altered from the existing configuration. However, the project will now include a ramp from Rancho California Road to the project site. The purpose of this ramp is to meet an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement. The requirement is that the project must incorporate an accessible path of travel from the public right-of-way to the to the project site. Architecture Both structures are one-story and feature a modern architectural style. The Better Buzz structure features metal canopy elements as well as cementitious wood panels. Painted exterior stucco with a fine sand finish are also featured throughout the structure. The Ono Hawaiian structure features, cement plaster, reclaimed wood siding, metal siding, and a metal canopy. These elements work together to create visual interest for the project. Landscaping The project will feature revised landscaping to complement the new structures. Callistemon Dwarf Bottlebrush will be placed adjacent to the drive-thru lanes to shield them from view. Natchez Crape Myrtle trees will be placed in a variety of locations on the project site. The project will also feature a variety of other ground cover and bush species to help soften the development. The existing plant material on the slope adjacent to Rancho California Road and the adjacent Temecula Town Center entrance drive aisle will be protected in place. Conditional Use Permits (CUP) As mentioned previously, both establishments will feature a drive-thru. Drive-thru facilities require the approval of a CUP. The applicant has submitted a CUP application for each drive-thru. Per the City of Temecula Municipal Code (Section 17.10.020.0), drive-thru aisles shall have sufficient stacking area behind the menu board to accommodate six cars. The drive-thru for Better Buzz can accommodate nine cars and the drive-thru for Ono Hawaiian BBQ can accommodate eight cars. The applicant also submitted a queuing analysis for the project prepared by Trames Solutions, Inc. The consultant studied existing Ono Hawaiian BBQ restaurants and Better Buzz Coffee shops that have similar characteristics to the proposed project. This analysis determined that the proposed drive-thru lanes can accommodate the needs of the project and the project is not anticipated to impede the flow of the adjacent drive aisle or the public right of way. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in The Press -Enterprise on April 4, 2024 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600-foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects). The project will allow for the construction of two structures each housing quick service restaurants with drive-thru facilities on a site smaller than five acres within city limits and surrounded by urban uses. The proposed uses and overall design of the project are consistent with the General Plan for Temecula as well as applicable zoning regulations. The project site has been fully developed and used as a restaurant for decades and therefore has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. In addition, the site can be serviced by all utilities. Finally, the project will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic. The queuing analysis conducted by Trames Solutions, Inc. demonstrated that the drive-thru will not impede traffic in and out of theproject site. In addition, the construction of the restaurants with the drive-thru lanes will not result in any significant impacts to noise, air quality, or water quality. FINDINGS Development Plans (Section 17.05.010.F) The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project will allow for the construction of two restaurant structures. Restaurants are an allowable use within Community Commercial zoning districts. In addition, the project will feature a drive-thru for each structure. Drive-thru lanes require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit per the City of Temecula Development Code. The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for each structure as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the uses for the project are in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project has been reviewed and conditioned to ensure consistency with the Building Code, Development Code, and Fire Code. These codes contain provisions designed to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. In addition, the project will be required to go through the Building Permit and Grading Permit process. Negative impacts are not anticipated for the project. Conditional Use Permit (Section 17.04.010.E.1) The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The conditional use will allow for the development of two restaurant structures with drive-thru facilities in a Community Commercial zoning district. Drive-thru lanes are an allowable use in Community Commercial districts upon the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, the conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. 4 The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The proposed conditional use permits will allow for the operation of two drive-thru lanes. The lanes will be integrated into the project site. In addition, each lane will be shielded from view with appropriate landscaping. Finally, potential impacts from the lanes were studied by a traffic consultant. This consultant determined that the drive-thru lanes will not adversely affect the adjacent drive aisles or right-of-way. This means the lanes are designed to be compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures. The lanes will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The site for the conditional use is located within a fully developed commercial center with a variety of uses. The site's size and shape is large enough to accommodate the conditional use with regard to accommodating the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by Planning Commission. The project is required to provide 61 parking spaces but proposes to provide 78 parking spaces. The proposed conditional use meets or exceeds all Development Code requirements with regard to drive-thru and will be well integrated with other uses in the center. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The conditional use has been reviewed and conditioned to ensure consistency with the Building Code, Development Code, and Fire Code. These codes contain provisions designed to ensure eses are not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Negative Impacts are not anticipated. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Director, Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal. The decision to conditionally approve the project is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. PC Resolution (Development Plan) 3. Exhibit A — Draft Conditions of Approval 4. Exhibit B — Plan Reductions 5. PC Resolution (Ono Hawaiian BBQ — CUP) 6. Exhibit A — Draft Conditions of Approval 7. Exhibit B — Statement of Operations 8. Exhibit C — Plan Reduction 9. PC Resolution (Better Buzz — CUP) 10. Exhibit A — Draft Conditions of Approval 11. Exhibit B - Statement of Operations 12. Exhibit C - Plan Reduction 13. Notice of Public Hearing 14. Draft Notice of Exemption 921-320-061 CITY OF TEMECULA PA23-0030 z m N 70 TOWN CENTER N O P�\�O OG TOwFR PLA�`c' �G� �P Project Site 1 inch = 267 feet 1:3,200 The Heart of Southern California Wine Country Date Created: 3/9/2023 The map PA23-0030.mxd is maintained by City of Temecula GIS. Data and information represented on this map are subject to update and modification. The City of Temecula assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. This map is not for reprint or resale. Visit the City of Temecula GIS online at https://temeculaca.gov/gis PC RESOLUTION NO.2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA23-0030, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 4,414 SQUARE FEET LOCATED AT 29540 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (APN 921-320- 061) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On January 18, 2023, Robert Vermeltfoort, on behalf of Better Buzz Coffee and Ono Hawaiian BBQ filed Planning Application No. PA23-0030, a Development Plan Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on April 17, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. D. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA23-0030 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Development Plans, Development Code Section 17.05.010.F A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project will allow for the construction of two restaurant structures. Restaurants are an allowable use within Community Commercial zoning districts. In addition, the project will feature a drive-thru for each structure. Drive-thru lanes require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit per the City of Temecula Development Code. The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for each structure as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the uses for the project are in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project has been reviewed and conditioned to ensure consistency with the Building Code, Development Code, and Fire Code. These codes contain provisions designed to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. In addition, the project will be required to go through the Building Permit and Grading Permit process. Negative impacts are not anticipated for the project. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental Endings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Development Plan Application: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects); The project will allow for the construction of two structures each housing quick service restaurants on a site smaller than five acres within city limits and is surrounded by urban uses. The proposed uses and overall design of the project are consistent with the General Plan for Temecula as well as applicable zoning regulations. The project site has been fully developed and used as a restaurant for decades and therefore has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. In addition, the site can be serviced by all utilities. The queuing analysis conducted by Trames Solutions, Inc. demonstrated that the drive- thru will not impede traffic in and out of the project site. In addition, the construction of the restaurants with the drive-thru will not result in any significant impacts to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Section 4. Conditions, Statement of Operations, and Plans. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA23-0030, a Development Plan to allow the construction of two commercial structures totaling approximately 4,414 square feet located at 29540 Rancho California Road, subject to the Final Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, Statement of Operations set forth on Exhibit B, and the Plans set forth on Exhibit C, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 17th day of April, 2024. Bob Hagel, Chair ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing PC Resolution No. 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of April 2024, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson Secretary CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ACCEPTANCE Planning Application Number: PA23-0030 Parcel Number(s): 921-320-061 By signing below, I/we have agreed to the following Conditions of Approval, including (but not limited to) any referenced documents, local, state, or federal regulations, statement of operations, hours of operation, floor plans, site plans, and Conditions that may require the payment or reimbursement of fees, as described. I/we have read the attached Conditions of Approval and understand them. I/we also understand that violations or non-compliance with these Conditions of Approval, may delay a project, and/or result in the revocation of a permit in accordance with the Temecula Municipal Code. I/we are also responsible for disclosing these Conditions of Approval to any successive owners/operators. I/we agree and commit to the City of Temecula that I/we will implement and abide by the Conditions of Approval, including any indemnification requirements imposed by those conditions. Property Owner Printed Name Property Owner Signature & Date Applicant Printed Name Applicant Signature & Date EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA23-0030 Project Description: Better Buzz/Ono BBQ Development Plan: A Development Plan to allow the construction of two commercial structures totaling approximately 4,414 square feet. Structures will be used for a restaurant and coffee shop. The project is located at 29540 Rancho California Road. Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-320-061 MSHCP Category: Commercial DIF Category: Service Commercial TUMF Category: Per WRCOG Requirements Quimby Category: N/A (Non -Residential Project) New Street In -lieu of Fee: N/A (Not Located within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan) Approval Date: April 17, 2024 Expiration Date: April 17, 2027 PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of the Approval Page 1 of 16 Applicant Filing Notice of Determination. APPLICANT ACTION REQUIRED: The applicant/developer is responsible for filing the Notice of Determination as required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15062 within 48 hours of the project approval. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/ developer has not filed the Notice of Determination as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void due to failure of this condition. Failure to submit the Notice of Exemption will result in an extended period of time for legal challenges. FEES: Fees for the Notice of Exemption include the Fifty Dollar County ($50.00) administrative fee. The County of Riverside charges additional fees for credit card transactions. FILING: The City shall provide the applicant with a Notice of Determination within 24 hours of approval via email. If the applicant/developer has not received the Notice of Determination within 24 hours of approval, they shall contact the case Planner immediately. All CEQA documents must be filed online with the Riverside County Assessor — County Clerk- Recorder. A direct link to the CEQA filings page is available at TemeculaCA.gov/CEQA. COPY OF FILINGS: The applicant shall provide the City with a digital copy of the required filings within 48 hours. General Requirements 2. ADA Parking. All ADA parking stalls on the premises shall be marked in accordance with Section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code. Indemnification of the City. Indemnity, Duty to Defend and Obligation to Pay Judgments and Defense Costs, Including Attorneys' Fees, Incurred by the City. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively "Indemnitees") from and against any claims, damages, actions, causes of actions, lawsuits, suits, proceedings, losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to the Planning Commission's actions, this approval and the City Council's actions, related entitlements, or the City's environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to reasonably cooperate in the defense, the Applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City or the Indemnitees. The City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City, and the other Indemnitees, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to require the Applicant to indemnify Indemnitees for any claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City's determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. Page 2of16 4. Bond Language. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 18, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements." Expiration. This approval shall be used within three years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. Use means the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the three-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. A modification made to an approved development plan does not affect the original approval date of a development plan. 6. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to five extensions of time, one year at a time. A modification made to an approved development plan does not affect the original approval date of a development plan. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. 8. Sianage Permits. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 9. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 10. Water Quality and Drainage. Other than stormwater, it is illegal to allow liquids, gels, powders, sediment, fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain system or from leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval: a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately. b. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles onsite. c. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters. d. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. e. Ensure all trash bins are covered at all times. 11. Paint Inspection. The applicant shall paint a three -foot -by -three-foot section of the building for Planning Division inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building. 12. Photographic Prints. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for permanent filing two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved color and materials board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the color and materials board and elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. Page 3of16 13. Materials and Colors. The Conditions of Approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by City staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the Conditions of Approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. Ono Hawaiian BBQ - Wood Siding: Reclaimed Woods of the World, Now Drift Finish / Canopy, Awning, Trellis: Finish Black Fox SW 7020 /Accent Materials: Finish Maxi Teal SW 6769 / Metal Wall Panel: Finish Weather Rustic / Main Walls: Finish Shoji White / Storefront Glazing: Finish Kawneer Dark Bronze Better Buzz - Wood Siding: 15 Nchiha / Wall Siding: Caviar SW 6990, Extra White SW 7006 / Awnings: Wood Powder Coat / Entry Doors Finish Sun Gold EFD400M9 14. Modifications or Revisions. The developer shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 15. Trash Enclosures. The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as regular solid waste containers. Project must comply with Section 17.10.020.g. 16. Trash Enclosures. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on the site plan. 17. Covered Trash Enclosures. All trash enclosures on site shall include a solid cover and the construction plans shall include all details of the trash enclosures, including the solid cover. 18. Reciprocal Use Agreement. Parking for the project shall be shared across the site, including parking spaces in all lots that are a part of the project. If the project involves multiple lots, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division a copy of a recorded Reciprocal Use Agreement, which provides for cross -lot access and parking across all lots. 19. Construction and Demolition Debris. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris and shall provide the Planning Division verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul demolition and construction debris. 20. Public Art Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's Public Art Ordinance as defined in Chapter 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 21. Property Maintenance. All parkways, including within the right-of-way, entryway median, landscaping, walls, fencing, recreational facilities, and on -site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or maintenance association. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit 22. Placement of Transformer. Provide the Planning Division with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check valves prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 23. Placement of Double Detector Check Valves. Double detector check valves shall be installed at locations that minimize their visibility from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. Page 4of16 24. Archaeological/Cultural Resources Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Community Development at their sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/ cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Community Development." 25. Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. The developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. The agreement shall be in place prior to issuance of a grading permit. To accomplish this, the applicant should contact the Pechanga Tribe no less than 30 days and no more than 60 days prior to issuance of a grading permit. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered onsite. The Pechanga monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the project archaeologist in order to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property. Pechanga and archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the limited authority to stop and redirect grading activities should an inadvertent cultural resource be identified. 26. Discovery of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and the qualified archaeologist and the Pechanga monitor shall investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment." 27. Archaeological Monitoring Notes. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property." 28. Tribal Monitoring Notes. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "A Pechanga Tribal monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the project archaeologist and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property." 29. Relinquishment of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition." Page 5of16 30. Preservation of Sacred Sites. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved." 31. Rough Grading Plans. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. 32. Archaeologist Retained. Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall retain a Riverside County qualified/City of Temecula approved archaeological monitor to monitor all ground -disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. The archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property. Pechanga and archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the limited authority to stop and redirect grading activities should an inadvertent cultural resource be identified. The archaeologist shall provide a final monitoring report at the end of all earthmoving activities to the City of Temecula, the Pechanga Tribe and the Eastern Information Center at UC, Riverside. 33. Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission must then immediately identify the "most likely descendant(s)" of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98 and the Treatment Agreement described in these conditions. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 34. Parking Area Landscaping. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall provide a minimum five-foot wide planter to be installed at the perimeter of all parking areas. Curbs, walkways, etc. are not to infringe on this area. 35. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The Western Riverside County of Governments administers and collects the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance (paid to WRCOG). The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Additional information on payment, fees, and points of contact can be found at http://www.wrcog.cog.ca.us/174/TUMF 36. Downspouts. All downspouts shall be internalized. 37. Development Impact Fee (DIF). The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the appropriate City fee. Developers may request an audit of impact fees and/or may request notice for meetings related to the fee account or fund information. Page 6of16 38. Photometric Plan. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking lot, to the Planning Division, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Riverside County Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655. All exterior LED light fixtures shall be 3,000 kelvin or below. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely affect the growth potential of the parking lot trees. 39. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans shall be submitted as a separate submittal, not as part of the building plans or other plan set. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, height and spread, water usage or KC value, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and Water Storage Contingency Plan per the Rancho California Water District. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal) and one copy of the approved Grading Plan. 40. Landscaping Site Inspections. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 41. Agronomic Soils Report. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating, "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." 42. Water Usaqe Calculations. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). Applicant shall use evapotranspiration (ETo) factor of 0.70 for calculating the maximum allowable water budget. 43. Landscape Maintenance Program. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The landscape maintenance program shall detail the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. Page 7of16 44. Specifications of Landscape Maintenance Program. Specifications of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 45. Irrigation. The landscaping plans shall include automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property for private common areas; front yards and slopes within individual lots; shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to 66 feet or larger; and, all landscaping excluding City maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to, private slopes and common areas. 46. Hardscning. The landscape plans shall include all hardscaping for equestrian trails and pedestrian trails within private common areas. 47. Precise Gradinq Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 48. Building Construction Plans for Outdoor Areas. Building Construction Plans shall include detailed outdoor areas (including but not limited to trellises, decorative furniture, hardscape, etc.) to match the style of the building subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. 49. Landscaping Requirement for Phased Development. If any phase or area of the project site is not scheduled for development within six months of the completion of grading, the landscaping plans shall indicate it will be temporarily landscaped (which may include a requirement for regular irrigation) for dust and soil erosion control. 50. WQMP Landscape Compliance. The construction landscape plans shall be consistent with Appendix A, Table 31 of the Low Impact Development (LID) Manual for Southern California for plant materials and treatment facilities, and shall reference the approved precise grading plan for WQMP features. 51. Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after -thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees. 52. Landscape Pre -construction Meeting. Prior to issuance of any Building Permits, a pre -construction landscape meeting shall be held between the project manager, assigned Planner, and the City's landscape consultant. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit Page 8of16 53. Screening of Loading Areas. The applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of all residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof element or other screening reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. 54. Landscape Installation Consistent with Construction Plans. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Community Development. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 55. Performance Securities. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Community Development, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Division for a period of one year from final Certificate of Occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Community Development, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 56. Installation of Site Improvements. All site improvements, including but not limited to, parking areas and striping shall be installed. 57. TCSD Service Levels. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of the Temecula Community Service District (TCSD) and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. 58. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this approval. Outside Agencies 59. Flood Protection. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control Districts transmittal dated March 8, 2023, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. 60. Compliance with Dept. of Environmental Health. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated October 5, 2023, a copy of which is attached. 61. Compliance with EMWD. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District's transmittal dated June 13, 2023, a copy of which is attached. 62. Compliance with RCWD. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated June 12, 2023, a copy of which is attached. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 63. Conditions of Approval. The developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval, the Engineering and Construction Manual and all City codes/standards at no cost to any governmental agency. Page 9of16 64. Entitlement Approval. The developer shall comply with the approved site plan, the conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and other relevant documents approved during entitlement. Any significant omission to the representation of site conditions may require the plans to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 65. Precise Grading Permit. A precise grading permit for on site improvements (outside of public right-of-way) shall be obtained from Public Works. 66. Haul Route Permit. A haul route permit may be required when soils are moved on public roadways to or from a grading site. The developer/contractor is to verify if the permit is required. If so, he shall comply with all conditions and requirements per the City's Engineering and Construction Manual and as directed by Public Works. 67. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction, encroachment permit(s) are required and shall be obtained from Public Works for public offsite improvements. 68. Private Drainage Facilities. All onsite drainage and water quality facilities shall be privately maintained. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 69. Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS). The developer shall comply with all constraints per the recorded ECS with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 70. Grading/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all construction -phase pollution -prevention controls to adequately address non -permitted runoff. Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: www.TemeculaCA.gov/ECM 71. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 18, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. 72. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and O&M Agreement. The developer shall submit a final WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) with the initial grading plan submittal, based on the conceptual WQMP from the entitlement process. It must receive acceptance by Public Works. A copy of the final project -specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. In addition, a completed WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement shall be submitted for review and approval. Upon approval from City staff, the applicant shall record the O&M agreement at the County Recorder's Office in Temecula. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link: www.TemeculaCA.gov/WQMP. As part of the WQMP approval, the Engineer of Record shall report and certify BMP construction per City of Temecula NPDES requirements. Should the project require Alternative Compliance, the developer is responsible for execution of an approved Alternative Compliance Agreement. 73. Area Drainage Plan (ADP) Fee to RCFC&WCD. The developer shall demonstrate to the City that the flood mitigation charge (ADP fee) has been paid to RCFC&WCD. If the full ADP fee has already been credited to this property, no new charge will be required. Page 10 of 16 74. Drainage. All applicable drainage shall be depicted on the grading plan and properly accommodated with onsite drainage improvements and water quality facilities, which shall be privately maintained. Alterations to existing drainage patterns or concentration and/or diverting flows is not allowed unless the developer constructs adequate drainage improvements and obtains the necessary permissions from the downstream property owners. All drainage leaving the site shall be conveyed into a public storm drain system, if possible. The creation of new cross lot drainage is not permitted. 75. Drainage Study. A drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 10 and 100-year storm event for 24-hour storm duration peak flow) from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. 76. Soils Report. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 77. Letter of Permission/Easement. The developer shall obtain documents (letters of permission or easements) for any offsite work performed on adjoining properties. The document's format is as directed by, and shall be submitted to, Public Works for acceptance. The document information shall be noted on the approved grading plan. 78. American Disability Act. The developer shall ensure that all frontage areas to the proposed development within the public right of way are ADA compliant. Any sidewalk within the public right of way found to be non -compliant shall be the responsibility of the property owner to be removed and replaced with ADA compliant sidewalk per the Streets and Highway Code Section 5610. Prior to Issuance of Encroachment Permit(s) 79. Public Utility Agency Work. The developer shall submit all relevant documentation due to encroaching within City right-of-way; and is responsible for any associated costs and for making arrangements with each applicable public utility agency. 80. Traffic Control Plans. A construction area traffic control plan (TCP) will be required for lane closures and detours or other disruptions to traffic circulation; and shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. The TCP shall be designed by a registered civil or traffic engineer in conformance with the latest edition of the Caltrans Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and City standards. 81. Improvement Plans. All improvement plans (including but not limited to street, storm drain, traffic) shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. 82. Street Trenching. All street trenches shall conform to City Standard No. 407; refer to the City's Paving Notes. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) Page 11 of 16 83. Certifications. Certifications are required from the registered civil engineer -of -record certifying the building pad elevation(s) per the approved plans and from the soil's engineer -of -record certifying compaction of the building pad(s). Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 84. Completion of Improvements. The developer shall complete all work per the approved plans and Conditions of Approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This includes all on -site work (including water quality facilities), public improvements and the executed WQMP Operation and Maintenance agreement. 85. Utility Agency Clearances. The developer shall receive written clearance from applicable utility agencies (i.e., Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water Districts, etc.) for the completion of their respective facilities and provide to Public Works. 86. Replacement of Damaged Improvements/Monuments. Any appurtenance damaged or broken during development shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of Public Works. Any survey monuments damaged or destroyed shall be reset per City Standards by a qualified professional pursuant to the California Business and Professional Code Section 8771. 87. Certifications. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by Public Works. 88. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Verification. As part of the WQMP approval, the Engineer of Record shall report and certify BMP construction per City of Temecula NPDES requirements. Should the project require alternative compliance, the developer is responsible for execution of an approved Alternative Compliance Agreement. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Requirements 89. Final Building and Safety Conditions. Final Building and Safety conditions will be addressed when building construction plans are submitted to Building and Safety for review. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), and related codes which are enforced at the time of building plan submittal. 90. Compliance with Code. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the most current edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and Temecula Municipal Code as identified in Title 15 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 91. ADAAccess. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. b. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entrance of the building. c. Accessible path of travel from parking to the furthest point of improvement. d. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. e. Accessible path of travel from public right-of-way to all public areas on site, such as trash enclosures, clubhouses, and picnic areas. Page 12 of 16 92. County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance. Applicant shall submit, at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights -of -way. All exterior LED light fixtures shall be 3,000 kelvin or below. 93. Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi -family residential projects or a recorded final map for single-family residential projects. 94. Clearance from TVUSD. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley Unified School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 95. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 96. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. Solid covers are required over new and existing trash enclosures. 97. Demolition. Demolition permits require separate approvals and permits. 98. Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On -site sewer and water plans will require separate approvals and permits. 99. Hours of Construction. Signage shall be prominently posted at the entrance to the project, indicating the hours of construction, as allowed by the City of Temecula Code Section 9.20.060, for any site within one -quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized Government Holidays. 100. House Electrical Meter. Provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with single user buildings shall clearly show on the plans how the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements 101. Fire Dept. Plan Review. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. if the buildings are less than 3,600 square feet then they are not required to be equipped with a fire sprinkler system or a fire alarm system. for buildings that are equipped with a type 1 hood system and required a hood extinguishing system, that hood system will be required to be tied in and monitored by a fire alarm system. this fire alarm panel will be allowed to be located inside the electrical room since there will be no dedicated fire sprinkler riser room. Page 13 of 16 102. Fire Flow. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2,000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure for a 2-hour duration for this commercial projects. The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC Appendix B and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 103. Required Submittals (Fire Underground Water). The developer shall an electronic copy of the water system plans for any changes and the fire lateral coming into ONO's BBQ to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block, and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. Hydraulic calculations will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on -site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued (CFC Chapter 33 and Chapter 5). 104. Required Submittals (Fire Sprinkler Systems). This only applies to Ono's BBQ - Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted electronically to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. The sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. Any structure less than 3,600 square feet is not required to have fire sprinklers. 105. Required Submittals (Fire Alarm Systems). This only applies to Ono's BBQ. Fire alarm plans shall be submitted electronically to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Fire alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire alarm system is required to have a dedicated circuit from the house panel. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 106. Hydrant Verification. Hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers (blue dots) (Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 107. Knox Box. A "Knox -Box" shall be provided. The Knox -Box shall be installed a minimum of six feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire riser sprinkler room for Ono's BBQ and for Better Buzz the Knox box will be placed at the electrical room. (CFC Chapter 5). 108. Addressing. New buildings shall have approved address numbers placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Commercial buildings shall have a minimum of 12-inch numbers. (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 109. Site Plan. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs (CFC Chapter 5). POLICE DEPARTMENT General Requirements 110. Landscape Height. The applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding all buildings are kept at a height of no more than three feet or below the ground floor window sills. Plants, hedges and shrubbery shall be defensible plants to deter would-be intruders from breaking into the buildings utilizing lower level windows. Page 14 of 16 111. Tree Pruning. The applicant shall ensure all trees surrounding all building rooftops be kept at a distance to deter roof accessibility by "would-be burglars." Since trees also act as a natural ladder, the branches must be pruned to have a six-foot clearance from the buildings. 112. Exterior Door Lighting. All exterior doors shall have a vandal resistant light fixture installed above the door. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one -foot candle illumination at ground level, evenly dispersed. 113. Exterior Building Lighting. All lighting affixed to the exterior of buildings shall be wall mounted light fixtures to provide sufficient lighting during hours of darkness. 114. Outdoor Lighting During Non -Business Hours. The applicant shall comply with the Governor's order to address the power crisis. This order became effective March 18, 2001 calling for a substantial reduction from businesses to cut usage during non -business hours. The order, in part, states, "All California retail establishments, including, but not limited to, shopping centers, auto malls and dealerships, shall substantially reduce maximum outdoor lighting capability during non -business hours except as necessary for the health and safety of the public, employees or property." Failure to comply with this order following a warning by law enforcement officials shall be punishable as a misdemeanor with a fine not to exceed $1,000 in accordance with Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. 115. Commercial or Institutional Grade Hardware. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be commercial or institution grade. 116. Graffiti Removal. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings must be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being discovered. Report all such crimes to the Temecula Police 24-hour dispatch Center at (951) 696-HELP. 117. Alarm System. Upon completion of construction, the buildings shall have a monitored alarm system installed and monitored 24 hours a day by a designated private alarm company to notify the Temecula Police Department of any intrusion. All multi -tenant offices/suites/businesses located within a specific building shall have their own alarm system. This condition is not applicable if the business is opened 24/7. 118. Roof Hatches. All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." 119. Rooftop Addressing. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a nine -inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced nine inches apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard nine -inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. 120. ADA Parking. All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall be marked in accordance with Section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code. 121. Employee Training. Employee training regarding retail/credit card theft, citizens' arrest procedures, personal safety, business security, shoplifting or any other related crime prevention training procedures is also available through the Crime Prevention Unit. Page 15 of 16 122. Crime Prevention Throuqh Environmental Design. Crime prevention through environmental design as developed by the National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPI) supports the concept that "the proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime and an improvement in the quality of life." The nine primary strategies that support this concept are included as conditions below: a. Provide clear border definition of controlled space. Examples of border definition may include fences, shrubbery or signs in exterior areas. Within a building, the arrangement of furniture and color definition can serve as a means of identifying controlled space. b. Provide clearly marked transitional zones. Persons need to be able to identify when they are moving from public to semi-public to private space. c. Gathering or congregating areas to be located or designated in locations where there is good surveillance and access control. d. Place safe activities in unsafe locations. Safe activities attract normal users to a location and subsequently render the location less attractive to abnormal users due to observation and possible intervention. e. Place unsafe activities in safe locations. Placing unsafe activities in areas of natural surveillance or controlled access will help overcome risk and make the users of the areas feel safer. f. Redesign the use of space to provide natural barriers. Separate activities that may conflict with each other (outdoor basketball court and children's play area, for example) by distance, natural terrain or other functions to avoid such conflict. g. Improve scheduling of space. The timing in the use of space can reduce the risk for normal users and cause abnormal users to be of greater risk of surveillance and intervention. h. Redesign space to increase the perception of natural surveillance. Abnormal users need to be aware of the risk of detection and possible intervention. Windows and clear lines -of -sight serve to provide such a perception of surveillance. i. Overcome distance and isolation. This strategy may be accomplished through improved communications (portable two-way radios, for example) and design efficiencies, such as the location of restrooms in a public building. 123. Business Security Survey. Businesses desiring a business security survey of their location can contact the Crime Prevention and Plans Unit of the Temecula Police Department at (951) 695-2773. 124. Questions Regarding Conditions. Any questions regarding these conditions should be directed to the Temecula Police Department Crime Prevention and Plans Unit at (951) 695-2773. Page 16 of 16 County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH P.O. BOX 7909 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92513-7909 JEFF JOHNSON, DIRECTOR Prowfwg Pep and tde Eavi--a October 5, 2023 City of Temecula Planning Department Attn: Eric Jones 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA — PA23-0030 (APN: 921-320-061) Dear Mr. Jones: The project listed in the subject heading is proposing construction of two commercial structures totaling approximately 4,414 square feet. Structures will be used for a restaurant and a coffee shop and is located at 29540 Rancho California Road. In accordance with the agreement between the County of Riverside, Department of Environmental Health (DEH) and the City of Temecula, DEH offers the following comments for the project(s) listed in the subject heading of this letter: POTABLE WATER AND SANITARY SEWER A "General Condition" shall be placed on the project indicating that the subject property is required to connect to potable water service and sanitary sewer service from Rancho California Water District (RCWD) and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) respectively. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all requirements to obtain potable water and sanitary sewer service are met with RCWD and EMWD, in addition to all other applicable agencies. Prior to building permit issuance, provide documentation that establishes water service for the project from RCWD (ex: First Release Letter). Prior to building permit final, applicant must provide documentation that verifies actual sewer service from EMWD (ex: Final Release Letter). Office Locations • Blythe • Corona • Hemet • Indio • Murrieta • Palm Springs • Riverside Phone (888)722-4234 www.rivcoeh.org LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (LEA) Ensure the appropriate size and number of refuse/recycle bins are provided at this site, in accordance with SB1383, and that an approved Solid Waste Hauler purveyor is utilized. Ensure landscaping meets the requirements of SB1383 and MWELO. For additional information please contact our Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) at (951) 955-8980. DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (DES) Prior to building permit issuance, any proposed food facility (i.e. convenience store, market, restaurant) will be required to submit plans for DES review to ensure compliance with applicable California Health and Safety Code/California Retail Food Code sections. Additionally, any facility that will be selling retail tobacco will also require a permit from DES prior to sales. For further information, please contact the following office: County of Riverside, Department of Environmental Health District Environmental Services — Murrieta Office 30135 Technology Dr., Ste.250 Murrieta, CA 92563 Phone: (951) 461-0284 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT BRANCH (HMMB) Prior to conducting a building permit final, the facility shall require a business emergency plan for the storage of any hazardous materials, greater than 55 gallons, 200 cubic feet or 500 pounds, or any acutely hazardous materials or extremely hazardous substances. If further review of the site indicates additional environmental health issues, HMMB reserves the right to regulate the business in accordance with applicable County Ordinances. Please contact HMMB at (951) 358-5055 to obtain information regarding any additional requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP PROGRAM Based on the information provided in the environmental assessment documents submitted for this project and with the provision that the information was accurate and representative of site conditions, Riverside County Department of Environmental Health — Environmental Cleanup Program (RCDEH-ECP) concludes that no further environmental assessment is required. If previously unidentified contamination or the presence of a naturally occurring hazardous material is discovered at the site, assessment, investigation, and/or cleanup may be required. Contact RCDEH-ECP at (951) 955-8980, for further information. Should you have any further questions or require further assistance, please contact me by email at emarcotte(a-),rivco.org or by phone at (951) 955-8980. Sincerely, Jenay Marcotte, Supervising Environmental Health Specialist Department of Environmental Health Environmental Cleanup Program City of Temecula PA23-0030 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER emwdD,,TR,CT June 13, 2023 GTR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Attn: George Ray 26791 "A" Calle Verano Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 Subject: SAN 53 — WS 2023-0647 - APN: 921-320-061 Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) is willing to provide sewer services to the subject project. The provisions of service are contingent upon the developer completing the necessary arrangements in accordance with EMWD rules and regulations. EMWD expects the developer to provide proper notification when a water demand assessment is required pursuant to Senate Bill 221 and/or 610. EMWD expects the developer to coordinate with the approving agency for the proper notification. Further arrangements for service from EMWD may also include plan check, facility construction, inspection, jurisdictional annexation, and payment of financial participation charges. The developer is advised to contact EMWD's Development Services Department early in the entitlement process to determine the necessary arrangements for service, and to receive direction on the preparation of facility Design Conditions, which is required prior to final engineering. EMWD's ability to serve is subject to limiting conditions, such as regulatory requirements, legal issues, or conditions beyond EMWD's control. Expiration — one year from date of issue Thank you for your cooperation in serving our mutual customers. If you have any questions, please call me at (951) 928-3777, extension 4810. Sinc Brenda Dumas Executive Assistant Development Services Department Eastern Municipal Water District BD/bd Board of Directors D ! F D, .J� o.._.:a Srn� 1 G V-- F— A, Pa dy A. Record David J. Slawson 2270 Trumble Road • P.O. Box 8300 • Perris, CA 92572-8300 T 951.928.3777 • F 951.928.6177 www.emwd.org PO Box 8300, Perris CA 92572-8300 Contact Date Paid: Project Info: Received By: Fees Paidc RECEIPT OF PAYMENT (951) 928-3777 GTR PROPERTY DEVELOPMEENT (GEORGE RAY) 26791 "A" CALLE VERANO, CAPISTRANO BEACH, CA 92624 - (949) 842-1995 06/ 13/2023 ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ/BETTER BUZZ - PM-22863- dumasb Reference Amount Amount Description Numbers Owing Paid WILL SERVE LETTER REQUEST (RESIDENTIAL) WS20230000647 $77.00 $77.00 Payment Payment Method Details: CHECK Receipt Number: 2023007100 Amount Tendered: Change/Overage: Amount Tendered Check Number $77.00 1006 $77.00 $0.00 O O O E 0 0 i i4t- Q - 3 43 yF t`- f-- O # ¢ t-- # rr f— Va. + i+ # i jF O # i(• I -1E # C M tZ. 1 # # •1(• 1 # cli iF "'"a O O CDif• to 12; — # o -mot a) 4*- CDO � # o n r� � c •r � •— C3 L i > # Cn r — 4(- M LL (-1. 4(- 13 # to �_ # ;_ T �(• r-i a) M iE V =� iE > - • G M ai- O jF iF !- # S O E 04 i!• 4- # cJ Z ifr i= 4 to # # •)E L-- E 9F L:J - Cr% iF - • to -D a) O .1(. a) ?1 O # f- # -iE Of +- _ I O •. # 1-•-1 •f�- !f Z f H_ YF ?E to- -+ 4.._. LU # # U 1 # i� x UJ A- af- �(• Cat Cl- iE CJ �(- LL' _1 # _1 t1_t E Cr if• LLI i +• # # n- :il jF # Y- C i =4 ?F 11J i.- E• .� cV -rf- • - • - # �4 CM CDLLi iE -3E U-1 cm # _ # yE t--a # L # -a - : t W 2 -7E iF ¢ Lu z # 4- a tr- # yF H- C-J # # O LLI fi} tJ1 # a ccLU # -X- CDLLl S # x- JASON E. UHLEY 1995 MARKET STREET General Manager -Chief Engineer Awl RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 951.955.1200 951.788.9965 FAX www.rcflood.org RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT March 8, 2023 City of Temecula Community Development Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 249972 Attention: Mr. Eric Jones Re: PA 23-0030, PM 22863, APN 921-320-061 The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan Check city land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District's review is based on the above -referenced project transmittal, received March 6, 2023. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail, and the following comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety, or any other such issue: ❑ This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities, nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. ❑ This project involves District proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, namely, . The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. All regulatory permits (and all documents pertaining thereto, e.g., Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plans, Conservation Plans/Easements) that are to be secured by the Applicant for both facility construction and maintenance shall be submitted to the District for review. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety. ❑ If this project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension a District's facility, the District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety. City of Temecula - 2 - Re: PA 23-0030, PM 22863, APN 921-320-061 March 8, 2023 249972 ❑x This project is located within the limits of the District's Murrieta Creek/Temecula Vallev Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted. If the project is proposing to create additional impervious surface area, applicable fees should be paid (in accordance with the Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plans) to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. ❑ An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities, namely, . If a proposed storm drain connection exceeds the hydraulic performance of the existing drainage facilities, mitigation will be required. For further information, contact the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266. ❑ The District's previous comments are still valid. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans, and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation, or other final approval of the project and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. The project proponent shall bear the responsibility for complying with all applicable mitigation measures defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document (i.e., Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Report) and/or Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if a CEQA document was prepared for the project. The project proponent shall also bear the responsibility for complying with all other federal, state, and local environmental rules and regulations that may apply. If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Very nery truly yours, ?2oLk. AMY MCNEILL Engineering Project Manager ec: Riverside County Planning Department Attn: Timothy Wheeler WMC:mm (P June 12, 2023 Rancho Water Case Planner City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Board of Directors SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY John V. Rossi President PA23-0030 Brian J. Brady PARCEL NO. 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 22863 Senior Vice President APN 921-320-061 Carol Lee Gonzales -Brady [FAIRWAY COLIMA CA SEVEN, LLC] J. D. Harkey Dear Case Planner: John E. Hoagland William E. Plummer Please be advised that the above -referenced project/property is located within Bill Wilson the service boundaries of Rancho California Water District (Rancho Water/District). The subject project/property fronts an existing 24-inch diameter Officers water pipeline (1305 Pressure Zone) within Rancho California Road and an existing Robert S. Grantham 8-inch and 12-inch diameter water pipeline (1305 Pressure Zone) within the General Manager Parking Lot. Please refer to the enclosed exhibit map. Jake Wiley, P.E. Assistant General Manager Water service to the subject project/property exists under Account No. 3105629, Engineering and Operations Location No. 2001831. Additions or modifications to water service arrangements Kathleen M. Naylor are subject to the Rules and Regulations (governing) Water System Facilities and Chief Financial Officer Service, as well as the completion of financial arrangements between Rancho Kelli E. Garcia Water and the property owner. District Secretary James B. Gilpin Best Best &Krieger LLP Water service to individual lots will require the extension of water facilities within General Counsel dedicated public and/or private right-of-ways. Individual water meters will be required for each lot and/or project unit, including separate water services/meters for domestic service, fire service, and landscape irrigation service, as applicable. Beginning in 2018, newly constructed multi -unit residential structures are required to measure the quantity of water supplied to each individual residential dwelling unit. Where private on -site water facilities (for water service, fire service, irrigation, or other purpose) will cross or will be shared amongst multiple lots/project units (only by special variance of the Rules and Regulations), and/or where such 'common' facilities will be owned and maintained by a Property Owners' Association, Rancho Water requires execution and recordation of a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement or equivalent document of covenants, codes, and restrictions. 23\EP:m b035\F450\FEG Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road - Temecula, California 92590-4800 - (951) 296-6900 - FAX (951) 296-6860 - www.ranchowater.com Case Planner/City of Temecula June 12, 2023 Page Two Water availability is contingent upon the property owner(s) signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to Rancho Water. In addition, water availability is subject to water supply shortage contingency measures in effect (pursuant to Rancho Water's Water Shortage Contingency Plan or other applicable ordinances and policy), and/or the adoption of a required Water Supply Assessment for the development, as determined by the Lead Agency. There is no recycled water currently available within the limits established by Resolution 2007- 10-5. Should recycled water become available in the future, the project/property may be required to retrofit its facilities to make use of this availability in accordance with Resolution 2007-10-5. Recycled water service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on -site and/or off -site recycled water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between Rancho Water and the property owner. Requirements for the use of recycled water are available from Rancho Water. As soon as feasible, and prior to the preparation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents, the project proponent should contact Rancho Water for a determination of existing water system capability, based upon project -specific demands and/or fire flow requirements, as well as a determination of proposed water facilities configuration. If new facilities are required for service, fire protection, or other purposes, the project proponent should contact Rancho Water for an assessment of project -specific fees and requirements. Sewer service to the subject project/property, if available, would be provided by Eastern Municipal Water District. If no sewer service is currently available to the subject project/property, all proposed waste discharge systems must comply with the State Water Resources Control Board, health department, and/or other requirements as they relate to the protection of groundwater quality, pursuant to Rancho Water's Groundwater Protection Policy. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please contact an Engineering Technician at the District office at (951) 296-6900. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Erica Peter Senior Engineering Technician Enclosure: Exhibit Map cc: Jeff Kirshberg, Director of Planning Corry Smith, Engineering Services Supervisor George Ray, GTR Development 23\EP:mb035\F450\FEG Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road • Temecula, California 92590-4800 • (951) 296-6900 • FAX (951) 296-6860 • www.ranchowater.com \ ` \ \ 40 CD co 04 m E-01 EXIST. GONG. CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK TO REMAIN. E-02 EXIST. PROPERTY LINE TO REMAIN. 1 ! EXIST. i E-03 EXIST. RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN. GAS STATION j E-04 EXIST. RETAINING WALL 4 MONUMENT SIGN TO REMAIN. E-05 EXIST. PARKING STALLS TO REMAIN. EXIST. LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN. 1 ! j i E-07 EXIST. FIRE HYDRANT TO REMAIN. - i E-OS EXIST. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION TO BE RELOCATED. 1 i E-Og EXIST. LIGHT POLE TO REMAIN. E-10 EXIST. TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN. j j E-ll EXIST. SPLICE BOX TO REMAIN. - i 02-01 PARKING LOT STRIPING, PER CITY STANDARDS. 1 ! j i 02-02 DIRECTIONAL ARROWS, PER CITY STANDARDS. i � i 02-03 TRASH ENCLOSURE, PER CITY STANDARDS R-4 8 R-5. (12'-O"xl5'-4") 1 i 02-04 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL - "NO PARKING" LOADING ZONE d ACCESSIBLE SYMBOL. E-Oq 02-05 (2) I -LOOP BIKE RACK, "ULINE #H-28g2". 02-08 TYP. i 02-06 PAINT IN 12" HIGH LETTERS "GLEAN AIR/CARPOOL/EV". I 4 Eh:8 '2 8 , 02-07 GMU RETAINING WALL, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. u• -W 4 j i 02-OS TEMPORARY CONES (PROVIDED BY TENANT DURING BUSY HOURS f� o i TO RE-ROUTE GARS AS TO NOT BLOCK THE SHOPPING CENTER °10 �% ENTRANCE). O = - - ° 538°5 '26"E 202.0 O ° Jz — i 1 02-Qq PAINT IN 12" HIGH WHITE LETTERS "KEEP CLEAR", w/ WHITE " "�" '��"�� ���' �'•" "�'�" '�"�"��'��'� �" '�''�'"�'�" '�"�''�'�"� �" " " '���, j DIAGONAL STRIPING � ENTRANCE TO ONO HAWAIIAN DRIVE-THRU - d 10-44 02-70 rr 0 �, 1 i LANE. O _ ! 1 ° 13 02-02 TYP. ;o j i 02-70 GONG. PAVING, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. PATCH AG PAVING WHERE TYP. j E-04 REQUIRED. Pft N 9'•�� 1 ! 02-71 GONG. SIDEWALK, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. 1 - I f 02-05c,'► 1 i 02-72 GONG. RAMP w/ TRUNCATED DOMES, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. 0) 02-01 02-03 02-73 GONG. RAMP, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. 1 6 Q E-05 11'- 12'-0" T TYP00fawa anHBQ 02-01 j i 02-74 IS" WIDE GONG. RAMP, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. — . - i TYP. 2839 02-g0 LANDSCAPING, SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. ,S.F. . 1 E-06 O 1 55 -0„ ! o 1 ° TYP. 29460 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD j 10-40 MAX. HEIGHT SIGN. 1 ° ACCESSIBLE LN 10-41 MENU BOARD, ORDER SCREEN 4 SPEAKER. PARKING 15-01 143 10' \. O d �° O d O 51GN, TYP. N 8°5 ' 6"W i Lyj 10-42 DIRECTIONAL "ENTRANCE" SIGN. j o ° 0 12 0'Ilip - PRE -MENU BOARD. -42 o G VER D I 02-71 100 ! I i 10-44 DIRECTIONAL "THANK YOU - EXIT ONLY" SIGN. ^� Oo 26'-0' 02-07 ! z 15-01 (N) GAS METER, SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGS. ! w! 15 I ! 16-01 (N) ELECTRICAL MAIN PANEL, SEE ELEC. DWGS. V1 v3 d3N av3 d33N = i I ! �; m , /I FUTURE EV CHARGING STATION, SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. EXIST. _�� w 02-08 1 - 4 0 ` /� = k�� i 16-03 (N) POLE -MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE, SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. RETAIL Lo_ - � I ! (TO MATCH SHOPPING CENTER) BUILDING z1 Q 02-0q v = 1 <. 8-CAR OVERFLOW STACK m 1 - 43 1 _ E-01 KEYNOTES 2 ' V ° EEP CLEAR KEEP CLEA I ' 1 1 4 9 E 07 10-40 0 o fa o ' w ENGROAGMENT ! 15 TYP. - PERMIT REQUIRED i ADDRESS ° 4 ° o W Im I FOR WORK WITHIN ! ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ BETTER BUZZ COFFEE O EXI5T. 02 - 72 Q ' — R.O.W. 2g460 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. 2g440 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. AG PAVING in a TYP. g i i TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA g25gl TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA g25gl j 26' -0" � ° o O• � I I OWNER: 13_ z O E I E-03 j GTR PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LLC 1 w0 ' IA.10 .;�= ! 267g1 UNIT 'A' _ BETTER BUZZ ! CAPISTRANO BEACH, CA g2624 1 E-OS A COFFEE ROASTERS 3 -7 � Lu 02-04 1,719 S.F. 1 v 02-03 O! SITE INFO: 1 ' Q 8-CAR OVERFLOW STACK TYP. q° bill 12'-011 ! APN: q21-320-061 - AGGE551BLE 29440 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 1 N _ PARKING INDICATES PARCEL GRANTED TO i LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 1 OF MAP 22863 — X GITY OF TEMECULA, PER GRANT SITE 1 - SIGN, T = COMMERCIAL INST N 2003 258G6� OR AREA: CC - _ . ::::::.:o o - •• � i ACRES (70,021 1 02-05 ! GENERAL PLAN: CC - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DEED REG D 4 11 0 AS Lu�u�u�u�u u�u.u.u�i�u�u�u�u�u� n�u�n�u�u�u�u i�u�u�u�u�u�u�u�u�u u'n�u�n u�u�u�n�u n�u�u�u�u :o V ;!ql �'' N38°51'26"W 157.26' •" 20'-0" = 67'-0" i EXIST. LAND USE: RESTAURANT E-07 - - _� _ Ex1sri PROPOSED LAND USE: DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS E - 02 - . 1 EASEMENT j 1 55' -O" TYP. _ - i - BUILD ING INFO: 1 - BU _,...,...,...,...,...,...,...,...,....., �!,1.,.......................,1`-4.,..., ,. i ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ: 2,83q S.F. (3.41 F.A.R.) _N N N N N N BETTER BUZZ COFFEE: 1,575 S.F. (2.25 F.A.R.) E-11 i OCCUPANCY: A-2 - ! TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-B (NON-SPRINKLERED) i 1 ! _ LOT COVERAGE: MI - �� BUILDING AREA: 6.30% (4,414 S.F.) _ ± ! PARKING AREA: 66.gl% (46,852 S.F.) �n�u7ii"u'n�u�ii7u.ii.u�n�u�i--- I i LANDSCAPE AREA: 21.52% (15,280 S.F.) N38°51 26 W 16g.24 0 i HARDSCAPE AREA: 4.q(o% (3,475 S.F.) N51°08'34"E 16-03 i 14.41' TYP, PARKING: N38°51'26"W i REQUIRED: 60 STALLS 25.00' ! (1 SPACE PER -15 S.F.) ! I .r ••, '�•-. i PROVIDED: 74 STANDARD STALLS 1 VAN ACCESSIBLE STALLS fir'- 3 ACCESSIBLE STALLS ` "; ' I 78 TOTAL STALLS i 4 DESIGNATED MOTORCYCLE STALLS ;�,� EASEMENT NOTES: ! BICYCLE PARKING: 4 SHORT-TERM BICYCLE RACKS ! ,.� { • • r :' ' EXIST. i (2 PROVIDED Q EA. BLOW .� OFFICE i �r y= • •i AN EASEMENT FOR POLE LINES, CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF BUILDING i NEVADA CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION NOW SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA j �. 0V EDISON COMPANY, REC'D 05/19/1937, IN BOOK 323, PAGE 387, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS ! OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE LOCATED FROM RECORDS." ITF • �,, s AN EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND CONDUITS AND i x a+..� APPURTENANCES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AND COMMUNICATIONS, IN 4! FAVOR OF GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, REC'D 04/16/1989 AS INST. i i +' 7 N0. 80220, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE j LOCATED FROM RECORDS." i �,, • A AN EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND CONDUITS AND APPURTENANCES FOR THE TRANSMITTING INTELLIGENCE BY ELECTRICAL MEANS, IN FAVOR OF i SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, REC'D 04/16/1989 AS INST. NO. 80220, OF OFFICIAL f". RECORDS OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE LOCATED FROM RECORDS." i SPECIAL NOTE: WHERE LISTED MAPPING LENGTH, BEARING AND DISTANCES DO NOT MATCH THE ! h , RECORDED MAP PLEASE REFER TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT CALLS FOR THE EXCETPED • ` .�_ ti ,,� *4�,} PROTIONS OF MAP 22863. NORTH 20 OVERALL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=20'-0" 8 SITE INFORMATION 4 z O w w Q 0 X L L o N o No -o m � p : . c c o CL °Q O z:3 r O Q O cn O CL ® p • V bJJ CVO � RCN � U �U7•� u U c� U U 4-4 �� � c� O � N c u L w i-1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ T # V/�y� p LLJ z 0 �l\�11 > Q� `t oL) z� w w 0-7 J/1#SAP (s)� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ TEMECULA RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. & YNES RD. TEMECULA, CA 92591 ND I..L 7 W Q 4L � w 0 V1 W� co z w O � 'nn ^C)V1 OJ OL O W (— ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ISSUE DATE: 8-q-22 REV. DATE: PROJECT NO.: 21035 DRAWN BY: NL SHEET: CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT EDTITION OF THE IMPROVEMENT STANDARD DRAWINGS AND SUBSEQUENT ATTACHMENTS. 2. APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE CITY OR ITS AGENTS DOES OT RELEIVE THE APPLICANT AND ENGINEER OF RECORD FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS DISCOVERED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 3. ANY CONSTRUCTION CHANGE MUST BE FIRST SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AS A REDLINE REVISION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE IN THE FIELD. 4. THE PERMITEE MUST OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. 5. A PERMITEE SHALL SCHEDULE A PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING TWO (2) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. 6. CITY ORDINANCE 94-25 STATES THAT NO PERSON SHALL ENGAGE IN OR CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION SITE IS WITHIN ONE QUARTER (j) MILE OF AN OCCUPIED RESIDENCE, BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 6:30 PM AND 6:30 AM, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AND SHALL ONLY ENGAGE IN OR CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 AM AND 6:30 PM ON SATURDAY. NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN ON SUNDAY AND NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HOLIDAYS. 7. THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BY THE CITY DOES NOT IMPLY OR PROVIDE ANY CLEARANCES FROM STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCIES REGULATING THE PROVISIONS OF STATE OR FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACTS OR WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS. THE PERMITEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING THE APPROPRIATE CLEARANCES FROM THESE AGENCIES PRIOR TO ANY SITE DISTURBANCE OR GRADING. 8. EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS (ANSWERING MACHINE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE) RESPONSIBLE PERSON DEVELOPER COMPANY 24 HR PHONE NUMBER 9. THE PERMITEE SHALL ABIDE BY THE REQUIRMENTS OUTLINED IN THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT INCLUDING THE STATE NPDES PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, IF APPLICABLE. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEARING THE PROPOSED WORK AREA, AND RELOCATION COSTS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. 11. CONSTRUCTION FENCING: A SIX FOOT (6') CHAIN LINK FENCE IS REQUIRED ON ALL INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROJECTS UNTIL ROOF SYSTEMS ARE COMPLETED OR AS DEEMED NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. THE MAINTENANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION FENCING UNTIL ROOF SYSTEMS ARE COMPLETED IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR. 12. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND TO INSTALL STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTS AS REQUIRED BY RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 491 (TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS ONLY). 13. DUST SHALL BE CONTROLLED TO COMPLY WITH SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S (SCAQMD) RULE 403, INCLUDING METHODS BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 14. A RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR OCCUPANCY SHALL BE PROVIDED NO LESS THAN THREE (3) BUSINESS DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE OCCUPANCY RELEASE FORM. 15. FOR ALL OTHER SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ON PAVING, GRADING OR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, PLEASE SEE SEPARATE NOTES. 16. PROVIDE SURVEY CUT SHEETS TO THE CITY ENGINEER OR HIS/HER REPRESENTATIVE UPON REQUEST. GRADING NOTES: 1. ALL GRADING, EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL RELATED ACTIVITIES SHALL CONFORM TO TITLE 18 OF THE TEMECULA MINICIPAL CODE, AND IF APPLICABLE, THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (SWRCB) NPDES GENERAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 2. ALL GRADING SHALL BE DONE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY SOILS INVESTIGATION BY: 3. MAXIMUM CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE 2:1 AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOILS REPORT. 4. STABILITY CALCULATIONS WITH A FACTOR OF SAFETY OF AT LEAST ONE AND FIVE TENTHS (1.5) SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT INSPECTOR BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER, SOILS ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST FOR CUT AND FILL SLOPES OVER THIRTY FEET (30') IN VERTICAL HEIGHT. 5. PROVIDE, AS APPLICABLE, CONCRETE BROW DITCHES TO CONVEY 100-YEAR STORM FLOWS OR PROVIDE GRADED BERMS ALONG THE TOP OF ALL GRADED SLOPES OVER THREE FEET (3') IN VERTICAL HEIGHT, OR THAT ARE ADJACENT TO GRADED AREAS, TO DIRECT SURFACE RUNOFF AWAY FROM THE TOPS OF SLOPES. 6. ALL PROPERTY CORNERS SHALL BE CLEARLY DELINEATED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO A PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING AND COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION / GRADING ACTIVITY. 7. EXISTING DRAINAGE COURSES SHALL CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AT ALL TIMES. NO OBSTRUCTION OF FLOOD PLAINS OR NATURAL WATER COURSES SHALL BE PERMITTED. 8. TEMPORARY DRAINAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED UNTIL PERMANENT DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ARE INSTALLED. PROTECTIVE MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED TO PROTECT ADJOINING AND DWONSTREA PROPERTIES FROM SILT DEPOSITION AND PONDING WATER DURING GRADING OPERATIONS. 9. FILL MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON EXISTING GROUND UNTIL THE GROUND HAS BEEN CLEARED OF WEEDS, DEBRIS, TOPSOIL AND OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL. IF SLOPE RATIO EXCEEDS 5:1 AND IS GREATER THAN FIVE FEET (5'), THE TERRAIN MUST BE KEYED AND BENCHED INTO EITHER BEDROCK OR NATIVE SOIL WITH EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT (857.) RELATIVE COMPACTION.. 10. ALL GRADING SHALL BE DONE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER, SOIL ENGINEER, OR GEOLOGIST WHO SHALL SUBMIT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT INSPECTOR TWO (2) SETS OF WRITTEN CERTIFICATION THAT ALL FILLS OVER ONE FOOT (1') IN DEPTH HAVE BEEN PROPERLY PLACED. 11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION DIVISION (951-308-6395) AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE REQUESTING ROUGH LOT GRADE AND DRAINAGE INSPECTION. THIS INSPECTION MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT CLEARANCE FOR EACH LOT. 12. PRIOR TO RELEASE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER OR LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR SHALL SUBMIT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT INSPECTOR TWO (2) SETS OF WRITTEN FINAL PAD ELEVATION CERTIFICATION TO INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT THE PAD ELEVATION IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED GRADING PLAN. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE TO LINE, GRADE, ELEVATION AND LOCATION OF CUT/FILL SLOPES. 13. PRIOR TO RELEASE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, A REGISTERED SOIL/GEOTECH ICAL ENGINEER SHALL SUBMIT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT INSPECTOR TWO (2) SETS OF WRITTEN FINAL PAD COMPACTION CERTIFICATION AND INCLUDE A STATMENT THAT THE GRADING HAS BEEN DONE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT. 14. POST GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, INSTALLING WHERE APPLICABLE, GROUNDCOVER, TREES, SHRUBS OR A COMBINATION THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF FINAL INSPECTION. SLOPES OVER FOUR FEET (4') IN VERTICAL HEIGHT SHALL HAVE PERMANENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMSS WITH BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES PER THE U. P. C. naergrouna --)ervlce Hlel all: TOLL FREE 1-800 227-6000 TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG CONSTRUCTION RECORD 7 Contractor Inspector Date Completed TEMECULA ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ/BETTER APN @@ 921-320-061 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: 1. FILTERED RUNOFF. ALL RUNOFF SHALL BE FILTERED PRIOR TO DISCHARGING FROM A SITE OR TO ANY TYPE OF PRIVATE OR PUBLIC STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM (NATURAL WATERCOURSES, STREETS, GUTTERS, CONCRETE LINED V-DITCHES, STORM DRAINS, FLOW -LINES, INLETS, OUTLETS, ETC.). ALL NON -PERMITTED DISCHARCHES ARE PROHIBITED FROM ENTERING ANY STORM WATER CONVEYANCE STYSTEM YEAR-ROUND. 2. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) YEAR-ROUND, POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES, ALSO KNOWN AS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP), MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY FIELD ACTIVITIES. BMP HANDBOOKS CAN BE DOWNLOADED AT www.cabml2handbooks.com. ADDITIONAL EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (ESC) MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED PRIOR TO AND THROUGHOUT EACH RAINY SEASON. THE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ESC MEASURES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT FOR ALL CLEARING, DISKING, GRADING, EXCAVATING AND STOCKPILING ACTIVITIES, AND ON ALL EXPOSED SLOPES AND INACTIVE PADS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SITE. THE DEVELOPER/CONTACTOR IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DISCHARGES FROM SUBCONTRACTORS. a. STOCKPILING OF BMP. ADDITIONAL ESC MATERIALS SHALL BE SOCKPILED AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE SITE FOR IMMEDIATE USE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO ANY FORCAST RAIN. ON EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, THE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY MAKE EQUIPMENT AND WORKERS AVAILABLE TO PROTECT THE SITE. 3. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS. ALL ESC MEASURES SHALL BE INSPECTED, RESTORED, REPAIRED OR MODIFIED YEAR-ROUND THROUGHOUT THE SITE TO PROTECT PERIMETERS, ADJACENT PROPERTIES, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS AND ALL PUBLIC/PRIVATE STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS. IF ANY EROSION OR SEDIMENT CONTROLS FAIL DURING ANY RAIN EVENT, MORE EFFECTIVE ONES WILL BE REQUIRED IN THEIR PLACE. a. EROSION CONTROLS. EROSION CONTROLS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO APPLYING AND ESTABLISHING: VEGETATIVE COVER, WOOD MULCH, STAPLED OR PINNED BLANKETS (STRAW, COCONUT OR OTHER), PLASTIC SHEETING (MINIMUM 10-MIL), POLYPROPELYNE MATS, SPRAY -ON CONTROLS TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS OR OTHER MEASURES APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. JUTE NETTING SHALL NOT BE USED AS A STAND-ALONE EROSION CONTROL. FOR SLOPES GREATER THAN 4:1, PROVIDE FIBER ROLLS AND EITHER A BONDED FIBER MATRIX PRODUCT APPLIED TO A RATE OF 3,500 LB/ACRE OR A STABILIZED FIBER MATRIX PRODUCT APPLIED TO A RATE OF 10 GAL/ACRE. THE CITY ENGINEER MAY APPROVE DIFFERENT APPLICATION RATES FOR SLOPES LESS THAN 4:1 b. SEDIMENT CONTROLS. SEDIMENT CONTROLS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: DESILTING BASINS, GRADED BERMS, FIBER ROLLS, SILT FENCES, GRAVEL BAG CHEVRONS (FILLED WITH MINIMUM J" GRAVEL), CHECK DAMS, DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION, ETC. FIBER ROLLS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN 15-FOOT INCREMENTS MEASURED ALONG THE FACE OF THE SLOPE. SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG INTERIOR STREETS AND COMBINED WITH GRAVEL BAG OR SILT FENCE CHEVRONS INSIDE THE SIDEWALK RIGHT-OF-WAY OR BACK OF CURBS. 4. STATE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT. IF THE PROJECT DISTURBES, EXPOSES OR STOCKPILES ONE ACRE OR MORE OF SOIL, THE SITE MUST BE COVERED UNDER THE STATE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT. A WASTE DISCHARGE IDENTIFICATION (WDID) NUMBER, A RISK LEVEL DETERMINATION NUMBER AND THE QUILIFIED "STORM WATR POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN" (SWPPP) DEVELOPER (QSD) SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT. A SWPPP SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT AND SHALL BE READILY AVAILABLE TO THE CITY AND STATE INSPECTORS AND UPDATED TO REFLECT CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CAN BE DOWNLOADED AT. www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues Grogram s /storm wo ter/con strucion. THIS PROJECT IS A RISK LEVEL 2 SITE UNDER WDID# 9 33C390653. 5. PERIMETER PROTECTION. PERIMETER PROTECTION MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING ACTIVITIES. CLEARING SHALL BE LIMITED TO AREAS THAT WILL BE IMMEDIATELY GRADED OR DISTURBED. A COMBINATION OF ESC MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN CLEARED. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OF AN INACTIVE SITE, AS DESCRIBED IN THE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, SHALL ALSO BE PROTECTED. 6. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINTS. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINT SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH A COMBINATION OF ROCK AND SHAKER PLATES YEAR-ROUND TO PREVENT TRACK -OUT. INTERIOR ACCESS POINTS (ALL PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS, MATERIALS STORAGE AND STAGING AREA ENTRANCES/EXITS, ETC.) SHALL ALSO BE PROTECTED WITH ROCK TO PREVENT TRACK -OUT ONTO INTERIOR STREETS. ROUTINE STREET SWEEPING SHALL BE PERFORMED ON ALL PAVED STREETS WHERE TRACKING IS OBSERVED. VACUUM SWEEPERS SHALL BE USED WHEN STREET SWEEPING BECOMES INEFFECTIVE. CONTROLLED STREET WASHING SHALL ONLY BE ALLOWED PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION OF ASPHALT SEAL COATS, AND ONLY WHEN ALL PERTINENT DRAINAGE INLETS ARE PROTECTED. 7. DESILTING BASINS. DESILTING BASINS SHALL BE DESIGNED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDANCE PROVIDED IN CASQA'S CONSTRUCTION BMP HANDBOOK IMPOUNDED WATER SHALL BE SECURED FROM THE PUBLIC. SIGNAGE INDICATING "PONDED WATER - DO NOT ENTER" OR EQUIVALENT WARNING NOTICE SHALL BE POSTED. 8. MATERIAL STORAGE. MATERIAL STORAGE AND STAGING AREAS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED. FUEL TANKS, PORTABLE TOILETS, LIQUIDS, GELS, POWDERS, LANDSCAPE MATERIALS AND STOCKPILES OF SOIL SHALL BE STORED AWAY FROM ALL PRIVATE/PUBLIC STORM WATER CONVEANCE SYSTEMS, SIDEWALKS, RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND FLOW LINES AND SHALL HAVE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT. INACTIVE STOCKPILES OF SOIL SHALL BE COVERED AT ALL TIMES. ATIVE STOCKPILES SHALL BE COVERED PRIOR TO A FORCAST RAIN. 9. CONSTRUCTION WASTE. CONSTRUCTION WASTE AND MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS SHALL BE PLACED IN WATER -TIGHT BINS. WIRE MESH RECEPTICLES SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED. WASH -OUT STATION SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR CONCRETE, PAINTS, STUCCO AND OTHER LIQUID WASTE, AND SHALL BE LINED WITH PLASTIC AND LOCATED AWAY FROM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS, FLOW LINES, ETC. PRIOR TO ANY FORCAST RAIN, BINS AND WASH -OUTS SHALL BE COVERED WITH LIDS OR PLASTIC TARPS. 10. SLOPE PROTECTION. STORM WATER RUNOFF SHALL NOT BE DIRECTED OVER SLOPES WITHOUT PERMANENT DOWN DRAINS INSTALLED. ESC MEASURES ARE REQUIRED ON ALL EXPOSED SLOPES UNTIL SUFFICIENT/PERMANENT LANDSCAPE IS ESTABLISHED. THERE SHALL BE 100% SLOPE PROTECTION IN PLACE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 11. PORTABLE MIXERS. ALL PORTABLE MIXERS SHALL HAVE PLASTIC LINERS UNDERNEATH THEM WITH GRAVEL BAGS PLACED ON THE DOWN -HILL SIDE OF THE LINERS TO CONTAIN DISCHARGES. 12. MAINTENANCE. ALL ONSITE AND OFFSITE FLOW LINES (I.E., V-AND BROW -DITCHES, TERRACE DRAINS, RIBBON GUTTERS, CURB GUTTERS, ETC.), STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS, CHECK DAMS, CHEVRONS, SILT FENCES AND DESILTING BASINS SHALL BE FREE OF SEDIMENT, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, WASTE, MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS AND DETERIORATED ESC MEASURES YEAR-ROUND. 13. OBSTRUCTIONS. NO OBSTRUCTIONS, OTHER THAN BMP, SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN ANY STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM, UNLESS ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 14. OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES FOR "GENERAL," "GRADING" AND "PAVING" REQUIREMENTS. EASEMENT N O TES AN EASEMENT FOR POLE LINES, CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF Al NEVADA CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION NOW SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, REC'D 05/19/1937, IN BOOK 323, PAGE 387, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE LOCATED FROM RECORDS." AAN EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND CONDUITS AND APPURTENANCES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AND COMMUNICATIONS, IN FAVOR OF GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, REC'D 04/16/1989 AS INST. NO. 80220, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE LOCATED FROM RECORDS." AAN EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND CONDUITS AND APPURTENANCES FOR THE TRANSMITTING INTELLIGENCE BY ELECTRICAL MEANS, IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, REC'D 04/16/1989 AS INST. NO. 80220, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE LOCATED FROM RECORDS." SPECIAL NOTE: WHERE LISTED MAPPING LENGTH, BEARING AND DISTANCES DO NOT MATCH THE RECORDED MAP PLEASE REFER TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT CALLS FOR THE EXCETPED PROTIONS OF MAP 22863. DATE BY REVISIONS DATE ACC'Dj BENCHMARK SCALE HORIZONTAL CONTROL WAS ESTABLISHED PER RECORD MONUMENTS ON P.M.B. 150 HORIZONTAL 51157, AND SHOULD NOT BE USED AS NOTED MAPPING SERVICES. VERTICAL DATUM WAS ESTABLISHED PER NGS BENCHMARK VERTICAL SD- 6-19, ELEVATION 1014.96 , NA NAVD 88 DATUM SEAL PAVING NOTES: 1. STANDARDS. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS (I.E., ASPHALT CNCRETE (AC) PAVEMENT, PORTLAND CONCRETE CEMENT (PCC), BASE COURSE, ETC.) SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (I.E., GREENBOOK) LATEST EDITION, THE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, CITY AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS. 2. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. A GRADING OR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT(S) SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO PAVING. BEFORE OBTAINING AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE AND THE REQUIRED BONDING (FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS) SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY ENGINEER. A CALTRANS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED. 3. SOIL STERILIZER. AN APPROVED SOIL STERILIZER SHALL BE USED ON ALL BASE GRADE SURFACES PRIOR TO PAVING. 4. PRIME COAT PRIME COAT IS REQUIRED ON SUBGRADE OR BASE WHEN THE BASE IS SUBJECTED TO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC (OR WHEN LONG TIME PERIODS ELAPSE BEFORE AC IS PLACED), AS DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 5. TYPE I SLURRY. PRIOR TO PROJECT FINAL COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF STREETS INTO THE CITY's MAINTAINED SYSTEM, TYPE I SLURRY SHALL BE PLACED OVER THE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVED PROJECT STREET(S), AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. THE ENTIRE ROADWAY WIDTH SHALL BE SWEPT AT LEAST 3 TIMES OR AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 6. FOG SEAL. FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, ASPHALTIC EMULSION IFOG SEAL) SHALL BE APPLIED NOT LESS THAN 14 DAYS FOLLOWING PLACEMENT OF THE ASPHALT SURFACING AND SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 0.05 GALLONS PER SQ. YD. THE ASPHALT EMULSION SHALL CONFORM TO SECTIONS 37, 39 AND 94 OF THE STATE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 7. TACK COAT. A TACK COAT SHALL BE APPLIED TO EXISTING PAVEMENT AND VERTICAL JOINTS, CONCRETE SURFACES AND ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, IF IT HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO VEHICULAR LOADS. THE TACK COAT SHALL BE SLOW SETTING ANIONIC EMULSIFIED ASPHALT TYPE "SS-1 H" CONFORMING TO THE GREEN BOOK. 8. CERTIFICATION/TESTING. ALL SUBGRADE AND BASE GRADE SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR. BASE AND AC MATERIALS SHALL BE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY's QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (OAP) AND/OR AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 9. PAVING MATERIALS. 9.1. AC MATERIALS. 9.1.1. AC MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO SECTION 203-6 OF THE GREENBOOK AND CITY STANDARDS. 9.1.1.1. TYPE C2 PG?0-10 FOR FINISH AND OVERLAY COURSES. THIS COURSE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 0.12 FOOT (1% INCHES) THICK INCLUDING GRIND AND OVERLAY INSTALLATIONS. 9.1.1.2. 1.0.1.TYPE B PG70-10 FOR BASE COURSE. THIS COURSE SHALL CONTAIN THE BALANCE OF THE REQUIRED ASPHALT CONCRETE THICKNESS. THE MINIMUM AC LIFT FOR BASE COURSE IS 0.21 FOOT (2Y2 INCHES). 9.1.2. THE MINIMUM AC THICKNESS IS 0.33 FOOT (4 INCHES). 9.1.3. THE MAXIMUM AC LIFT IS FOUR IS 0.33 FOOT (4 INCHES). NOTE: "SHOVING" IS A TYPE OF AC PAVEMENT FAILURE THAT MAY BE CAUSED BY ASPHALT MIXES THAT ARE TOO RICH IN ASPHALT, THAT HAVE COURSE/FINE AGGREGATE THAT IS TOO ROUNDED, ETC. TYPICALLY, SHOVING RESULTS AT HILLS, CURVES OR INTERSECTIONS, CAUSED BY BRAKING OR ACCELERATING VEHICULAR FORCES. TO PREVENT OR MINIMIZE SHOVING, THE CITY RESERVES TO RIGHT TO REQUIRE A MODIFIED AC MIX DESIGN WITH PROPERTIES THAT PROVIDE HIGH STABILITY (I.E., ABILITY TO RESIST SHOVING AND RUTTING, ANGULAR AGGREGATE PARTICLES WITH A ROUGH SURFACE TEXTURE, ETC.) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GREENBOOK AND/OR CALTRANS SPECIFICATIONS. 9.2. BASE MATERIALS. 9.2.1. BASE MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO PROVISIONS OF THE GREENBOOK AND CURRENT CITY STANDARDS. 9.2.2. FOR STREET SECTIONS, BASE COURSE MATERIAL SHALL BE CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE (CAB) OR CRUSHED MISCELLANEOUS BASE (CMB) PER SECTIONS 200-2.2 AND 202-2.4 OF THE GREENBOOK. PRINCIPAL AND URBAN ARTERIAL ROADS REQUIRE CAB. 9.3. PORTLAND CONCRETE CEMENT. ALL PCC USED SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE TO THE GREENBOOK. 10. MIX DESIGNS. TEN WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO PAVING, THE PROPOSED MIX DESIGN(S) FROM THE SUPPLYING ASPHALT OR CONCRETE PLANT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THE MIX DESIGN(S) SHALL CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE DESIGN MEETS ALL CITY AND GREENBOOK REQUIREMENTS. 11. STREET SECTIONS. STREET STRUCTURAL SECTIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE TENTATIVE (I.E., THEY'RE USED FOR BONDING PURPOSES). THE FINAL STRUCTURAL SECTION REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY ADDITIONAL SOIL TESTS, AFTER ROUGH GRADING. THE STRUCTURAL SECTION DESIGN SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. SAID DESIGN SHALL ADHERE TO THE METHODOLOGY SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 600 OF CALTRANS HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL AND SHALL UTILIZE THE "R" VALUE METHOD (I.E., "R" VALUE TESTS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 301 AND SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER). THE NUMBER AND LOCATIONS OF THESE TESTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 12. COMPACTION. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF BASE MATERIAL AND AC, COMPACTION REPORTS BY A SOILS ENGINEER, CERTIFYING 95% COMPACTION OF SUB -GRADE AND BASE MATERIAL, SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ENGINEER. COMPACTION TEST OBSERVATION OF SUB -GRADE AND BASE GRADE MATERIALS SHALL BE COORDINATED TO INCLUDE THE SOILS ENGINEER AND THE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR. 13. PAVING INSPECTIONS. 13.1. BASE GRADE INSPECTION. ONE INSPECTION AT SUB -GRADE COMPLETION (PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF BASE) IS REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. 13.2. PAVING INSPECTIONS. TWO PAVING INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: (1) PRIOR TO PAVING, AT BASE GRADE COMPLETION; AND (2) DURING PLACEMENT OF AC. 13.3. DRIVEWAYS. ALL ONSITE PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND CITY STANDARDS, AND SHALL BE INSPECTED AND CLEARED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO PAVING. 14. UTILITIES. ALL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AND LATERALS SHALL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO PAVING. 15. TRENCHING FOR UTILITIES. ALL STREET TRENCHES SHALL CONFORM TO CITY AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS. REFER TO CITY STANDARD NO. 407 "TRENCH/POTHOLE REPAIR" FOR TRENCH MAINTENANCE AND/OR REPAIRS. LF TRENCHES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY AND PARALLEL TO GUTTER LINES RESULT IN LEAVING PAVEMENT STRIPS IN DISTRESS OR LESS THAN TWO FEET IN WIDTH (BETWEEN THE TRENCH AND GUTTER LINE), SAID PAVEMENT STRIPS SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPAVED, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. A TACK COAT SHALL BE APPLIED TO EXISTING ASPHALT CONCRETE AND VERTICAL SURFACES TO BE JOINED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GREENBOOK. 16. PARKING LOT GRADE. THE MINIMUM AC OR CONCRETE PAVEMENT GRADE SHALL BE ONE PERCENT ( 1 % ). 17. GUTTER LIP. A 3/8 INCH LIP SHALL BE PLACED ADJACENT TO CONCRETE GUTTERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS. REFER TO STANDARD NO. 200. 18. PAVING DETAIL AROUND MANHOLES, VALVE COVERS. ETC. ALL PAVING AROUND MANHOLES, UTILITY VALVE COVERS, ETC. SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GREENBOOK REQUIREMENTS, UTILITY AGENCY REQUIREMENTS, CITY AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS. REFER TO CITY STANDARD NO. 503 "PAVING DETAIL AROUND MANHOLE." 19. AC PLACEMENT. THE METHOD OF DEPOSITING, DISTRIBUTING (I.E., USING A SELF-PROPELLED SPREADING/FINISHING MACHINE) AND ROLLING AC SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GREENBOOK. 20. ACCEPTANCE OF PRODUCT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ANY DEFECTIVE SURFACING DUE TO GRADE SETTLEMENT OF FILLS, TRENCH FILLS OR BASE MATERIAL, AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. NO PAVEMENT "BIRDBATHS" OR DEVIATIONS GREATER THAN 1 /8 INCH IN SIX FEET SHALL BE ACCEPTED. 21. PROTECTION OF WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL: A PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURES CURB AND GUTTERS SIDEWALKS, LANDSCAPING, CATCH BASIN DEPRESSIONS AND OTHER SURFACE FEATURES AGAINST DAMAGE CAUSED BY PAVING OPERATIONS AND ASPHALT SPRAY; (B) PROTECT COMPLETED WORK; ALL VEHICULAR TRAFFIC (L.E., MOVING OR STATIONARY LOADS) SHALL BE KEPT OFF NEWLY PAVED AREAS UNTIL PAVEMENT SURFACES HAVE COOLED DOWN ADEQUATELY; (C) CLEAN THE SITE (I.E., REMOVE LOOSE PAVEMENT AND AGGREGATE, CLEAN OUT ALL MANHOLE PITS, ENSURE FREE OPERATION OF VALVES AFTER PAVING, REMOVE ALL DEBRIS, RUBBISH AND EXCESS MATERIAL FROM WORK AREA, ETC.). 22. OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES FOR "GENERAL," "GRADING," AND "EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL" REQUIREMENTS. Designed By I Drawn By I Checked By WILFREDO S.D. VENTURPLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A�, No. 66532 23 Ex 10 5 . 6-30-24 Date / / P WILFREDO VENTURA CIVIL \F ,r ^^,\Cl`P R.C.E. N0. 66532 Expires 6/30/24 RECOMMENDED BY: NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR: �S�F THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITY PIPES OR STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF THE AVAILABLE RECORDS. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OR RACHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A REPRESENTATION AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OR THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITY PIPE OR STRUCTURE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE ALL DUE PRECAUTIONARY MEANS TO PROTECT THE UTILITY LINES NOT OF GAFF RANGN RECORD OR SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. THIS PROJECT IS AN IMPORT PROJECT. AS SUCH, IT IS NOTED THAT IMPORT QUANTITIES INDICATED HEREON ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF SPACE VOLUME AND DOES NOT CONSIDER RELATIVE COMPACTION OF SOILS, SHRINKAGE, SUBSIDENCE, AND OR ANY OTHER QUALITATIVE DETERMINATION OF IMPORT QUANTITIES OF EARTH MATERIALS BEING BROUGHT TO THE SITE. QUANTITIES OF EARTH MATERIALS IN TRANSPORT VEHICLES IS DIFFERENT THAN THE SPACE VOLUMES CALCULATED ON THESE PLANS. THIS IS DUE TO POTENTIAL FOR LOOSE SOILS IN TRANSPORT VEHICLES BEING COMPACTED ONCE REACHING THEIR DESTINATION ON SITE. THE OWNER AND OR DEVELOPER IS STRONGLY URGED TO TAKE THIS MATTER INTO A B B R E V A TI 0 N . CONSIDERATION WHEN CONTRACTING WITH THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR GRADING AND IMPORTING SOILS. SITE ADDRESS. CY CUBIC E EAST YARD PROJECT SITE �O �G �P l� T 29540 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591 SHEET INDEX: SHEET 1 TITLE AND NOTES S SHEET 2 DEMOUTION PLAN SHEET 3 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN 's VICINITY MAP - N.T.S. EA EACH SHEET 4 SECTIONS EL ELEVATION SHEET 5 DETAILS 1 29540 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD EX EXISTING SHEET 6 DETAILS 2 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591 FF FINISHED FLOOR SHEET 7 EROSION CONTROL PLAN FG FINISH GROUND OWNER: FL FLOW LINE FS FINISHED SURFACE HP HIGH POINT INV INVERT ELEVATION LF LENGTH FEET FAIRWAY COLIMA CALIFORNIA SEVEN, LLC N NORTH ATTN: MEI CHAN LIANG, MANAGER 21700 TS NOT SCALE COPLEY DRIVE, SUITE # 320 SAN DIEGO, EL PE PAD ELEVATION CALIFORNIA 91765 (909) 594-3388 PR PROPOSED S SOUTH SF SQUARE FEET L 0 T SIZE. TC TOP OF CURB TG TOP OF GRATE W WEST 1.6 ACRE. LEGEND: AREA OF DISTURBANCE: SYMBOL ELEMENT QUANTITY TOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE = 35,169 S.F. (0.81 ACRE) 24 HOUR EMERGENCY CONTACT: OWNER - - PROPERTY LINE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 22863 P.M.B. 1044 PROPOSED ELEVATION 150 51/57 O.R. EXISTING ELEVATION SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY. SD PROPOSED 8" STORM DRAIN 282 LF SD PROPOSED 6" STORM DRAIN 41 LF SPIRO LAND SURVEYING, SD PROPOSED 12" STORM DRAIN 57 LF 26100 NEWPORT ROAD #415 MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA 92584 PROPOSED 8" RETAINING WALL 148 LF (951) 334-3174 FIELD SURVEY WAS COMPLETED: JUNE 21, 2021 � � ADA � AD?,ADA PATH OF TRAVEL 1,714 LF -�- ->- ->- - - PROPOSED 3' GUTTER 186 LF BENCHMARK: PROPOSED CATCH BASIN (SIZE PER PLAN) 3 EA SEE BELOW. PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA 2,306 S.F BASIC OF BEARING. ❑ PROPOSED MWS 1 EA PROPOSED 6" CURB 921 LF THE BEARING OF N 5VO8'34" E ALONG THE ----------- PROPOSED 6" CURB AND GUTTER 511 LF CENTERLINE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NUMBER 22863, FILED IN PROPOSED BUILDING AREA 4,558 S.F BOOK 150, PAGES 51 THROUGH 57 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY. PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE 2 EA ASSESSORS PARCEL NO PROPOSED URBAN POND 1 EA 921-320-061 PROPOSED El ADA TRUNCATED DOMES 6 EA NO SYMBOL PROPOSED 4"ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVING 13,030 S.F EARTHWORK QUANTITIES: PROPOSED 3'X5' RIPRAP 1 EA CUT 510 CY IMPORT O CY ® PROPOSED 6" SPEE-D BASIN 2 EA FILL 209 Cy EXPORT 301 CY ® PROPOSED 8" SPEE-D BASIN 1 EA NO SYMBOL PROPOSED HANDRAIL 65 LF NOTE: EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE ESTIMATES NO SYMBOL PROPOSED GUARDRAIL 65 LF ONLY AND DO NOT INCLUDE SHRINKAGE OR SUBSIDENCE. THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY FOR PERMIT PROPOSED INTERMEDIATE LANDING 3 EA PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING. CIVIL ENGINEER: ARCHITECT. IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO DETERMINE THE EXACT QUANTITIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF PAYMENT AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. THE VENTURA ENGINEERING INLAND, INC. VERMELTFOORT ARCHITECTS INC. UNDERSIGNED ENGINEER ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY 27393 YNEZ RD, SUITE 159 8525 NORTH CEDAR AVENUE SUITE FOR DISCREPANCIES IN THE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES. TEMECULA CALIFORNIA 92591 106 FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93720 CONTACT - WILFREDO VENTURA (559) 432-6744 (951) 252-7632 RCV@VAIFRESNO.COM THE FINAL ELEVATION OF THE FINISHED PAD MAY BE WILFREDO®VENTURAENGINEERINGINLAND.COM ADJUSTED SLIGHTLY TO ACCOUNT FOR VARIATIONS IN THE SOILS ENGINEER. TOPOGRAPHY AND TO BALANCE THE PROJECT. THIS WILL NOT AFFECT THE OVERALL DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE GRADING AS IT IS PROPOSED. EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC P A 2 3 - 0 0 2 6 42184 REMINGTON AVENUE P A 2 3 0 0 2 7 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590. (951)-397-8315 P A 2 J� 0 0 J� 0 INFO@EARTH-STRATA.COM DRAWING N0. DATE: CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ACCEPTED BY: DATE: PATRICK THOMAS, P.E. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER R.C.E. NO. 44223 TEMECULA ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ/BETTER BUZZ CGP- 1 APN : 921-320-061 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN TITLE SHEET AND NOTES SHEET I OF 7 DEMOLITION NOTES: (j EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. O EXISTING CATCH BASIN TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. O EXISTING WALL AND MONUMENT SIGNS TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. ® EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. O EXISTING PARKING TO BE REMOVED. © EXISTING CURB TO BE REMOVED. O EXISTING BUILDING TO BE REMOVED. ® EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED. O EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER TO BE REMOVED. 10 EXISTING UTILITY TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. 11 EXISTING STAIRS TO BE REMOVED. EXISTING STRIPING TO BE REMOVED. 13 EXISTING LIGHT POLE TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. 14 EXISTING PARKING TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. 15 EXISTING CURB TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. 16 EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. EXISTING LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED. 18 EXISTING ELECTRIC BOX TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. EASEMENT NOTES: AN EASEMENT FOR POLE LINES, CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF NEVADA CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION NOW SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, REC'D 05/19/1937, IN BOOK 323, PAGE 387, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE LOCATED FROM RECORDS." A AN EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND CONDUITS AND APPURTENANCES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AND COMMUNICATIONS, IN FAVOR OF GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, REC'D 04/16/1989 AS INST. NO. 80220, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE LOCATED FROM RECORDS." A AN EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND CONDUITS AND APPURTENANCES FOR THE TRANSMITTING INTELLIGENCE BY ELECTRICAL MEANS, IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, REC'D 04/16/1989 AS INST. NO. 80220, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE LOCATED FROM RECORDS." SPECIAL NOTE: WHERE LISTED MAPPING LENGTH, BEARING AND DISTANCES DO NOT MATCH THE RECORDED MAP PLEASE REFER TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT CALLS FOR THE EXCETPED PROTIONS OF MAP 22863. unaergrouna --)ervlce /Alert CD Call: TOLL FREE 1-800 227-6000 TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG CONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY Contractor Inspector Date Completed 20 10 0 20 40 SCALE 1 " = 20' FEET REVISIONS I DATE I ACC' PARCEL 7 PARCEL MAP 22863 P. M. B. 15 0 5115 7 LIMIT OF GRADING 15 S38'51 N51'08'-%"E 15.06' 3 — X -- A 7 N38°51'26"W 202.00' v 15 I , 14 � I i 15 � o 13 / 4 ' 16 // 4 16 13 O � o rn w 15 14 o z _ _ PARCEL 1 I 15 / 15 0100 � is \ i I � i BENCHMARK SCALE HORIZONTAL AS NOTED SEE SHEET 1 NA SEAL S.D. No. 66532 Exp. 6-30-24 \ CIVIL N38'51'26"W 157.26' PARCEL 8 1\130V26"W 28.00' Designed By I Drawn By PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF Date 10/5/23 WILFREDO VENTURA R.C.E. N0. 66532 Expires 6/30/24 Checked By / PARCEL 2 / � I L NOT A PART RECOMMENDED BY: DATE: ACCEPTED BY: DATE: PATRICK THOMAS, P.E. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER R.C.E. NO. 44223 °51'26"W 12.00' CITY OF TEM EC U LA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TEMECULA ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ/BETTER BUZZ APN : 921-320-061 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN DEMOLITION PLAN 0 r7 N w 0 Z PA23-0026 PA23 0027 PA23 O00 CGP-2 SHEET 2 OF 7 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: O1 PROPOSED ADA PATH. O2 EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER TO BE REMAIN IN PLACE. O3 PROPOSED CURB INLET. ® PROPOSED 12"x12" CATCH BASIN PER DETAIL 2 AND 3 ON SHEET 5. O EXISTING STORM DRAIN MANHOLE TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. CONNECT MWS OUTLET TO THIS MANHOLE. EXISTING STORM DRAIN ELEVATIONS AND CONNECTION TO BE FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. © PROPOSED 8" PVC STORM DRAIN PIPE. O7 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN CLEAN OUT. ® PROPOSED MWS-L-4-13-UG-V PER DETAIL 1 ON SHEET 5. O9 PROPOSED ADA TRUNCATED DOMES. 10 PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE. 11 PROPOSED URBAN POND PRECAST CONCRETE STORM WATER DETENTION PER DETAIL 4 ON SHEET 5. 12 PROPOSED 4" ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVING PER DETAIL 2 ON SHEET 6. PROPOSED 3' GUTTER PER DETAIL 3 ON SHEET 6. 14 PROPOSED 6" CONCRETE CURB (TYPICAL). 15 PROPOSED 6" CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER (TYPICAL). 16 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA. 1� PROPOSED POLE -MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE PER ARCHITECTURAL PLAN (BY OTHERS). 18 PROPOSED 18" RCP PIPE. 19 PROPOSED 24"x24" CATCH BASIN PER DETAIL 4 ON SHEET 6. @0 PROPOSED 6" PVC STORM DRAIN PIPE. 21 PROPOSED 3'X5' WITH NO. 2 BACKING RIP RAP PER DETAIL 1 ON SHEET 6. © PROPOSED 8" WIDE RETAINING WALL PER DETAIL 7 ON SHEET 6. © PROPOSED 6" SPEE-D BASIN WITH 6" PVC STORM DRAIN LINES PER DETAIL 6 ON THIS SHEET 6. ® PROPOSED 8" SPEE-D BASIN WITH 8" PVC STORM DRAIN LINES PER DETAIL 6 ON THIS SHEET 6. © PROPOSED 18"x18" CATCH BASIN PER DETAIL 5 ON SHEET 6. © PROPOSED 12" PVC STORM DRAIN PIPE. PROPOSED STRIPING PARKING AREA. ® WORK PROPOSED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL REQUIRE A CITY OF TEMECULA ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. �9 PROPOSED CURB OUTLET PER STD 301. �0 PROPOSED HANDRAIL PER ARCHITECTURAL PLAN (BY OTHERS). 31 PROPOSED GUARDRAIL PER ARCHITECTURAL PLAN (BY OTHERS). ® PROPOSED INTERMEDIATE LANDING PER ARCHITECTURAL PLAN (BY OTHERS). © PROPOSED MENU BOARD, ORDER SCREEN & SPEAKER PER ARCHITECTURAL PLAN (BY OTHERS). ® PROPOSED DIRECTIONAL "THANK YOU - EXIT ONLY" SIGN PER ARCHITECTURAL PLAN (BY OTHERS). SECTION NOTE: PLEASE SEE SHEET 4 FOR SECTIONS. DETAIL SHEET NOTE: PLEASE SEE SHEET 5 FOR DETAILS. EASEMENT NOTES: ZLAN EASEMENT FOR POLE LINES, CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF NEVADA CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION NOW SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, REC'D 05/19/1937, IN BOOK 323, PAGE 387, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE LOCATED FROM RECORDS." A AN EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND CONDUITS AND APPURTENANCES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AND COMMUNICATIONS, IN FAVOR OF GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, REC'D 04/16/1989 AS INST. NO. 80220, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE LOCATED FROM RECORDS." A AN EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND CONDUITS AND APPURTENANCES FOR THE TRANSMITTING INTELLIGENCE BY ELECTRICAL MEANS, IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, REC'D 04/16/1989 AS INST. NO. 80220, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE LOCATED FROM RECORDS." SPECIAL NOTE: WHERE LISTED MAPPING LENGTH, BEARING AND DISTANCES DO NOT MATCH THE RECORDED MAP PLEASE REFER TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT CALLS FOR THE EXCETPED PROTIONS OF MAP 22863. Underground Service Alert CD Call: TOLL FREE II� 1-800 227-6000 TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG CONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY Contractor Inspector Date Completed PARCEL 7 �0 / /(3.0%) i i i i i PARCEL MAP 22863 P.M.B. 150 51157 PARCEL 1 (1044.42FL) 0"CF3 I ° / I I o 0.9 Ile; 0 4 I 1044.21 TC 9 LIMIT OF GRADING (TYP) I 1043.71FS I /�- 1.7%C, 8" PVC SD PIPE 110' LF 01 % I 1044.21TC 1043.71 FS �I4 9 � L 1043.82TG 7 1039.161NV ' 1040.641NV 1 1039.16OUT ' 1043.75TC 1043.25FS, 0.5% 1043.86TC j 1043.36FS 8" PVC SD PIPE 24' LF C�1%I 12 � �\ \ � 1043.02TGi 1038.921NV1 1.0` Fmy..% > /A AAA/ ART/' f 1�Sl i - J I U4L.0 u �J - 1042.6, I (0.7�) (1.5%) // 1043.1F_ FL/LP/ (15� 8" PVC SD PIPE 1' LF ®1% 1042.91TC ,1042. (104EG 104�. 1037.A LEG IqLl.��° �� - Li 1042.03TG N38'51'26"W 157.26' 191037.071NV O8"PVC SDPIPE 39'LF01% 18 20 10 0 20 40 SCALE 1 " = 20' FEET REVISIONS DATE ACC'D BENCHMARK SCALE SEAL HORIZONTAL LL AS NOTED SEE SHEET 1 NA S.D. No. 66532 Exp. 6-30-24 CIVIL PARCEL 8 I �% 1036.911NV 5 (1041.88TC N38'51'26"W 28.00' Designed By I Drawn By PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF Date 10/5/23 WILFREDO VENTURA R.C.E. N0. 66532 Expires 6/30/24 Checked By NOT A PART RECOMMENDED BY: PARCEL 2 / o, (1041.26TC) (1040.44TC) (1039.94FL) 7 6" PVC SD PIPE 10' LF 011.1% 20 1039.23TG 23 6" PVC SD PIPE 31' LF 7.83% 20 1036.231NV OUTLET 1 1033.801NV 29 1039.23TW 1038.01FG 22 .99; ,w / 1.93' HT �� / 2;0% 32 4387S1'26"W 12.00' 1037.78TW 1035.92FG 7q 1.86' HT 1 -1 1 ! / PROPOSED 65' HANDRAIL N 3O it � PER ARCHITECTURAL PLAN. O CII 1 O PROPOSED 8" RETAINING WALL 1 _0 32 86LF MAX=1.93'HT ( 2.0% PROPOSED 8" RETAINING WALL ' 62LF MAX=3.30'HT 1041.74TG 24 ' I I � �� 1039.741NV �1037.65TW C) \ 11034.35FG 22 3.30' HT CT 1034.83TWO 1033.71 FG 22 I1.12'HT a (1033.4) ��5r 0 11 EG 66TW\ (1033.3) 76FG HT 30 28 EG 2:1 FILL SLOPE 104�Ci�! DATE: I CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ACCEPTED BY: DATE: PATRICK THOMAS, P.E. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER R.C.E. NO. 44223 TEMECULA ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ/BETTER BUZZ APN : 921-320-061 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN GRADING PLAN 0 N w 00 0 LO z PA23-0026 PA23 0027 PA23 0030 DRAWING NO. SHEET 3 OF 7 Underground Service Alert CD Call: TOLL FREE 1-800 II� 0 227-6000 TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG CONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY Contractor Inspector Date Completed 1060- 1050- 1040— 1060- 1050- 1040- 1030— 1060- 1050- 1040- 1030- PROPOSED ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ - FF.= 1044.80 PROPOSED FP.= 1044.13 SIDE WALK w Z z PROPOSED 6" ? w Z �� CONCRETE CURB � � PROPOSED o c� LANDSCAPE o m m m 0° 1.0% 2:1 FILL SLOPE 2.0% -- EXISTING GROUND 1.0% 1.0% 7 EXISTING CURB & PROPOSED SURFACE GUTTER TO BE REMAIN IN PLACE PROPOSED PROPOSED SIDE WALK (1041.26TC) BETTER BUZZ PROPOSED 6" FF.= 1043.50 PROPOSED 6" 2 1 (1040.76FS) J CONCRETE CURB FP.= 1042.83 CONCRETE CURB o �_ PROPOSED 8" PVC STORM DRAIN PIPE PROPOSED 6" CONCRETE CURB 5' WIDE ADA PATH I 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 SECTION A -A HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 "=40' VERTICAL SCALE: 1 "=10' PROPOSED SURFACE PROPOSED 6" CONCRETE CURB w w z Z 2:1 CUT SLOPE PROPOSED URBAN POND PRECAST J PROPOSED } CONCRETE STORM WATER DETENTIONN. o BETTER BUZZ o oA PROPOSED 3' GUTTER \ m FF.= 104m - FP.= 1042..8383 1.6% 1.4% 1.0% PROPOSED PARKING PROPOSED 6" EXISTING WALL Q CONCRETE CURB 0 U EXISTING GROUND 0+50 1 +00 1 +50 2+00 2+50 SECTION B-B HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 "=40' VERTICAL SCALE: 1 "=10' 3+00 3+50 PROPOSED SIDE WALK w w Z Z PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PROPOSED PARKING c� PROPOSED ONO o 2:1 MAX SLOPE o HAWAIIAN BBQ PROPOSED 3' GUTTER m FF.= 1044.80 m �± LO F .= 1044.13 5' WIDE ADA PATH 1 0% i 7 7 PROPOSED SURFACE ra i PROPOSED 6" o CONCRETE CURB EXISTING GROUND 2:1 MAX SLOPE v PROPOSED RETAINING WALL 0+50 1 +00 REVISIONS DATE ACC'D BENCHMARK SCALE SEAL HORIZONTAL SEE SHEET 1 AS NOTED VERTICAL NA 1 +50 2+00 2+50 SECTION C-C HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 "=40' VERTICAL SCALE: 1 "=10' 3+00 3+50 �ROFESsi Designed By Drawn By Checked By WILFREDO S.D. VENTURA PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF No. 66532 10 5 23 Ex . 6-30-24 Date / / P CIVIL WILFREDO VENTURA `qTF C^ CA��F\P R.C.E. N0. 66532 Expires 6/30/24 —1060 —1050 —1040 —1060 —1050 —1040 —1030 —1060 —1050 —1040 —1030 RECOMMENDED BY: DATE: ACCEPTED BY: DATE: PATRICK THOMAS, P.E. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER R.C.E. NO. 44223 CITY OF TEM EC U LA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TEMECULA ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ/BETTER BUZZ APN : 921-320-061 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN SECTIONS PA23-0026 PA23 0027 PA23 0030 DRAWING NO. CGP- 4 SHEET 4 OF 7 SD-1 C) 2 C) URBAN POND EXTERIOR WALL DETAILING rCL GRATE 1'_2V2" LL "ULTIMATE" BYPASS FEATURES GASKET (2) SEE BOLT HOLE DETAIL (2) SEE BOLT HOLE DETAIL TRAFFIC COVER 2'-8' 2'-8' (PARKWAY ALSO AVAILABLE) STAINLESS STEEL 7YP TYP 1'- 1'_5y2" SUPPORT BASKET _ Fossil Rock TM u --___ u,—__--- —►� ABSORBENT POUCHES LINER W �;� y;� 12 TRAFFIC GRATE o (PARKWAY ALSO AVAILABLE) SUPPORT 1'-7Y" 1'-7Y2' BASKET I I I I I I 6" 8'-0' CATCH BASIN 110 SLOTTED HOLE FOR EXTERIOR VIEW EXTERIOR VIEW (FLAT GRATE STYLE) USE WITH j EXPANSION ANCHORS/NUTS/WASHERS OPTIONAL 6" RISER � \ BOTTOM OF BOTTOM OF T-- FORM T - -- FORM DETAIL A ;� t t EXPLODED VIEW 4" 8'-0' ^ 8'-7' BOLT HOLE DETAIL TOP VIEW TOP VIEW � s 1'-fi"---------------------- 8'-0' 8'-0" co l II ` J NOTE: �� I Y t 1 u I 00 1. FILTER INSERT SHALL HAVE A HIGH FLOW BYPASS FEATURE. Q i 1 i II i c� II I I I 1 o I I I II I to o f4' I I CHAMFER 2. FILTER SUPPORT FRAME SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED FROM 1 ' I I 1 ° 1, I I I I" I 1 BASE SECTION �' 1 i' ii I s "� 00 (lYP) I I STAINLESS STEEL TYPE 304. I I I II 1 0 I I 11 I I I I I I 12" X 12" 3. FILTER MEDIUM SHALL BE FOSSIL ROCK, INSTALLED AND =_ a Y� a r� ' A W o KNOCKOUT %" � MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER I I ° j 4 TOTAL Imo— — —� I FIOGard® FILTER SPECIFICATIONS. OVERALL OUTSIDE DIMENSIONS T ______ _ APPROXIMATE WEIGHTS: 1'-7Y" X 1'-7Y" X VARIES -INSTALLED INTO! CATCH BASIN- 4. STORAGE CAPACITY REFLECTS 80% OF MAXIMUM SOLIDS li B 6" RISER - 1SO LBS OVERALL INSIDE DIMENSIONS COLLECTION PRIOR TO IMPEDING FILTERING BYPASS. 4" 6 1 1 1 1 BASE - 250 LBS 1'-0" X 1'-0° X VARIES I I I I U.S. PATENT # 6,00,023 & 6,877,029 1'-3' 9' 3'-3' 1'-9' 1'-0' 8'-O" �4'-10"94— �1 1,-9. I� �11,_O.1 _ _4-0�1� 1212C B 12" X 12" s F/o Gard ® Oldcastle° TOP VIEW ELEVATION VIEW A ELEVATION VIEW B ELEVATION VIEW C Qldcastle Precast0 FILE NAME: Q701 21 25DCB.DWG CATCH BASIN Stormwater Solutions Southern California STORM DRAIN Catch Basin Insert Filter 7921 Southpark Plaza, Suite 2001 Littleton, CO 1801201 Ph: 800.579.88191 oldcastlestonnwater.com Fontana■LakeSlde•Perr15•San❑IegO Santa Pala FIEVISED: Jun-15 THIS DOCUMENTISTHE PROPERTYOFOLDCASTLEPRECAST, INC. ITISSUBMITTEDFOR REFERENCE PURPOSESONLYANDSHALLNOTBE USED IN ANYWAY INJURIOUS TO THE INTERESTS OF SAID COMPANY. COPYRIGFIT020100LDCASTLE PRECAST, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Phone: e00-626-3660 Fax: 677-797-0750 www.oldcastleprecast.com Copyright © 2015 OldcastlePrecast, Inc. Inlet DRAWING N0. REv ECG ECO-0142 DATE Filtration Grated Inlet St )e FGP-0001 G JPR 7 13 16 JPR 11/3/06 1 SHEET 1 OF 2 � ' ' 2 PROPOSED 12X12CATCH BASIN: NOT TO SCALE PROPOSED CATCH BASIN INSERT FILTER: � NOT TO SCALE URBAN POND SINGLE MODULE — INTERIOR DETAILING SITE SPECIFIC DATA* PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION STRUCTURE ID Uj PERFORMANCE DATA DRAIN DOWN LINES INLET MANHOLE. TREATMENT VOLUME (CF) 0.144 PATENTED PERIMETER WERANOMEDIA BED DP41N DOWN LINE VOID AREA OUTLET C/L TREATMENT HGL (FT) 3.4 PRE —FILTER BYPASS FLOW RATE (CFS) DEPENDANT ON CARTRIDGE PIPE SIZE DRAIN DOWN FILTER PROJECT PARAMETERS , PIPE DATA I E. MATERIAL DIAMETERNil INLET PIPE 1 C/L LLLILLL - - - - -- ' v i3 ` J 1 i �o 0 LLL LLLLLLLL OUTLET PIPE 1 INLET PIPE `��`��`� `° '. LLLL I I I 1 y 4 "<<::: ; ,..,:.....: _ ..... .;.. :_: OUTLET PIPE I I I RIM ELEVATION SEE NOTES SEE NOTE ^ I I I o I q� I I SURFACE LOADING REQUIREMENT 6. GWA BEDD! I I 1 U c c----------------------- � I I 1 PRETREATMENT BIORLTR477ON DISCHARGE O^ I I I 0 0 4" I ' ' ' �W ;�" CHAMFER FRAME & VERTICAL UNDERDRA/N MANIFOLD 1 _ COVER 3O OPEN MEDIA 24 LEFT END VIEW `° i ' o (TYP) WETLANDMEDIA VOLUME (CY) PLAN V/EW MEDIA DELIVERED I I I W O I I I I I Q~ I I I ORIFICE SIZE (DIA) J, MAX PICK WEIGHT (LBS) 1 I IL I I I I MANHOLE------- - - - -ANHOLE - - - - - NOTES. ACCEW r47CN WE----- IEB - i FLOW C NTROL RISE *PER ENGINEER OF RECORD ' »,. "2b`H ' ' ' 7' 1'--O' 4'-3' '-9' INSTALLATION NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO OFFLOAD AND `'Y Ir i <::i==':: p I TOP VIEW ELEVATION V/EWA ELEVATION VIEW B ELEVATION VIEW C INSTALL THE SYSTEM AND APPURTENANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DRAWING AND THE s``3= ^_ `'"' "'°'_'' MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE �;. ?, ~ ` " "' k`•"" STATED IN MANUFACTURERS CONTRACT - - URBAN POND SINGLE MODULE — PERIMETER DETAILING 2. MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM 612EVEL ROCK BASE UNLESS SPECIFIED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER. 4'-0" 5'-10" 2'-6" I 6" CONTRACTOR 1S RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY PROJECT PRETREATMENT 4" B10FILIRA TION 4' DISCHARGE ENGINEERS RECOMMENDED BASE SPECIRCA77ONS CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER J. ALL PIPES MUST BE FLUSH WITH INSIDE SURFACE OF 6" 1,i'-0" RIGHT END VIEW CONCRETE. (PIPES CANNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH). 4. INVERT OF OUTFLOW PIPE MUST BE FLUSH WITH 14'-0" DISCHARGE CHAMBER FLOOR. ELEVAT/ON VIEW5. ALL GAPS AROUND PIPS SHALL BE SEALED WATER 77GHT WI7H A NON —SHRINK GROUT PER MANUFACTURERS STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL AND SHALL MEET OR MWS UNIT DESIGN DATA EXCEED REGIONAL PIPE CONNECTION STANDARDS 1REAIMENT CAPACITY (CFS) 0.144 6. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL RISERS, MANHOLES, AND HATCHES CONTRACTOR TO OPEP477NG HEAD (FT) 3.4 GROUT ALL MANHOLES AND HATCHES TO MATCH FINISHED PRETREATMENT LOADING RATE (GPM/SF) ZO SURFACE UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. Underground Service Alert G E N 1. ANU A NOTES O PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THE PRODUCT CES01M MAY BE PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDEN77AL: WETLAND LOADING RATE (GPM/SF) 1.0 2. ALL DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS, SPECIFICATIONS AND CAPACITIES ARE °RED BY ORE OR "tff OF MWS-L-4-13-UG- V f0 ORW 15 PAmvrfi nW #fUW7 "' NANO W nas awn s nW SOLE M O D III A R STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM SUBJECT TO CHANGE. FOR PROJECT SPECIFIC DRAWINGS DETAILING EXACT 7,42426Z 7,470,36Z• 7,67E374t PROPD%1. OF MOD" OFRANDS SM36 ANY � Call: TOLL FREE DIMENSIONS, WEIGHTS AND ACCESSORIES PLEASE CONTACT MANUFACTURER. e,303ars 10? TORF�IV REPA1W rrav w & OR As A S 690A70T n& IN707EN _FT LANDS STANDARD DETAIL PAIFNlS OR OIIU-R PAIINIS PENpNO PERMISSKKY OF MODUUR 11fT1ANOS SI57fMS AS PAOFNd�IfD. �.__ IIII 1 —800 PROPOSED URBAN POND PA23-0026 227-6000 PROPOSED MWS—L-4-13—UG—V: 4 PRECAST CONCRETE STORMWATER DETENTION PA23 0027 TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG Ifl NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE P A 2 3 O O O CONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY REVISIONS DATE ACC'D BENCHMARK SCALE SEAL PROFESS/ l Designed By Drawn By Checked By DRAWING NO. Contractor HORIZONTAL RECOMMENDED BY: DATE: CITY OF TEM EC U LA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 6 WILFREDO S.D. VENTURA PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF Inspector SEE SHEET 1 ANOTED ICAL No. 66532 �/� 10/5/23 ACCEPTED BY: SATE \y of TENECG<9 TEMECULA ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ/BETTER BUZZ CGP— 5 VERTICAL 6-30-24 ,� !/ Date PATRICK THOMAS, P.E. : a A.,... r'::: W APN : 921-320-061 CIVIL \P WILFREDO VENTURA DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER p CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN Date Completed `�qrF Fes' R.C.E. N0. 66532 Expires 6 30 24 R.C.E. NO. 44223 >o NA CF ca�� �'� .'9N DETAILS 1 � . NON SHEET 5 OF 7 TYPE 1: 6" TOE pPE� DQ\N ORS�Z 2 �P SPS�E 1MPy 1 E ggs G IF LEVEL GRADE • ;IIII—IIII— SEE TABLE FOR LEVEL GRADE =_IIII-IIII #4 HORIZ. AT TOP COURSE i I I i #4 HORIZONTAL REBAR AT 24" ON CENTER Y-BARS •• "H" t B" CONCRETE BLOCK 6'0"MAx 2-3/4" MAX. #4 HORIZ. AT 24" ON CENTER #2 TIES j 3" Max _ffnIIII „HI„ FINISH DRAINAGE SYS. (12° BLOCK • SEE NOTE 5 GRADE:IIII= II II— IIII-IIII : -IIII =(ITi 18"min I X-BARS Z-BARS "K" �12 TYPE 2: 6" HEEL S�oQ�F �S;oP�` 2 „H" 6'-O"MAX FINISH GRADE 16"ml = 12„ ••_ — (3) - #4 HORIZONTAL (2) - #4 J ..K , HORIZONTAL I REBARS REBARS . p/ W IF LEVEL GRADE IIII— SEE TABLE FOR LEVEL -IIII #4 HORIZ. AT TOP COURSE #4 HORIZ. AT 24" ON CENTER 8" CONCRETE BLOCK Y-BARS �- 2-3/4" MAX. (NOT SHOWN TO SCALE) #4 HORIZ. AT 24" ON CENTER (— 3" MAX. 6" IIH111 :. DRAINAGE SYS. (12' BLOCK) SEE NOTE 5 • � ��'' IIII X-BARS Z-BARS TYPE 1: 6" TOE GRADE CONDITION "H" (WALL HEIGHT) "H1" (12" BLOCK) "W" (FOOTING WIDTH) X BARS YBARS ZBARS "K" (KEY DEPTH) 5'- 1" to 6'- 0" 24" 69" #4 @ 16" #4 @ 32" #4 @ I " 30" SLOPING GRADE 4'- 1" to 5'- 0" N/R 48" #4 @ 16" #4 @ 16" #4 @ 12" 25" AT TOP OF WALL 3'- 1" to 4'- 0" N/R 30" #4 @ 32" #4 @ 32" #4 @ 32" 16" (2:1 MAX) Up to 3'- 0" N/R 18" #4 @ 32" #4 @ 32" #4 @ 32" 8" 5'- 1" to 6'- 0" 24" 45" #4 @ 24" #4 @ 32" #4 @ 24" 8" LEVEL GRADE 4'- 1" to 5'- 0" N/R 36" #4 @ 24" #4 @ 24" #4 @ 24" 7" AT TOP OF WALL 3'- 1" to 4'- 0" N/R 24" #4 @ 32" #4 @ 32" #4 @ 32" 5" Up to 3'- 0" N/R 21" #4 @ 32" #4 @ 32" #4 @ 32" N/R TYPE 2: 6" HEEL GRADE CONDITION "H" (WALL HEIGHT) "H1" (12" BLOCK) "W" (FOOTING WIDTH) X BARS Y BARS ZBARS (KEY DEPTH) 5'- 1" to 6'- 0" 24" 39" #4 @ 16" #4 @ 32" #4 @ 12" 28" SLOPING GRADE 4'- 1" to 5'- 0" N/R 29" #4 @ 16" #4 @ 16" #4 @ 12" 22" AT TOP OF WALL 3'- 1" to 4'- 0" N/R 24" 04 @ 32" #4 @ 32" #4 @ 32" 15" (2:1 MAX) Up to 3'- 0" N/R 18" #4 @ 32" #4 @ 32" #4 @ 32" 8" 5'- 1" to 6'- 0" 24" 33" 04 @ 24" #4 @ 32" #4 @ 24" 18" LEVEL GRADE 4'- 1" to S.- 0" N/R 26" #4 (9 24" #4 @ 24" #4 @ 24" 13" AT TOP OF WALL 3'- 1" to 4'- 0" N/R 20" #4 @ 32" #4 @ 32" #4 @ 32" 7" Up to 3'- 0" N/R 20" #4 (99 32" #4 @ 32" #4 @ 32" N/R N/R = NOT REQUIRED 'SEE PAGE 2 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION' DISCLAIMER: ALTERNATE RETAINING WALL DESIGNS MAY BE POSSIBLE WHEN PROVIDED WITH AN ENGINEERED ANALYSIS. USE OF THI STANDARD DESIGN IS AT THE USER'S RISK AND CARRIES NO IMPLIED OR INFERRE GUARANTEE AGAINST FAILURE OR DEFECTS. 284-255 F, AS SHOWN ON PLANS NO2 BACKING ROCK MIRAFI FILTER FABRIC 140N OR EQUIVALENT 6" COMPAC-I r-u UL_II DMOF- GENERAL NOTES: 1) ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE ADOPTED CODES AND ZONING REGULATIONS. 2) CONCRETE BLOCK MASONRY SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING: A. CONCRETE MASONRY SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C-90, GRADE - N. B. MORTAR: TYPE M OR S. C. GROUT ALL CELLS W/2000 PSI PORTLAND CEMENT GROUT. 3) THE ULTIMATE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH REQUIRED FOR FOUNDATION CONCRETE SHALL BE 2500 PSI. 4) ALL REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE INTERMEDIATE GRADE ASTM A615.40 AND OVERLAP SPLICES SHALL BE 40 BAR DIAMETERS MINIMUM. ALL REBAR HOOKS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 12 TIMES THE REBAR DIAMETER (12bd) IN LENGTH. 5) PROVIDE RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE SYSTEM AS FOLLOWS: PROVIDE 1 CF/FT OF CLEAN COARSE GRAVEL WITH 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC DRAINAGE PIPE WITH 1 % GRADIENT TO DRAIN - OR OMIT HEAD JOINTS IN FIRST COURSE. 6) OPTIONAL: INSTALLATION OF A MOISTURE BARRIER ON THE FILL SIDE OF THE WALL WILL HELP TO PREVENT MOISTURE FROM PENETRATING THE VISIBLE SIDE OF THE WALL, RESULTING IN DISCOLORATION. 7) THIS RETAINING WALL STANDARD IS NOT DESIGNED TO SUPPORT SURCHARGE LOADS FROM MOTOR VEHICLES OR OTHER STRUCTURES. 8) CLEANOUTS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL GROUT POURS OVER 5 FEET IN HEIGHT. WHERE REQUIRED, CLEANOUTS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE BOTTOM COURSE AT EVERY VERTICAL BAR AND SHALL BE SEALED AFTER INSPECTION AND BEFORE GROUTING. REQUIRED INSPECTIONS: 1) FOOTING; EXCAVATION TRENCH CLEAN WITH STEEL IN PLACE AND SUPPORTED 3" ABOVE AND AWAY FROM THE SURROUNDING EARTH/DIRT. 2) REBAR/PRE-GROUT AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM; BOND BEAM REBAR AND VERTICAL REBAR IN PLACE - INSPECTION PRIOR TO PLACING GROUT. DRAINAGE SYSTEM COMPLETE. 3) FINAL; AFTER GROUT IS PLACED AND BACKFILL COMPLETED - PRIOR TO ANY DECORATIVE CAP PLACEMENT. SETBACK FROM TOP OF SLOPE: DESIGN PARAMETERS: ALL FOOTINGS ADJACENT TO SLOPES TO BE AT ACTIVE SOIL PRESSURE (PSF) LEAST 5' TO DAYLIGHT AS SHOWN BELOW. LEVEL BACKFILL = 30 IIII= SLOPING (2:1 MAX) = 43 =IIII PASSIVE SOIL BEARING (PSF) = 150 COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION = 0.25 IIII=IIII= ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING PRESSURE (PSF) =1500 -IIII=IIII (NO INCREASES TAKEN FOR DEPTH OR WIDTH OF FOOTING) Ill1-1111c: j; / 2:1 MAX. SLOPE T7N0'\7J<- ..........IIIIIIII=5'BM OF FOOTING WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY CODE UNIFORMITY PROGRAM DISCLAIMER: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ALTERNATE RETAINING WALL DESIGNS MAY BUILDING DEPARTMENT BE POSSIBLE WHEN PROVIDED WITH AN ENGINEERED ANALYSIS. USE OF THIS :.j0 STANDARD DESIGN IS AT THE USERS RISK RETAINING WALLS AND CARRIES NO IMPLIED OR INFERRED GUARANTEE AGAINST FAILURE OR DEFECTS. (951) 955-1800 4080 LEMON ST, 9TH FL " P.O. Box 1 629 " RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 284-255 FAX (951) 955-1806 1 1 /08/ 17 RCLMNRCIWALLFNL.VSD PAGE 2 OF 2 7 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL: NOT TO SCALE -� PROPOSED RIPRAP WITH NO. 2 BACKING ROCK DETAIL: NOT TO SCALE unaergrouna --)ervlce Hlel Call: TOLL FREE 1-800 227-6000 TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG CONSTRUCTION RECORD Contractor Inspector Date Completed 4" ASPHALT PAVING 4" CLASS II BASE 12" COMPACTED GEOTECHNICALVRECOMMENDATIONS 2 4"ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVING DETAIL: NOT TO SCALE NOTE: DETAIL PER GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ND We put water in its place NDS 12" SQUARE TAPERED POLYPROPYLENE CATCH BASIN W/ U.V. INHIBITORS. _ THICKEN EDGE AT BASIN COMPACTED SOIL !IT Alllllll '-III=III_ 04 REBAR II li HORIZONTAL PLACE AT CENTER OF CONC. -, - POUR 3" CLR @ BTM. (TYP) =III= I I'-1 I I-IIII NDS, INC. 851 NORTH HARVARD AVE. LINDSAY, CA 93247 TOLL FREE: 1-800-726-1994 PHONE: (559) 562-9888 FAX: (559) 562-4488 www.ndspro.com NDS 18" SQUARE CAST IRON AND GALVANIZED STEEL GRATE. SECTION: 1/4" RECESS EXPANSION JOINT DRILL 1/8" WEEP HOLE LI TYPICAL OF 4 PLACES AT BTM CORNERS. M11 III— 111—IIII .I . {III III III III I I I1 3/4" GRAVEL BASE 4" TO 6" DEEP BELOW BASIN. TO PREVENT STANDING WATER NOTES: 1. GRATE TO BE ATTACHED TO CATCH BASIN WITH SCREW PROVIDED AT TIME OF INSTALLATION. 2. INSTALLATION TO BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 3. DO NOT SCALE DRAWING. 4. THIS DRAWING IS INTENDED FOR USE BY ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, CONTRACTORS, CONSULTANTS AND DESIGN PROFESSIONALS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. 5. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN WAS CURRENT AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT BUT MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PRODUCT MANUFACTURER TO BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE. ®NDS cJ PROPOSED CATCH BASIN �♦Pq 18" SQUARE CATCH BASIN TYPICAL INSTALLATION FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC APPLICATION LOAD CASE C KEY COMPONENT www.ndspro.com/s5 REVISION DATE 8-24-2015 3'- 0' 3" CONCRETE OR 3" 2500 AIR PLACED CONCRETE : W/ 6"X6" 1.4WX1.4W WELDED WIRE MESH 3 GUTTER DETAIL: NOT TO SCALE DATE BY REVISIONS DATE ACC'D BENCHMARK SCALE SEAL �o PROFESS/� Designed By Drawn By HORIZONTAL WILFREDO S.D. VENTURPLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF c� A� AS NOTED � No. 66532 � SEE SHEET 1 1 v ��"-1' Date 10/5/23 VERTICAL it Exp. 6-30-24 CIVIL WILFREDO VENTURA NA9TF QF �`\F�P R.C.E. N0. 66532 Expires 6/30/24 Checked By RECOMMENDED BY: rq D We put water in its place NDS 24" SQUARE TAPERED POLYPROPYLENE CATCH BASIN W/ U.V. INHIBITORS. THICKEN EDGE AT BASIN COMPACTED SOIL #4 REBAR HORIZONTAL PLACE AT CENTER OF CONC. POUR - 3" CLR © BTM. (TYP) NDS, INC. 851 NORTH HARVARD AVE. LINDSAY, CA 93247 ® TOLL FREE: 1-800-726-1994 PHONE: (559) 562-9888 FAX: (559) 562-4488 www.ndspro.com NDS 24" SQUARE CAST IRON F AND GALVANIZED STEEL GRATE. SECTION: 1/4" RECESS EXPANSION JOINT DRILL 1 /8" WEEP HOLE TYPICAL OF 4 PLACES AT BTM CORNERS. 3/4" GRAVEL BASE 4" TO 6" j DEEP BELOW BASIN. TO PREVENT STANDING WATER NOTES: 1. GRATE TO BE ATTACHED TO CATCH BASIN WITH SCREW PROVIDED AT TIME OF INSTALLATION. 2. INSTALLATION TO BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 3. DO NOT SCALE DRAWING. 4. THIS DRAWING IS INTENDED FOR USE BY ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, CONTRACTORS, CONSULTANTS AND DESIGN PROFESSIONALS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. 5. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN WAS CURRENT AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT BUT MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PRODUCT MANUFACTURER TO BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE. 4 PROPOSED CATCH BASIN 24" SQUARE CATCH BASIN - TYPICAL INSTALLATION FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC APPLICATIONS LOAD C KEY COMPONENT www.ndspro.com/s5 REVISION DATE 8-24-2015 NDS ROUND POLYOLEFIN GRATE WITH U.V. INHIBITORS OR APPROVED EQUAL I E TO DRAIN SLOPE TO DRAIN -11—III —III—H--COMPACTED SOIL - NDS #66 — 6" SEWER AND DRAIN — - = RISER PIPE (LENGTH AS REQUIRED) —III OR APPROVED EQUAL =, NDS #201 SPEE—D BASIN OR APPROVED EQUAL SEWER AND DRAIN PIPE N INVERT ELEVATION W Of CRUSHED STONE 6 NDS ROUND GRATE WITH NDS SPEE-D BASIN'N NOT TO SCALE NDS ROUND POLYOLEFIN GRATE 1A/ITLI I ), V. INHIBITORS PROVED EQUAL TO DRAIN ACTED SOIL 66 — 6" SEWER AND DRAIN PIPE (LENGTH AS REQUIRED) 'PROVED EQUAL 201 SPEE—D BASIN PROVED EQUAL R AND DRAIN PIPE F ELEVATION IED STONE 6 NDS ROUND GRATE WITH NDS SPEE-D BASIN �il'N vs NOT TO SCALE DATE: I CITY OF TEM EC U LA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ACCEPTED BY: DATE: PATRICK THOMAS, P.E. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER R.C.E. NO. 44223 TEMECULA ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ/BETTER BUZZ APN : 921-320-061 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN DETAILS 2 PA23-0026 PA23 0027 IDA,23 O00 DRAWING NO. CGP-- 6 SHEET 6 OF 7 EROSION CONTROL NOTES: A. IN CASE OF EMERGENCY, CALL _____________ (RESPONSIBLE PERSON) AT ------- (24—HOUR PHONE NUMBER). B. THE UNDERSIGNED CIVIL ENGINEER WILL REVIEW PLACEMENT OF EROSION CONTROL AND INSURE THAT WORK IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. WILFREDO S.D. VENTURA RCE. NO. 66532 EXP. DATE: 06-30-24 C. A STANDBY CREW FOR EMERGENCY WORK SHALL BE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES DURING THE RAINY SEASON, OCTOBER 15 THROUGH APRIL 15. NECESSARY MATERIALS SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON —SITE AND STOCKPILED AT CONVENIENT LOCATIONS TO FACILITATE RAPID CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY DEVICES OR TO REPAIR ANY DAMAGED EROSION CONTROL MEASURE WHEN RAIN IS IMMINENT. D. EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL NOT BE MOVED OR MODIFIED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY INSPECTOR/ ENGINEER. E. ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHOWN SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY WHEN THE FIVE (5) DAY RAIN PROBABILITY FORECAST EXCEEDS FORTY PERCENT (40%), F. AFTER A RAINSTORM, ALL SILT AND DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM CHECK BERMS AND DESILTING BASINS. ANY GRADED SLOPE SURFACE PROTECTION MEASURES DAMAGED DURING A RAINSTORM SHALL ALSO BE IMMEDIATELY REPAIRED. G. FILL SLOPES AT THE TRACT PERIMETER MUST DRAIN AWAY FROM THE TOP OF THE SLOPE AT THE CONCLUSION OF EACH WORKING DAY. H. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE AND HAVE POSTED ON THE SITE TO PREVENT PUBLIC TRESPASS INTO AREAS WHERE WATER IS IMPOUNDED WHENEVER THE DEPTH EXCEEDS TWO (2) FEET OR CREATES A HAZARDOUS CONDITION. BMP SOURCE NOTE: ALL BMPS LISTED BELOW ARE PER THE CASQA CONSTRUCTION BMP FACT SHEETS (2009 EDITION, OR LATEST) THAT CAN BE USED AS REFERENCES DURING CONSTRUCTION. BMPS ANNOTATED FOR USE ON THIS PROEJCT SITE ARE MARKED FOR USE BY THE INCLUSION OF THEIR BMP NUMBER BEING OUTLINED. EROSION CONTROL: EC-1 SCHEDULING EC-2 PRESERVATION OF EXISTING VEGETATION EC-3 HYDRAULIC MULCH EC-4 HYDROSEEDING EC-5 SOIL BINDERS EC-6 STRAW MULCH EC-7 GEOTEXTILES AND MATS EC-8 WOOD MULCH EC-9 EARTH DIKES AND DRAINAGE SWALES EC-10 VELOCITY DISSIPATION DEVICES EC-11 SLOPE DRAINS EC-12 STREAMBANK STABILIZATION EC-13 NOT USED EC-14 COMPOST BLANKET EC-15 SOIL PREPARATION AND ROUGHING EC-16 NON —VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION NON-STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: NS-1 WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES NS-2 DEWATERING OPERATIONS NS-3 PAVING AND GRINDING OPERATIONS NS-4 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING NS-5 CLEAR WATER DIVERSION NS-6 ILLICIT CONNECTION./DISCHARGE NS-7 POTABLE WATER/IRRIGATION NS-8 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT CLEANING NS-9 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT FUELING NS-10 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE NS-11 PILE DRIVING OPERATIONS NS-12 CONCRETE CURING NS-13 CONCRETE FINISHING NS-14 MATERIAL OVER WATER NS-15 DEMOLITION ADJACENT TO WATER NS-16 TEMPORARY BATCH PLANTS EQUIPMENT TRACKING CONTROL: TC7 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT FT —C— 271 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ROADWAY TC 33 ENTRANCE/OUTLET TIRE WASH WIND EROSION CONTROL: WE-1 WIND EROSION CONTROL naergrouna _-)ervlce Hle all: TOLL FREE 1-800 227-6000 TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG CONSTRUCTION RECORD Contractor Inspector Date Completed TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL: SE-1 SILT FENCE SE-2 SEDIMENT BASIN SE-3 SEDIMENT TRAP SE-4 CHECK DAMS SE-5 FIBER ROLLS SE-6 GRAVEL BAG BERM GR/ SE-7 STREET SWEEPING AND VACUUMING SANDBAG BARRIER SE-9 STRAW BALE BARRIER SE-10 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION SE-11 ACTIVE TREATMENT SYSTEMS SE-12 TEMPORARY SILT DIKE SE-13 COMPOST SOCKS AND BERMS SE-14 BIOFILTER BAGS WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MATERIAL POLLUTION CONTROL: COARSE AGGREGATE — 50' MIN. 8" MIN. PROFILE EXISTING GROUND 16' MIN TRAVELED WAY FILTER FABRIC IIII! AMaIowiWA O i NOTE: CONSTRUCT SEDIMENT BARRIER AND CHANNELIZE RUNOFF TO SEDIMENT TRAPPING DEVICE TC-1 STABALIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND CONSTRUCTION ROADWAY: AU I S A5 5F'ILLWAY NOT TO SCALE WITH ENDS OVERLAPPED 3 SE-6 GRAVEL BAGS BERM: NOT TO SCALE WM-1 MATERIAL DELIVERY AND STORAGE WM-2 MATERIAL USE WM-3 STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT WM-4 SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL WM-5 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT WM-6 HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT WM-7 CONTAMINATED SOIL MANAGEMENT II WM-8 CONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT (((((I I WM-9 SANITARY/SEPTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT ( FILTER FABRIC WM-1 LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT j =III=III=III= I=1 i'- =1 I I —III —III —I I 1. SET POSTS AND EXCAVATE A 6 INCH BY 6 INCH TRENCH UPSLOPE FROM AND ALONG THE LINE OF POSTS. 6„ 2. STAPLE THE FILTER FABRIC TO THE FENCE. 2' MIN. 3' MAX. 3. EXTEND THE FILTER FABRIC 4. BACKFILL AND COMPACT INTO THE 6" x 6" TRENCH. THE EXCAVATED SOIL. 2 SE-1 SILT FENCE: NOT TO SCALE THE SILT FENCE SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY A WIRE MESH IF THE FILTER FABRIC DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT STRENGTH AND BURSTING STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS (AS RECOMMENDED BY THE FABRIC MANUFACTURER) DATE I BY REVISIONS I DATE I ACC'DI BENCHMARK I SCALE ISEAL HORIZONTAL SEE SHEET 1 AS NOTED S.D. No. 66532 Exp. 6-30-24 CIVIL Designed By Drawn By PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF Date 10/5/23 WILFREDO VENTURA R.C.E. N0. 66532 Expires 6/30/24 Checked By RECOMMENDED BY: NOT A PART DATE: I CITY OF TEM EC U LA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ACCEPTED BY: SATE: PATRICK THOMAS, P.E. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER R.C.E. NO. 44223 TEMECULA ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ/BETTER BUZZ APN : 921-320-061 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN EROSION CONTROL PLAN PA23-0026 PA23 0027 PA23 0030 DRAWING NO. CGP-7 SHEET 7 OF 7 PLANTING SPECIFIC NOTES PLANT QUALITY REQUIREMENTS All plant materials shall be full vigorous & healthy nursery stock - including the top of plant and the root system. All plant materials shall meet the current American Standard For Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60,1-2004) the Landscape Architect must be contacted regarding all plant materials as they arrive on -site, prior to their installation. The plant material supplier and/or landscape contractor shall provide guaranteed evidence to the landscape inspector that all plant material is consistent with the approved plant legend considering genus, species, cultivars, and size specified- All plant material not consistent with the plant legend may be rejected. The Landscape Architect shall approve plant materials for installation on -site or shall be sent representative photographs of same. The Landscape Architect reserves the right to reject unacceptable plant materials. UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS FOR PLANTS IN GENERAL: Plant materials that are the incorrect species. Plants materials with apparent fungal disease (mildew, rust, black -spot, etc.). Plants that are defoliated due to stress or disease. Foliage that is chlorotic, wind or frost burned, or in any other way damaged. UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS FOR ROOT SYSTEMS: Plants with exposed roots, girdled roots, overgrown or undersized roof systems will be considered unacceptable. TREE SELECTION: Trees are required to stand on their own without the support of the nursery stake. Trees must also be free of disease, infestations, signs of heavy pruning within the canopy, broken primary limbs or leaders, and damage. New trees planted within the project area are to be installed per the detail below- The tree pit is to be excavated to measure 3 x root ball at the finish grade surface and be tapered to root ball width at pit bottom. Do not fiver -excavate the tree pit depth. After tree placement the tree pit is to be backfilled with clean native soil only. Trees are to be triple stake as shown on details. ROOT BARRIER: Use Lineal Root Barrier when tree is within 5' min. distance adjacent to hardscape areas. Root Barriers shall be installed in sheets parallel with hardscape w/ top edge placed 1" below grade. Root Barrier shall extend the expected length of tree canopy as shown per plan. barriers shall be placed at a slight angle (75'y with base of barrier directed under hardscape & away from tree. SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN: When mass grading is complete, landscape contractor shall submit soils samples to a laboratory for analysis and recommendations. Results shall be provided to landscape architect for certificate of compliance. Laboratory procedures shall account for adequate depth for the intended plants. `LOW STACK = LOIN i i + r ► i i + + N38`51'26"W 2&00' 26"w 0, PLANTING LEGEND Height 04 Symbol Botanical / Common Name Container Water Use Width 7 Callistemon'Little John' } gallon Low 3' ' Dwarf Bottlebrush 3-5' 5 5-,-0„ Hesperaloe parviflora 5 gallon Low 2-3 Red Yucca 2-3' Lantana samara 'Gold Mound' 1 gallon Low 2-3' Gold Mound Lantana 3-4' 02-71 02-07 E— 01 TYP- E r1GROAC,I Il PERMIT REC FOR 1NORK i-.O.W. E-03 i 12'-0,, • , • , IND16ATE5 f'ARGEL GRAN C_ITr' OF TEMEGULA, PER • . • i DEED RECIP, 4/11/03, 1 n ' • r , ' 1 ' •`�+' NST. No. 2003-25aclbl ip bp i ' 1 ' ► 1 + J .0' 57'-0" E-11 55'—D" Y Myoporum parvifolium'Pink' 1 gallon Low 1' Pink Australian Racer 4 ft o.c. 6' 4 0 o Rosmarinus officinalis Prostratus 1 gallon Low 1-2' Creeping Rosemary 3 ft o.c. 2-3' 4 Lagerstroemia 'Natchez' 24' Box Moderate 25' Natchez Crape Myrtle Standard 15-25' Distictis buccinatoria 5 gallon Moderate Trailing Scarlet Trumpet Vine Attached to wall -mounted trellis Existing plant material along frontage and entrance drive to be protected in place. Contractor to replace any plant material adjacent to new ADA ramp that may be disturbed during construction and verify proper and continuous operation of existing irrigation system. ° Existing trees and plant material to protect in place- Limited Use Area: No trees or plant material over 30" of mature height in this area All planters to receive 3" later shredded bark mulch. Utility Note: Trees and shrubs shall be placed a minimum of 5' away from water meter, gas meter, or sewer laterals; a minimum of 10' away from utility poles; and a minimum of 8' away from fire hydrants and fire department sprinkler and standpipe connections. Irrigation Specific Design Note: Drip to be used wherever possible. No overhead irrigation allowed within 24" of a non -permeable surface. PRELIMINARY WATER USE CALCULATIONS Reference Eto (sta.44] 56.7 Conservation Factor 0.4S Maximum Allowable Water Allocation Equation: Inon-residential) MAWA = (E-To) (0.62) [(ETAF x LA) + ((1-ETAF)xSLA)1 Eto 0.62 ETAF LA 1-ETAF SLA 56.7 0.62 0.45 15280 0.55 Q Estimated Total Water Use Equation: ETWU = Eto x 0.62 x ETAF x LA HYDROZONE MATRIX Z41,719 MAWA 198,946 ETWU ZONE HYDROZONE BASIS S.F. %TOTAL PLANT TYPE PLANT FACTOR IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY Eto 0.62 ETAF LA ETWU IRRIGATION METHOD LOW SHRUBS 14808 97% LOW 0.30 0.81 56.70 0.62 0.37 14808 192,800 Dripline LOW/MOD. SHRUBS 1 392 3%6 1 LOW 0.30 0.81 56.70 0.62 0.37 392 5,104 Dripline MODERATE TREES 80 1%6 LOW 0.30 1 0.81 1 56.70 0.62 1 0.37 80 1,042 Dripline TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 15280 ETWU: 198,946 LANDSCAPE TO BE INSTALLED WITH LOW -VOLUME IRRIGATION AND AUTOMATIC WEATHER -SENSING IRRIGATION CONTROLLER APN# 921-360-061 - PA23-0030 0' 20' 40' Ecosystem C LES � o s1 LandscapeDynamics. net Landscape Dynamics URBAN I ECOSYSTEM I SOLUTIONS Londsmpe Architectue - Consul ling wafer Management - Certhea Arbariculture 1951) 264-4839 DESIGN PROJECT MANAGER Greg ZolI gregzoll@landscapedynamics.net (951 )264.4839 W m CC io .7 w CU 0 0 L M . _ E L r r CN M Ong S id DI DIAL TOLL FREE 1-800-227-2600 AT LEAST THREE DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NIA S Cgp,6- 1 Pai", �y-, oaS VG' g 5204 joy �' _ -i agxii 30. 2024 Ror.. dl Ud7a ]} Noy, 1- V qTF of CA`\F��� c+� ca E co Ca a_ N E O Nov. 1, 2023 N 0 co DESCRIPTION JOB NO. 559 C 4 0 i CV 0 SHEET r 1 of 1 Qi 0 ca 0 ~i n VERCO PLB-?' DECK (2) BACK TO 8005162 -q 1 c 4" STD. PIPE WELDED GAP TYP. 5/4" #10 STAr 13 SA. EXPAN METAL PANEL I"xl"xl/4" AN6 FRAME w/ 3/,, INTERMEDIATE GORRU6ATE D METAL PANELS, TYP. VERGO PLB-36 METAL DECK _SLOPE " 8005162-q1 CHANNEL 3/4" #10 STANDARD A.F.F. 13 6A. EXPANDED +('_2" METAL PANELS o/ "xl"x1/4" ANGLE A.F.F. FRAME w/ 3/4" INTERMEDIATE TUBE 1/8" EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, ELA5TOMERIG TOP GOAT, o/ GMU BLOCK, PAINTED 6" STD. PIPE w/ WELDED GAP 5HERWIN WILLIAMS - 5W1042 "SHOJI WHITE" +0' -0" F. F. WEST ELEVATION (2) BACK TO BACK VERGO PLB-36 8005162-q1 CHANNEL METAL DECK 3/4" #10 STANDARD 13 6A. EXPANDED METAL PANELS o/ I"xl"x1/4" ANGLE A.F.F. FRAME w/ 3/4" INTERMEDIATE TUBE +31 411 1/8" EXT. CEMENT :. - - PLASTER, ELA5TOMERIG A.F.F. TOP GOAT, o/ GMU BLOCK, PAINTED 5HERWIN WILLIAMS - SW1042 "SHOJI WHITE" +D'-0" �. F. F. NORTH ELEVATION VERGO PLB-36 METAL DECK 8005162-q1 CHANNEL - 3/4" #10 STANDARD 13 6A. EXPANDED METAL PANELS o/ I"xl"xl/4" ANGLE FRAME w/ 3/4" INTERMEDIATE TUBE, TYP. 4" STD. PIPE w/ WELDED GAP, TYP. EAST ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES SLOPE 3/4' 0 _ 1/8" CEMENT PLASTER o/ 8"x8"xlb" GMU, SOLID GROUT #5 HORIZ. @ 24" O.G. CENTERED iv cA ' #5 VERT. @ 24" O.G. CENTERED `9 IN GMU (MIN. 24" b" CURB w/ # 4 GONT. OVERLAP w/ EXPANSION DOWEL) JOINT d #5 VERT. @ 24" SEALANT O.G. (61Ix33" #4 @ 12" O.G. DOWEL) EA. WAY T 2'-0" DIA, x 5'-G" DEEP CAISSON .9 .° FOOTING w/ (8) FOOTING - °. #6 VERT. t #4 DEPTH ° a ° TIES @ 10" O.C., (PER PLAN) / SEE DETAIL "D", - TYP. REINFORCEMENT m V PER PLAN FOOTING W I DTP (PER PLAN) A CMU WALL SECTION SCALE: I/2"= I-O" USE SINFY.�GN S6C6.25 CLIP - CHANNE-g7 WALL AROUND $ GH AN N E L VERGO PLB-36 TRIA :,ULAR HOLES FILLED, METAL DECKING' @ EAGHAI`WEL END OVERHANG _ 2" TYP. 12" @ FRONT CHANNEL TO 3 a VARIES --+(<CAP PLATE q G T F A.F.F. 8�.,162-q1 3"X3"X4" TUBE CHANNEL STEEL COLUMN BEYOND w/ 3" SQ. x 3/8" THICK GAP PLATE 3/4" #10 STANDARD co + 6' -oil 13 SA EXPANDED ' METAL PANELS 0/ `T A. F. F. I" A "XI/4" ANGLE FRAME " 3/4" I NTERMEDI ATE TUBE 7 /8 CEMENT (A5 NEC�ARY) PLASTER o/ , 8"x8"xl(o" GMU, SOLID GROUT B ROOF WALL SECTION SCALE: I-I/2"= I-O" +6' - 2" OIL A.F.F. iv 1/8" EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, ELA5TOMERIC TOP GOAT, 0/ GMU _ BLOCK, PAINTED 5HERWIN N WILLIAMS - 5W1042 "SHOJI WHITE" co cv +0' -0" OL F. F, REFUSE CONTAINER ENCLOSURE NOTES: REFUSE CONTAINER ENCLOSURE APRON NOTES: I. MA50NRY EN61L05URE WALLS SHALL BE FULLY GROUTED. I. ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE 6LA55 3, PRE -MIXED. 28-DAY 2. ALL MA50NRY SHALL COMPLY w/ CURRENT EDITION OF THE CBG. 6OMPRE551VE STRENGTH = 2,500 P51 MIN. 3. SLAB FLOOR 8 FOOTING CONCRETE SHALL BE GLA55 3, 2. REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE A5TM Alb 15 GRADE 60 MIN. PRE -MIXED. 28-DAY GOMPRE551VE STRENGTH = 2,500 P51 MIN. DEFORMED STEEL AND SHALL BE GLEAN OF DIRT AND RUST 4. MASONRY DESIGN 15 BASED ON MIN. GOMPRE551VE STRENGTH OF BEFORE PLACEMENT. Pm = 1,500 PSI. 3. REINFORCING BARS SHALL HAVE A MIN. OF 3" OF CLEAR 5. REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE A5TM A615 GRADE 60 DEFORMED COVERAGE FROM THE COMPACTED EARTH AND 2" FROM FIN15H STEEL 8 SHALL BE GLEAN OF DIRT AND RUST BEFORE PLACEMENT. GRADE. 6. GROUT SHALL CONFIRM TO THE REQUIREMENT5 OF A5TM C416 AND 4. ALL REFUSE CONTAINER ENGL05URE SHALL HAVE A CONCRETE ATTAIN A 28-DAY 5TRENGTH OF 2,000 P51. ADMIXTURES FOR APRON. GROUT MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. FIELD ADDITION 5. CONCRETE PAD SHALL BE PLACED ON M015T AND COMPACTED OF ADMIXTURES 15 NOT PERMITTED IN SELF -CONSOLIDATING BASE MATERIALS. q5% RELATIVE COMPACTION. GROUT. 6. STEEL PIPE LOCATION IN CONCRETE PAD SHALL BE DETERMINED 1. GROUT STOP SHALL GON515T OF METAL OR PLASTIC LATH BY CANE BOLT LOCATION ON GATE, SEE REFUSE CONTAINER APPROVED BY THE MANUF. TO CREATE A BARRIER THAT STOPS EN61_05URE GATE DETAILS STANDARD DRAWING. THE FLOW OF GROUT WHEN FILLING BLOCK 6ELL5. 8. REFUSE CONTAINER ENCLOSURE SHALL BE LOCATED A MIN. OF REFUSE CONTAINER GATE NOTES: 5'-0" FROM ANY BUILDING WALL LINE. OTHERN15E ENCL05URE I. 6ATE5 TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH BUILDING AG( ENT FEATURES. MUST COMPLY w/ STRICTER REQUIREMENT5 PER THE IFG. 2. DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION NOT SPECIFICALLY q. ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL JOINTS SHALL HAVE A CONCAVE NOTED SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AG( EPTED INDUSTRY FIN15H JOINT. STANDARDS AND OF FIRST QUALITY. 10. GROUND SHALL BE SLOPED AWAY FROM ENGL05URE WALL5. 3. CONCRETE APRON SHALL INCLUDE TWO 3/4" STEEL PIPES SET 11. REFUSE CONTAINER SHALL HAVE 50LID FACE GATES. FLUSH WITH THE CONCRETE FOR EACH GATE DOOR, BASED ON 12. LOCATION OF REFUSE CONTAINER ENGL05URE SHALL BE LOCATION OF CANE BOLTS ON GATE, TO SECURE THE GATE IN THE APPROVED BY THE CITY SOLID WASTE DIVISION. OPEN OR CLOSED POSITION. 13. ALL REFUSE CONTAINER EN( LO5URE5 SHALL HAVE A CONCRETE 4. GATE P05T SHALL ABUT REFUSE CONTAINER ENCLOSURE. APRON PER REFUSE CONTAINER ENGL05URE CONCRETE APRON 5. SUBMIT DETAILS OF REFUSE CONTAINER ENCL05URE5 AND/OR DETAIL STANDARD DRAWING. REFUSE CONTAINERS REQUIRED TO BE ACCE551BLE UNDER THE 14. SUBMIT DETAILS OF REFUSE CONTAINER ENCLOSURES AND/OR CURRENT GBG., OR MODIFY TH15 DETAIL A5 NECESSARY FOR REFUSE CONTAINERS REQUIRED TO BE ACCESSIBLE UNDER THE REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. CURRENT G.B.G., OR MODIFY TH15 DETAIL AS NE( E55ARY FOR REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. 15. WHERE REQUIRED, PROVIDE ACCE551BLE TRASH CONTAINERS MEETING THE ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENT5 UNDER THE CURRENT GBG. COORDINATE w/ 50LID WASTE DIV15ION FOR SERVICEABILITY. Ib. CONTRACTOR SUBMITTALS SHALL CONFORM TO ARTICLE 1.5 OF TM5 602/AGI 530.1/A5CE 6. 11. QUALITY A55URANGE SHALL CONFORM TO LEVEL 'B' QUALITY A55URANGE PER ARTICLE lb OF TM5 602/AGI 530.1/A56E 6. PERIODIC SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIRED. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE CITY FOR INSPECTIONS. 1/4 1/2"(P x G" EMBEDMENT F1554 GR. 36 HEAVY PEX HEAD ANCHOR BOLTS 3"x3"xl/4" TUBE STEEL COLUMN - CENTERED ON STEEL PLATE 8"x8"x3/8" STEEL PLATE 2" 2" 2" 2" CMU WALL BELOW (GONG. 8„ CURB @ SIM. CONDITION) C COLUMN DETAIL SCALE: I -1/2" =1-O" COLUMN/POST, PER PLAN �9 Q • °. ° (4) 1/2" DIA. x 2.5" T NELSON STUDS @ TOP, MID, 8 BTM. OF COLUMN I (3) ADD'L EMBEDMENT, TYP. I r I TRANS. @ z TOP W I� �I � -j 2'-0" DIA. x 5'-b" DEEP CAISSON z w FOOTING w/ (5) #5 r ~p 0- VERT. 1 #3 TIES @ O 10" O.G., TYP. LL 3" CLR. TYP. V41 DTH PER PLAN D �Tr_ LE: VERCO PLB-" ^^�T^' DECKING (2) BACK TC 8005162-q7 C 3/4" #10 STA GA. EXPANDE PANELS o/ 1" ANGLE FRAM 2" ANGLE IRc TYP. 6" DIA. PIPE BOLLARD, 7 20 GA. CORR METAL, TYP, PAINT FINISH TO BE SELE( ARCP I T ECT. 6" STD. PIPE WELDED CAP 4x4x1/2(P5 BOLT IN 5/8' STEEL PIPE WELDED TO STD. PIPE Cc TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAILS 4' - 0" 2'-0" DIA. x 7'-0" DEEP CAISSON FOOTING w/ (8) #6 VERT. 4 #4 TIES @ 10" O.C. C� P�� Dr '(o / ORGA A G �- 4 ^ z('11 P.C.C. SLAB TYP. FLOOR w/ #4 E.W. @ IS" O.C. o/ COMPACTED NATIVE O co G RELY E BI N 1TRASH BI N WASTE BIN 8l, 1 8CX�5162-q1 8005162-q1 6" P.G.G. SLAB FLOOR w/ #4 N E.W. @ 12" O.G. . o/ COMPACTED NATIVE - • 81005162-q1 8005162-q1 8005162-q1 CHANNEL W CONNECTOR SPACING 8 SPOT WELDS @ 12" O.G. - USE 51MP50N 55G6.25 CLIP w/ ALL ROUND d TRIANGULAR HOLES FILLED, TYP. @ EA. CHANNEL END zo (2) BACK TO BACK 8005162-q7 CHANNEL w/ SPOT WELDS @ 12" O.C. - USE SIMPSON 55C6.25 CLIP w/ ALL ROUND 4 TRIANGULAR POLES FILLED, TYP. @ EA. CHANNEL END Iq'-4" PLAN VIEW SCALE: 1/2"=l'-O" 1 5' - 4 " (SEE TRANP ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFO) A )TYP TYP. (o" DIA. GONG. FILLED PIPE BOLLARD, TYP. 2'-0" DIA, x DEEP CAISSON 1 FOOTING w/ (8) #6 VERT. * #4 TIES @ 10" O.C. O i N 1 (2) BACK TO BACK 800S162-q7 CHANNEL w/ SPOT WELDS @ 12" O.G. - USE SIMPSON SSC(o.25 CLIP w/ ALL ROUND t TRIANGULAR POLES FILLED, TYP. @ EA. CHANNEL END 8005162 - q7 CHANNEL `1� TYP. SIM. 7/5" EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, ELASTOMERIC TOP COAT, 0/ GNU BLOCK, PAINTED 5HERWIN WILLIAMS - SW7042 "SPOJI WPITE" C TYP. SIM. 3'-3" WIDE x 1'-6" DEEP CONT. WALL FOOTING w/ (4) #5 LONG TOP 4 BOTTOM, $ #5 @ 18" O.C. TRANS. TOP 4 BOTTOM +7'-q" OL A.F.F. +(o'-2" A.F.F. T.O. CMU +0'-0" F. F. SCALE: VARIES z O U) w w Q 0 X ® ® 0 ❑ 2- N N LO 5 C N_ cu L-!2, 2.�. U O _ 5 �Q "c� O= U'nn O >, O.0 Q c0 O . n� m . 7 O n • V bJJ �vO � SON � U H 4M N O ��•� u V t U c� U U 4-4 u� �- U +� 4, � c� 0 � N O U L w i-i ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ LLJ OORT O Q z >00 Q o v z ll) lil N ll1 J V 380-6 �� z J/ 1 * ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ TEMECULA RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. & YNES RD. TEMECULA, CA 92591 V1 w 1 Q W w V1 Q W _j u v co z z O - w �0 a O � V1 W ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ISSUE DATE: 8-q-22 REV. DATE: PROJECT NO.: 21035 DRAWN BY: NIL SHEET: a- E D C B A 57--1" 00 11'-411 20'-01' 16'-8" 81-7" 41-011 6'-5" 1 6' 6'-6" Ilk 18X42 18X42 18X42 i J �I 2'-6" 3' -4" 14'-3" L -] 6--5" FLOOR PLAN -1,727 SQ. FT. (1,741 S.F. GROSS +i o 0 iD 24 INTERIOR SEATS scnLe: va°= r o° REVISIONS FLOOR PLAN D E LTA DATE H M RARCHTECTS ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING � Better Buzz Coffee Roasters November 20, 2023 HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL &UNPUBLISHED BetterWORK OF HMR ARCHITECTS AND MAY NOT BE ■ Buzz DRAWN BY: 2130 21st Street DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT Temecula Town Center, Rancho California Road cc WRITTEN CONSENT OF HMR ARCHITECTS COFFEE ROASTERS CHECKED BY: T 916 736 224 Sacramento, 7A 9 724 Temecula, California sP PROJECT N0. A3 22090 It ROOF / ` \ � AFIRE RISER CCESS \ . ° ELECTRICAL SERVICE LADDER O \ JD - I ENTRANCE \ / 6 uER \ I/ I 0°(ERS .00 00 18 18 � / R y�T R04M- — LI 18 48 48 48 \ / I\� 1 °\00 �F EEZER COOLER O \ \F t=z=-_1_ 60 il 18 18 18 ' 48 48 , 48 w 5'-6" \ \RESTkOO/�'I r- 0" I \ o; I I I I \ � 1 L JI O \ 1\ co PREP AREA / o r- — — ELEC O 1g �� 18 �� 18 �� 18 �� 18 �� 48 ' 48 ' 48 ' 48 ' 48 — 5' � � 1 —ELEC HALL I I II ELEC b---- I 1 L- J 00 - - -—KITCHEN J 5'-2" lo 0 I ol I — — — II I 1k 4'-0" lk �— _� I o 0 L. ° II I I I II 5'-0" I I I I 13'-3" SALES �i � I I I I I 4'-1" Ilk 0 3 1-011 14 1- 2" El (o Ln 0 0 ol 6'-6„ H 0 c H 3 c H O° 1 1 00 o c o c o c 0 c 0 00 c H 4'-4" H C H H 0 O H 0 D DINING ROOM H E] 0 H H E EO EO H mp H H mp H m ELI H EE H H EEL ____p UL I NORTH FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 11A"=I'4 z 0 L w of w Q X o ,1)2 O 70 U) 0 _ N 0 0 0 O N 0 U O Q O cco O Co 'N H o 'En s >, cn o -2 O `m L/U��1� U)_0 0- L L O m� O- V H @ Q .O bA 4�VO � U Lr) i. 4-J U u Ln u ct u � w w * b/tip L) \��GT �F OORT O Q z G�� co����i, 0) > ZN Qr 00 ov w C14 TEMECULA RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. & YNES RD. TEMECULA, CA 92591 1 LL 0 0 W(D cn Z O Q �— J O — Z Q O O L.L ISSUE DATE: 8-91-22 REV. DATE: PROJECT NO.: 21035 DRAWN BY: NL SHEET: MATERIAL / COLOR LEGEND F C.1 B A F � i T.O. PARAPET +21'-6" A. ;.F, B.O. CANOPY/T.O. STOREFRONT +10'-0" A. �.F T.O. RAILING 3A" A.F.F. �. TO. FLOOR FINISH —�0'-0" A.F.F. SOUTHWEST ELEVATION (SIDE FACING DRIVE-THRU I 2 2.9 6 NORTHWEST ELEVATION - MAIN ENTRY WITH PATIO (FACING PARKING H M RARCHITECTS ■ ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING ■ HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL & UNPUBLISHED ■ WORK OF H M R ARCHITECTS AND MAY NOT BE 2130 2Ist S-ree# DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT 5vcromento. CA 95818 WRITTEN CONSENT OF H MR ARCHITECTS T 916 73b 2724 Better Buzz° COFFEE ROASTERS Better Buzz Coffee Roasters Temecula Town Center, Rancho California Road Temecula, California T.Q. PARAPET ;21`4A.F.F T.0, PARAPET +19'-C" A. F. F T.D. PARAPET +12' 0" A. F.F. T.O. WAINSCOT +4V' A. F.F.16' SCALE: 1/4" = V-0' SCALE: 1/4" = V-0I REVISIONS D E LTA TAG i MATERIAL MANUFACTURER I COLOR / STYLE HEXAGONS - MATCH SW 9C60 1 ALUMINUM POWDER COATED CORNER'S LAKEFRONT HEXAGONS - 2 POWDER COATED MATCH SW 6990 CAVIAR ALUMINUM PAINTED EXTERIOR 3 STUCCO CEMENT, SHERWIN WILLIAMS "EXTRA WHITE" SW7006 FINE SAND FINISH PAINTED EXTERIOR 4 STUCCO CEMENT, SHERWIN WILLIAMS "CAVIAR" SW6990 FINE SAND FINISH 5 POWDERCOATE❑ QPC ALUMINUM SHEET ALUMINUM POWDERCOATINGS TEXTURE: LICHTEP MAPLE KAWNEER TR#FAB 6 ALUMINUM VERSAGLAZE 451T BLACK ANODIZED STOREFRONT SYSTEM (THERMALLY BROKEN) ALUMINUM & INSULATED GLAZING TUBE STEEL RAILING SHERWIN WILLIAMS COLOR: SW 6990 CAVIAR WITH AIRPLANE CABLE PAINTS (MATTE BLACK PAINT) 8 PAINTED PARAPET CAP GALVANIZED SHEET METAL ALUMINUM KAWNEER 350 9 STOREFRONT ENTRY MEDIUM STILE WITH DOORS' INSULATED GLAZING POWDERCOATE❑ 10 I HOLLOW METAL DOOR I SHERWIN VVILUAMS PAINTS METAL CANOPY WITH 11 ALUMINUM WOOD & ROD/TURNBUCKLE 12 I METAL REVEAL QPC POWDER COATI N G FRY REGLET SW 6990 CAVIAR POWDER COATED AXALTA 'SUN GOLD' EFD400M9 SW 6990 CAVIAR SW 6990 CAVIAR AND LIGHTER MAPLE BLACK 13 SP READY I ACCESS OR I DARK BRONZE I WINDOW &HELF QUIKSERV I 14 1 ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT I VARIES CEMENTITOUS NICHlHA - 15 WOOD -LOOK PANELS VINTAGEWOOD HUNG VERTICALLY 1$" x 10, DATE iI)RAWN BY; i cc SP SHOWN AS SCREENED DASHED LINE- FULLY SCREENED BV PARAPET FINISH SPRUCE INSTALLED AS RAINSCREEN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS November 20, 2023 A201 22090 MATERIAL / COLOR LEGEND TAG I MATERIAL MANUFACTURER I COLOR / STYLE A TB C D E F NORTHEAST ELEVATION (DRIVE -THROUGH PICK-UP - FACING ADJACENT RESTAURANT DRIVE -THROUGH 6 5 4 3.2 3 2 1 � I � T.O. PARAPET +21'-6" A.F.F. T.O. PARAPET +19'-0" A.F.F. T.O. PARAPET 12'-0" A.F.F. T.O. FLOOR FINISH 0'-0" A.F.F. SOUTHEAST ELEVATION (FACING RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD H M RARCHTECTS ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL & UNPUBLISHED WORK OF HMR ARCHITECTS AND MAY NOT BE 2130 21 s t Street DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT Sacramento, CA 95818 WRITTEN CONSENT OF HMR ARCHITECTS T 916 736 2724 Better Buzz@ COFFEE ROASTERS Better Buzz Coffee Roasters Temecula Town Center, Rancho California Road Temecula, California 'ARAPET 0" A.F.F. EFRONT 0" A.F.F. T.O. PARAPET +21'-6" A.F.F. T.O. PARAPET +19'-0" A.F.F. DPY/T.O. STOREFRONT +10'-0" A.F.F. SCALE: 1/4" = V-0' SCALE: 1/4" = V-0I REVISIONS D E LTA HEXAGONS - MATCH SW 9060 1 ALUMINUM POWDER COATED CORNER'S LAKEFRONT HEXAGONS - 2 ALUMINUM POWDER COATED MATCH SW 6990 CAVIAR PAINTED EXTERIOR 3 STUCCO CEMENT, SHERWIN WILLIAMS "EXTRA WHITE" SW7006 FINE SAND FINISH PAINTED EXTERIOR 4 STUCCO CEMENT, SHERWIN WILLIAMS "CAVIAR" SW6990 FINE SAND FINISH 5 POWDERCOATED QPC ALUMINUM SHEET ALUMINUM POWDERCOATINGS TEXTURE: LIGHTER MAPLE KAWNEER TRIFAB 6 ALUMINUM VERSAGLAZE 451T BLACK ANODIZED STOREFRONT SYSTEM (THERMALLY BROKEN) ALUMINUM & INSULATED GLAZING TUBE STEEL RAILING SHERWIN WILLIAMS COLOR: SW 6990 CAVIAR 7 WITH AIRPLANE CABLE PAINTS (MATTE BLACK PAINT) 8 PAINTED PARAPET CAP I GALVANIZED SHEET METAL ALUMINUM 9 STOREFRONT ENTRY DOORS, POWDERCOATED KAWNEER 350 MEDIUM STILE WITH INSULATED GLAZING 10 HOLLOW METAL DOOR I SHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINTS METAL CANOPY WITH 11 ALUMINUM WOOD & QPC POWDER ROD/TURNBUCKLE COATING SW 6990 CAVIAR POWDER COATED AXALTA 'SUN GOLD' EFD400M9 SW 6990 CAVIAR SW 6990 CAVIAR AND LIGHTER MAPLE 12 METAL REVEAL FRY REGLET BLACK 13 DRIVE-THRU PICK UP READY ACCESS OR DARK BRONZE WINDOW & SHELF QUIKSERV 14 1 ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT I VARIES CEMENTITOUS NICHIHA - 15 WOOD -LOOK PANELS VINTAGEWOOD HUNG VERTICALLY 18" X 10, DATE SHOWN AS SCREENED DASHED LINE - FULLY SCREENED BY PARAPET FINISH: SPRUCE INSTALLED AS RAINSCREEN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS INovember 20, 2023 DRAWN BY: cc CHECKED BY: SP PROJECT NO. A202 22090 Ir BUZZ THRU Apr r i Ap a Vie I w I � � - ; 1 .1 rq .. F t l Bettw zz F()FFC E A0AST� f 4 _j, 0��x Buz..2T� ML 4.1' "i 4L L A AL jor pp 4r F 9116 31% -A Wo Or XL A L IL BEL 41, F mb im ob As F? JA � � ,\� � % � � ��� /\���\ j/� ��� '. 1�,Vj E ���} , Ah I Of L l6k. j Boo r ' 7 +M y r4 ASTEaS � A _ 44`I _ ` + �y, S� _ i Y ! .± _ • qw — � "L lk . ` 1 � �� r AbwE -ti st,,� f r 7 ' I •- i �I}n 'd L rF , F r dow .F - - Mft a Better Buzz COFFEE ROASTERS iF$ — ILI Ps - oil 4 �i4M�i� AW ,qo - 4wc- -moo � �-•�ii -- 61MEME116- IL ;7-klmt P— A- 40 ft Ir N LW-L pr 0 4wppq;� �7q t ■r— N t Y z Ito + 4 71 + � • ' - - a ' ' ' _ � ' �• — _ + - v , + fir. -- _ •- - L'_ ,', `1 ' -- _ � _ t � i- �� � +' a�= - - +r`� _may-# - a ti � �t`$rtia., �r 3. -h��� - '+ _' - �y _ -- L•'+�. - i ■�:ryl Yy - t•ti- " - z•_; .�: .,�rG�� Jr::l.,'-��1��Yr� -. .� _ . .,. .r...l.'I�f.�r.r. �3�.1 .�:.�.. 1 - _ _ - - I.F �. -. �.F� .::�.■I��hi-:+�.�s. •. �".��'_ .-.� ■� �'__ 'F_ r. = ...'.�i r. �� ati�''.rlwkJl: stir .. �.ti•,. .���.��1.:� ". I'* - - �- •, _ _ - �• iN . ..tiii..�.- 4 . 1111111 tiny ti IL vojpp-- TO, amp h- � � � . �� \ ,� ��� .k� \ �� \/z . / Z IL�� �� //� � ��� �%�\|'\/���)�\�, �'�� / OFFEE F A I I Polami H A��j ��\� } \ �/!•� IV% III t4 I : ft R c "ILI MMMM=Mkftw 00 IF -RIP will — lb e'r IL qL IL W, : poat ilo- '� �El' • L 17 F.. I' a or- d. L • LL ME&7 - - ti'11 A FO mppr A.: dr MINIM, L 4 lw� P Fr r, M1,,y • 5�r ti f - f_ NTT �f � 1• 7 Befter Rizz COFFEE FIOASTER 9 lq§' a 1 t ++ r! 1 —TAWIRV 5I 1 • i ' SIGNAGE UNDER — SEPARATE REVIEW t PERMIT T.O. +25'-0" PARAPET A.F.F. ©■m MECN. UNIT BEYOND, TYP. ©■m +22'-0" T.O. A.F.F. PARAPET i " r +20 -0 CL OF SIGN — — — — — — — I I l A.F.F. RawynI I I I -- ---------------------------- --- T-�— — - ----- —L ---------�=---— ---—————————— — — ———— ...... + T O A.F.F. ROOF 5 — — — +16'-0" CL OF A.F.F. REVEAL B.O. +12'-q" CANOPY A.F.F. T.O. GLAZING +12'-0" ....... — — — A.F.F. r 1" I' r -l' r r r MORr r r / ♦ /♦♦fir♦♦♦♦1♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦1 ►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦1 ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ► 7 r_�1►� r ► r ♦ 1 / r NOR; r il / SOUTH ELEVATION T.O. TILE +25'-0" A.F.F. B.O. J4 +10' -0" CANOPY A.F.F. 0 r r 0 �i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i �i♦i♦i♦i�►♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i�i►i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i/►�i�i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i�i�♦♦♦6►♦iN o ► r r 0 �i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦ii�i♦i♦i♦i�►�♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i�i►i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i/ ��►�i�i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i�i�i♦i�►♦i� �i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i��i♦i♦i♦i�►♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i�i►�♦i♦i♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦i♦i♦i♦♦1 i�►�i�i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i1��i♦i�►♦♦� i!i?i!i?i?i?i!i?i!i?i!ii!i?i!i?i! ►E!�?i?i?i?i!i?i!i!i!i!i!R!i!i!i?i!i?i!i?i!i?i?i!i!i!�!i!i!►?♦! Q +11'-0" T.O. A.F.F. GLAZING — — — +10'-0" CL OF A.F.F. REVEAL +3- 0 OF A.F.F. REVEAL +0' - 0" A.F.F. J LLJ U I� 10 TYP. TYP. TYP. CL OF SIGN T.O. ROOF KEYNOTES KEY I MATERIAL COLOR / FINISH 7/8" EXTERIOR CEMENT SNERWIN WILLIAMS - ❑1 PLASTER, ELASTOMERIC SW7042 "SHOJI WHITE" TOP COAT - FIELD EXTERIOR CEMENT SNERWIN WILLIAM - El7/8" PLASTER, ELASTOMERIC SW676q "MAXI TEAL" TOP COAT - ACCENT 2 FBI METAL WALL PANEL WESTERN STATE METAL ROOFING, FINISH: WEATHER RUSTIC DARK BRONZE ANODIZED FRAMES 14 I STOREFRONT 4 GLAZING t GLAZING TO BE CLEAR, LLJ NON -TINTED, NON -REFLECTIVE, DOUBLE GLAZED METAL CANOPY / AWNING PAINTED TO MATCH SNERWIN I 5 / TRELLIS / ELEC. WILLIAMS SW7020 "BLACK FOX" u SWITCH GEAR / LADDER I / I I METAL PATIO FENCING B.O. 111 WOOD SIDING CANOPY T.O. GLAZINGI iii BI-PARTING SLIDING WINDOW EI METAL DOOR STAINLESS STEEL El CABLE TRELLIS o/ METAL FRAME POWDER COATED TO MATCH SNERWIN WILLIAMS 51,47020 BLACK FOX RECLAIMED WOODS OF THE WORLD, FINISH: SNOW DRIFT QUIKSERV, MODEL: 55-4035E PAINTED TO MATCH 11 I PAINTED TO MATCH SNERWIN WILLIAMS SW7020 "BLACK FOX" [I - - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: I/4"=I'-0" 8 EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE 4 z O w w Q 0 X (D C L O _ 0 0 N 2— a)g L CV L '0 N H Q r UO T In O — N O -0 L •L `^0 -0V 0 0 Q • U by N v 0 d- � O ~ 4-1 C, N O 4� - O n U 4-J U u� 14E 4 U 7 H 3�-I Lr) N L U w w 4� p OORT O Q z LLI co Fes` `Y�j > l'3 it 7 V ZN W °No 0-7 -3 0'6 z TEMECULA RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. & YN ES RD. TEMECULA, CA 92591 ry w ' LL] V1 W 0 0 0. `Q Q J w 0 Qw_j Lu (D -w w cnZQLLW O —boo �pQv- J = w O - ON �z�x �mOmw ISSUE DATE: 8-q-22 REV. DATE: PROJECT NO.: 21035 DRAWN BY: NL SHEET: T.O. jk +25'-0" PARAPET 1V A.F.F. CL OF SIGN Jh +20'-0" A.F.F. B.O. +14'-0" SOFFIT A.F.F. T.O. +22'-0" PARAPET A.F.F. CE OF +1(o'-0" REVEAL A.F.F. B.O. +12'-q" CANOPY A.F.F. CE OF +10'-0" REVEAL A.F.F. CE OF +3'-0" REVEAL A.F.F. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS TYP. TYP. T.O. PARAPET T.O. PARAPET CE OF REVEAL B.O. PATIO CANOPY B.O. CANOPY T.O. GLAZING CL OF REVEAL T.O. PARAPET CL OF SIGN B.O. SOFFIT B.O. CANOPY SCALE: 1/4"=l'-0" KEYNOTES KEY I MATERIAL I COLOR / FINISH 7/8" EXTERIOR CEMENT ❑1 PLASTER, ELASTOMERIC TOP COAT - FIELD 7/8" EXTERIOR CEMENT EI 2 I PLASTER, ELASTOMERIC �uJ TOP COAT - ACCENT SNERWIN WILLIANS - SW7042 "SHOJI WHITE" SNERWIN WILLIAM - SW67(oq "MAXI TEAL" 2 F31 METAL WALL PANEL WESTERN STATE METAL ROOFING, FINISH: WEATHER RUSTIC DARK BRONZE ANODIZED FRAMES 14 I STOREFRONT 4 GLAZING t GLAZING TO BE CLEAR, LLJ NON -TINTED, NON -REFLECTIVE, DOUBLE GLAZED METAL CANOPY / AWNING PAINTED TO MATCH SNERWIN I 5 / TRELLIS / ELEC. WILLIAMS SW7020 "BLACK FOX" u SWITCH GEAR / LADDER POWDER COATED TO MATCH METAL PATIO FENCING SNERWIN WILLIAMS 51-47020 E "BLACK FOX" WOOD SIDING RECLAIMED WOODS OF THE El I WORLD, FINISH: SNOW DRIFT ❑ I WII-PAR TING SLIDING I QUIKSERV, MODEL: 55-4035E EI METAL DOOR I PAINTED TO MATCH 12 I STAINLESS STEEL PAINTED TO MATCH SNERWIN El CABLE TRELLIS o/ WILLIAMS SW7020 "BLACK FOX" METAL FRAME 8 1 EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE 1 4 z O w w w F- Q 0 X ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ U)-a o� C L _ cj N Q> a) L CV .�-+ L '0 N H E cooa�im�ca UO rn T O— .20 .D o� L ,L 0 3� H n° a� by N v 0 7t .� � OU M V rd G1 0 Ln ^ U u 4-4 cn u w � � w * b/tip \��GT �F OORT O Q z 00 0) > ZN Qr °N° ov w -3 0'6 z TEMECULA RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. & YN ES RD. TEMECULA, CA 92591 w ' LL] V1 w 0 > a � 0. `Q Q J w � Qw� w -w w cnZQLLW O —boo �pQv- J = w O — ON � D z � X �mOmw ISSUE DATE: 8-q-22 REV. DATE: PROJECT NO.: 21035 DRAWN BY: NL SHEET: A301 4� 1( Kl 1 411 I;- T RU E DRI 1-k r J L r hr .10 L,J LL 2� qp IF p W. % 'd L IL do AMW h4l. L L LOP :;;6 11 7 - moll.. IF —27 _!B LI DUN AMP Ap NEI I M -op- AW iff mi. aw C! rL jC APOW e. %4 r 4W c Ti -qw 4. Fk I low 6 41 lk. P. RE NEI_ ;6 L v 1L. MIN' IF L dOL-- to f JW. rNW16 t•ik lil� r r J. . 14L. 117 We I%L P AL r. L L, Y6 rML 4L Ale 5 p - % L Ae ,L pr r, L V ip" 4w. q r IL edr ., h bp bons, -z7 - 7 e. 4L - 7 '96 _7 .Z —4 %Q_ al 7�706 7161 f6 Z C2 w. L:Z bf. - �7 - -: - - - - 7his L. -L- .0.=JF' 7 =6- % ic. 7 dr T - — I go e 46 uj W uj JAE-` • 1 ,, r r• 7 5 F�.r • f ' yr 5 j I Ir •k ' �la iF• I. J or r � R r; fi Ir + 1 I 1 � MA f •F• �frfi � Y'�'J:1 I � '. k1 IIII 1' � � y .- - _ _ ` � � - i , -I �r'• - fir. � ar tir;1 4. fir . ffk. JI - rr r r I T•, doff ! i r 1 p - irt IF '•,1: t ._ 'd9 1 I r, a.+. i! ' ! 1 , : IXCI`'. wj Id ism fr _ ti t l• • .._ - 'r„ _ _ r-'r..�rLr`,a •�C-.Its ■ �� ,1' - ' f�••' r 1 ' # i - �.:• � j � �r.. •� •- �•�+ �� .F 4� W�i..� � ti• � � �*� � � � - ti��,''� � - -- h .�, _ ,�� �}_-•ar��..a.w. 'd5t��,� — -- ts:, t' f.-'� ter" -� �•c,,�rrj �'� r ,� r0.�r = •L H1R i r {. L :r ' } = rya t i -�• r } '� '3x r - v }r. t _ _ _ ti• - I � ' - ' � '• t• - -� - � , • •7 ' - F r- � F t � . - .. 'R I` 1 'Ytti r •�� .� ;i7, +,.+ .1 � r � �� r<� � - � - V �" • • - •'•s r ,•" ij 'r � : r T - �S•1 •'� s, - 1 ti - -- ' - "' — --. - r - _ ry .r ''; *�. .4', 3' ��yy - r - • 1 L.: L y �'• k'' - L �r- .•ti 1 - , - - - L-•k f }� - r •' S k -- •:'h - Tr - - r + r. ' "r'Fx_�rrI:}: + y 'l� +1'P, f - •L 3k !: _ _ rt� '�} t k { - -•1. :w�; F' •L., • xx r - _ _ .t' .�{ _ NF_. '�.r +; �' i r+- -�T �ti. L• '•Ir ' r ' L , _ ; Y - - „ ti '•k .rrJ F. , •• - f _ _ - k ' r "'* -•* f..: l ~ - , ;. - _ r+*• + 4•+ i •r� i FrL• I;k {�•'Y'`J�+F'• i •• ~•i r r X -� {rL, r -,- �,,,r. ; •y r ,,1fi s , h i� ' .F �j 4 i _ � ' +F.rti ,': ti� +' r u - +4 4' r - 42 II r •FYI.-.-,�_._; , •_ r ._ter Fi n• ', `'.: 'A + _ ''{ r J -,} reS' [ � .•''�Yr, A ; Y. :, l 1W 3~ y+ _ _ _ - #J�•�t+ .� 'r ", L '- r� �,• r .'%3 �_ ~i . •. .{ram r7''' ' J� - zT �f C f� 4 :. I li ao #X , _ ! M_ - • �1 • 41 f til 1 1 {1 tij. fj� - �7rira~ ]�{ �•+ ,�}' T_� '�' '`r'• - _. .,may ti� _ ?- R•. , ___- } 5.+ - r . ~ r� r•- �I ter�� y r ray', r , 4� 'y ' 7 f ' l' 1Y 1 r' ��� F�}•�: , ' : L . - 5 � �� ' � ' 1 iv, Ir �• � # C��}r � i ` '� { L 1 _ .•1 r �•'' % - L _ r �F ti - -v r•r l'`.: - - • , . :� � _ ��iy� � � r� r�� _ - - ''r r„� ,-idr - ��, y •i� _ � � �r�} _ v� k . fir. ,7+' +,� � } � � � .4 �• �� ,�r� r 1 ��� r � f rJ rr .. - "I' fti-,1=.+�I' Awl I J •r fi l Y r , r _ , �{!,•,r . , •}f. ,� _ - ,'ice *' �..• r ,• ' M1' r ' r f • y * � � � i � ' 3 � `'�' t � r . - •' • ..� _ -• �,i�, *''w� r:Ld • 1 �4' '�- � r r F '' ..2 r � I • t + f. r .. -, ` L F'I1X.{ rf 2�'•'; f �r _ a, �i I 'fr . , ' jjjyJ[r , a�rl . ' �� 1 ' - r , �f , _, - r r 1• , ' r• r , , �• ? r •� LL �� '�. I - Arr '* J •r r _ ';I f ' _ _ ' ' J � � � � �i r s '• I ,' .. •• ••A ''•� {' + ,';-, ••. - I .{ +.. , '. I•. t '. r, {• r :� ,f - rr • : L ' ' - rl 1 y: r {• 7 .. r: •� • ' • • ' , _ , 1 ,' I v' r L 1 • L .• L ' L[�-]i: ��J,lr}�'L}r {Ij/-� Jt I I , I 1/ I - , .. ti � M1. f - ' _ �' 'r +• r � r' - . fi r', ' .fr r� , .. • a k , Sl. N �•�7�. r'�'-:. �i'�r.�� �} - F --II ' �... � 1 _ f r , ,. r f• f . I r r 1 - r• •'r - �• 1 v • - r r '' -�. •r r r 1 � .;� r .iJI• '' .. -• 1 � _ '•1' ' .'• •rr, ,}, � •� f ',�� _ •� • vl' f ' •• , r , r 1 - ' , .•••� _ _ •,r '�•. , , ' 7 I I 1 .. j 'rl .. - � v I r 1 , L , , r , ' 7 r , - . ' r ' F. , { 1 r •• ,' • , , � , r , r • .. ', , .. - ! 7 y r r 7 r •{• •+ .. •• •� •3 .:7.r .. .,r _ ••Ir r •� , � _ r F k .. r rir '� , r ._ .. r•� � � F• �'r r .: l s f•; .4'�, �r' r. , , • .. „ _ Lr � r •.} 1• �'• ,1 f FJ• 'r .{ I, /. . Y r � _ 7'• ,,•r• r � , r �F '4 i • i' � L ,�' i I r , r r •r _ r, S• r �•r � - � :I• •, I _ _ f� ,rr: .. - �• 7 .r 'r' .� '. �E' L'• .r �•f'• J, �'r 1 1- � ,.J. .. - I 1 �• �, �' �_• r. �,•F ,�y ' ' � 1 ' .� � r f .. � � r ' .. `r ' • - Ir f ' � r '�' , } '. _ 1 i' ' � � i � � , � .. 1 • , ' r � :. r r r •1 : r r r 1 1 - .. ? ... I •� ,F ' S. f. 1 ti �, �j 1 ', � • • � I' r r ... '' � ' rr .. �•J' r L •Ir5 !, 4"••' 5 5 1 ,�I x. .If _ r , r _ _ I r I •• . _ L . I• L4• :1 r - ' L ', . „j _ 1 . r , , ,' ,�rr ,�• �' 1f rI r .. '� I 7' F' _ '� :r .'� 'a r �r J+ _ '{' J �'r• r �" _ �r -1.� rl•:i •rl 1 � r , , , �'• r• r . _ ', � L' 1. I F !' �1 _ .. r f - � :r4� y - . .. k , ' , J , , .. r .. � r. 'r : r ' 1 . , - ` r , 'F'. � , , r 3 � • I . . . . L f _ y _ � - 1 1 _1 r< el' 4 ' - . ••t �i _ , •.,}''r I ,y} I . r 1 _ 1 •f' ,, , I , 'f- 3 .L• •.y tir •'r r ', , I _ f , y' /�• ' J••'• .. If rr •F •' 11 ,•J r , , L .. F i 1 L f. .7 +rl• ! r� J r r _ r•f ''I _ - ' - £.• �•., . I, ,'� .' r , ;;� r r' I . •1 F'. Y.• ,,k �• �,. .1 r. • - _ r � 'r-, +. - 1 ' �F ' F. 1 . rMJ 1 f f f' � r i : • � , ' + � f r �'� L. �r ,1' L, ti .I ' , i• f i •! rl r . J 1 •r .� , 'f 1 v r _ . '1 .. . 'I ` ' J,' �• F . r J • 1 1' " i • i " J + 'ry - 7 v r r J 1 I.,• L , , LJ .. 'Y• • },' . •'S I• - a Y•' '1r r •'17• .. . • v . 'k'. I .1 7 r' f . r:��• �" r �r L'i•I :H•. . Alp- -P d. L y. L dlk A dir A qw 17 A, jw f6 K N, r jZJ P, Cr rX fAl 4 'LL Ja Apr p EW A JN :. DRIVE F, L Ick VE DRI HRU -7- % % Y :L N ab Aft L Epp, gm;lb 1. R, 4r da .14 AV le A11116 L IL r. rP 1. L r J -ir r wl, 0 N L 1 A, '4. L Ir •-j % Aj*L Nr g,-L mj C -e- 41 pb6 1• .6� % L r - �Flp % c� -Z e L PAO 31 • -JL:, L' sk. I.%. h %6' Z,. 7 PV IL %L IT .0 .26 Lr r Ra L Ic L'• F q L • -;I- L� h-e L L de a -W. -.6t_;r - I-- r .• x d r, ''ter" --, - .. . Vk L: -Z, L v L: L -4 r lb L, r 3- 4 - I . I . , , . '. L qj_ -Tr A. LI. %I•'k 4 C�, PC t• r �&j, 'lb6 Arli L Sal 7 7 �Ptlhr . b pipillML-Iqlllllr wo� RL LA yY Jr IN ILL EXIST. RETAIL BUILDING . 1.3r To. 1 0 7-- + 0 . Toone too .4-2.8 .�� ■ 1. 1. 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.5 + \ \�v\\6 +.0 3.3 3.9 ■ 1. 1.7 �1.9 �.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2. 2. 8 1 3.5 4.1 4.4 4.8 I + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2.2 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 4.6 5.7 5.3 5.4 I+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2.8 4.0 4.1 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.6 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.1 4.1 .0 4 9 4 7 5.2 5. 7.2 6.3 6.0 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3.4 3 4 4.3 4. 4. 4.5 4.7 3.8 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.5 5.3 5.4 5.7 5.9 7.4 7.2 6.3 \ PA 3 ■ 3.6'�Z'1.5 4.9 5.5 5.3 5. 5.1 5.1 5 4 5 + + + + 8.0 7.8 PARK 2 PARK 2 PAR 2 I + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3.5 3.5 4. 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.8 3.8 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.3 5.3 5.6 6.1 .0 7.3 7.7 6.8 I + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + i 3.0 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.8 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.4 4.3 5. 5.2 4.9 5.4 5.9 7.1 6.6 6.4 2.5 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.3 4.8 5.9 5.3 5.3 I + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2.1 2.2 2.5 \ 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.6 4 4.4 4.4 4.6 1 I + \.2 + + + + + 1.8 1.8 2 1 62.5 2.6 2.3 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.7 4.0 0 I 1.7 1.9� 2.2 +. +. 4 +.0 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 +�.9 1.9 + 2.Fy + + 3. 3.4 3.6 / 0 0 1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ��: + + + 1.8 2.3 2. 3.1 2.6 2.4 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.7 \ \\�\\6 3. 3.4 3.2 I ■ 2.0 2.7 2.9 3.6 3.0 2.7 �.0 1.7 \.5 1.2 1 2 1.3 \5 \8 2.2 3.D 3. 4.1 3.5 3.6 3.1 ■ 2.2 2.7 3.2 3.9 3.1 2.7 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.3 3.1 3.6 4.5 3.9 3.5 3.1 PARK 2 + + + + L�.23 + + + + + + + + + + + + 2. 9. 2.7 ■. �.412.6 2.=■■� ■�■■�■■ 1 ■■-■■1.7 ■: PARK2 3.9 .9 - 4.1 1.0 1.1m+ PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLAN EXIST. GAS STATION I I Label DRIVE THRU (BETTER BUZZ) DRIVE THRU (ONO HAWAIIAN) FRONT PARKING (BETTER BUZZ) FRONT PARKING (ONO HAWAIIAN) PARKING AREA CALCULATION TYPE: ILLUMINANCE Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min Fc 4.31 5.7 2.7 1.60 2.11 Fc 4.53 6.6 3.1 1.46 2.13 Fc 2.53 3.0 2.2 1.15 1.36 Fc 4.59 5.9 3.8 1.21 1.55 Fc 3.29 7.4 1.0 3.29 1 7.4 ILLUMINANCE CALCULATION "TYPE A" DESCRIPTION: POLE LIGHT (SINGLE) MANUFACTURER: LITHONIA PART NO.: 05X1 LED P2 30K SOGRI T2M MVOLT SPA PIR POLE: 555-05-20-4G-DMIG5 WATTAGE: 6_7.1cl LLF: O.qB QUANTITY: 4 "TYPE B" DESCRIPTION: POLE LIGHT (SINGLE) MANUFACTURER: LITHONIA PART NO.: D5X1 LED P3 30K 50CRI T2M MVOLT SPA PIR POLE: 555-05-20-4C-DMIGS WATTAGE: 102.1 -1 LLF: O.GB QUANTITY: 4 "TYPE V DESCRIPTION: POLE LIGHT (SINGLE) MANUFACTURER: LITHONIA PART NO.: 05X1 LED P3 30K 50CRI T4M MVOLT SPA PIR POLE: 555-05-20-4G-DMIGS WATTAGE: 102.1 LLF: O.GB QUANTITY: I "TYPE D" DESCRIPTION: MANUFACTURER: PART NO.: WATTAGE: LLF: QUANTITY: "PARK 2" DESCRIPTION: WATTAGE: QUANTITY: "PARK 3" DESCRIPTION: WATTAGE: '. QUANTITY: NORTH SCALE: 1"=20'-0" 8 POLE LIGHT (2 cn 150) LITHONIA D5X1 LED P3 30K 50CRI T4M MVOLT SPA PIR POLE: 555-05-20-4G-OM285 6-7.1G O.q8 2 EXISTING: (2) 5MART2-U5-24L112-WW-T55-5V-BZ-5G 8 (1) 30 FT POLE GS 5 EXISTING: (3) 5MART2-U5-24LII2-WW-T55-5V-BZ-5G 4 (1) 30 FT POLE q8 I LIGHT SCHEDULE 1 3 4 z O w w w F- Q 0 X ■ ■ 9 C L O _ 0 0 04 04 N 2- > a) L (B CV L _°o�3Q3'o= '0 N H � co`� Q � C9 E_P� c 5 UO o ca co T U) O - N O L ,L U H m n° bA U 110 o 7t OU ��M V G1 w 0 Ln cd ;--q O U u t-Z U 4 O y-+ 2 Ln U Ln w � w Fga \��GT * b/tip OORT O L) co� �i) Q z > k3 Q� 0) o V 00 Z N W 0-7j 3aWN z TEMECULA RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. & YNES RD. TEMECULA, CA 92591 = z W > w 0 fn v W (D � cn Z W 00 o 00� J � D O ISSUE DATE: 8-q-22 REV. DATE: PROJECT NO.: 21035 DRAWN BY: NL SHEET: My Account I Contact Us I Sign In I Cart $0.00 ULINE 1-800-295-5510 Search �O Products Uline Products Quick Order Catalog Request Special Offers About Us Careers Home > All Products > Facilities Maintenance > Bike Racks > Wave Bike Racks 1-Loop Wave Style Bike Rack - 3 Bike Capacity, Black ,. More Images Upscale stylish look for downtown shopping and business districts. • For stadiums, parks and athletic fields. • 10-gauge steel with attractive powder coating. • 2 3/8" diameter bar. • Mounting hardware included. SPECIFY COLOR: F01 El MODEL NO. DESCRIPTION SIZE L x W x H BIKE CAP. WT. (LBS.) PRICE EACH COLOR IN STOCK SHIPS TODAY 1 3+ H-2892BL 1-Loop 22 x 2 1/2 x 34" 3 27 $230 $220 p Black 1 ADD + Additional Info + Parts + Shopping Lists Request a Catalog, SAME DAY SHIPPING I HUGE SELECTION IN STOCK I SHIPS FROM 12 LOCATIONS Bike -Shell'" Specify the 300 Series lockers for the highest customer satisfaction from the no -assembly ready -to - use delivery through years ";•Ibof trouble free operation. r Architects designers and !`�•. government agencies specify • I:,. err r; the 300 Series due to the high quality manufacturing J which means virtually no 'v installation costs! • •The 300 Series is the first one piece locker available that is not molded of soft and flammable HDPE plastic material. •The construction of fiberglass reinforced plastic is highly resistant to impact, stains and will not corrode. *Designed after our very popular 350 Series lockers and available in 6 styles providing flexibility for site locations. American Bicycle Security Company P.O. Box 7359 Ventura, CA 93006 Ph: (800) 245-3723 or (805) 933-3688 Fax: (805) 933-1865 www.ameribike.com Email: turtle(@ameribike.com 72.75' (184.7 cm) ❑veroll r O 48,0' (121.9 cm) 3D.D �J. ----I At Top Center 49.0" (124.4 cm) 1 vl 6, ,D I . 1 7.0' (17.7cm) 57'pa �;7,0,u ,= F ,. EU (U D d 1E o -,p v v v r �. G ((n . (U a __]I 1.5' (3,8cM) O 1 door/1 bike T-Handle Padlock/U-Lock Handle Product Bike -Shell'" Model 301P Capacity 1 door/1 Bike Materials Locker shall be manufactured of molded fiberglass reinforced plastic composite with a smooth "X" and "Y" pattern on stippled walls and top, with smooth door frame and stippled door. Material shall be E-glass and polyester resin at 35% ratio. Tensile Strength, 18,000 psi. Locker shall be one piece with no external or internal frame and no seams or joints on tops or side walls. Material shall withstand over 300 Ib/sqft on roof and 200 Ib/sqft on walls/doors. NO ON SITE ASSEMBLY SHALL BE REQUIRED. Roof shall be crowned for water run-off and all corners shall have a smooth radiused finish. Finish of UV stabilized gelcoat does not need painting, allows solvent removal of graffiti and is resistant to impact and UV damage. Setback Please allow 5ft clearance for door Hardware High quality custom continuous door hinge will not rust. All fasteners on locking system shall be zinc plated or better. Locker shall anchor in all four corners through base flanges using expansion anchors. See last page for anchoring details. Locks 2 Standard Lock Options (No charge) *Fort Lock 7 pin tumbler Pop Out "T" handle locks with three keys and removable lock cylinders. Internal locking hardware consists of three plated hardened steel cams controlling an extruded aluminum locking bar which engages the door frame over three foot span. . Heavy duty stainless steel Padlock/U-Lock handle will accommodate high security Padlocks and U-Locks. For U-Locks from 1/2" to 3/4" Diameter. Padlocks and U- Locks not included. Colors 2 Standard Color Options (No charge) Tan Medium Grey l lel I] DI AW Y I 1 ti>R.>7e Please call for custom color, or color match information American Bicycle Security Company P.O. Box 7359 Ventura, CA 93006 Ph: (800) 245-3723 or (805) 933-3688 Fax: (805) 933-1865 www.ameribike.com Email: turtle@ameribike.com *5' door clearance is needed from an obstructer that would prevent access. For example a wall or column* 7'3", 87" 5' door Clearance 0 0 7'3"= 87" U n its 14'6"= 174" *Full circle should have a minimum of 24' (288") circular area to allow easy access from all angles. 24'6" (294") is recommended. 14'6"= 174" l lel I] DI AW Y I 1 14'6"= 174" 5' door \ Clearance 7'3"= 87" 0 O o Typical wall orfence. 12 Units 0 o � 0 0 0 14'6"= 174" American Bicycle Security Company P.O. Box 7359 Ventura, CA 93006 Ph: (800) 245-3723 or (805) 933-3688 Fax: (805) 933-1865 www.ameribike.com Email: turtle(@ameribike.com ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS 300 SERIES BICYCLE LOCKER - Model 301P Your bike locker does NOT require any general assembly. Tools Needed: Minimum requirements • 3/8" electric drill (anchoring & installing diagonal divider wall) • 3/8" electric rotary hammer drill (anchoring) • 1/4" drill bit (anchoring & installing diagonal divider wall) • 1/4" hammer drill bit (anchoring) • hammer (anchoring) • Tape measure - minimum 10' (anchoring & installing diagonal divider wall) • Extension cord 25' (anchoring & installing diagonal divider wall) • Generator or other source of power (anchoring & installing diagonal divider wall) • Safety glasses and any other equipment specified by the tool manufacturer. (All Steps) -Choose location which allows a minimum 4' distance between door face and any obstruction to allow bicycle to maneuver into locker and the door to swing open without hitting high spots such as concrete or asphalt raised by roots. If desired, for grouping of units, chalk a line for straight edge with which to work. A preferred site would be concrete although asphalt can be used. Site should be flat although it does not necessarily have to be level. ANCHORING The lockers should be anchored to the ground for optimum longevity and proper operation of the locking system. Therefore, anchoring each unit to the ground is advisable. The 301 and 302 lockers are anchored in the 4 corners of the flange located around the inside of locker, the 301P, & 301V are anchored in the front two corners of the locker and the rear. First square the doors in the frame. Out of square doors are due to the site being uneven. To square the door, using a flat bar, raise the corner of the locker to make the door in square. If any adjustment is necessary it should only be slight. Place a shim under the corner to retain the alignment and height. Shim should be placed in a location under the base flange very close to hole for the anchor. This allows the downward force of the anchor to be supported underneath and prevent cracking of the base flange at the anchor location. Drill through the base flange on the locker with 1/4" drill. With hammer drill and 1/4" masonry bit you can then drill into concrete surface. Drop the nail -in anchor through flange and into the hole, pound pin down flush with top of mushroom head of anchor. Do this at all four corners of door frame on 301 & 302 lockers. On 301P and 301V do this in the front two corners of the door frame and in center of rear wall. M American Bicycle Security Company P.O. Box 7359 Ventura, CA 93006 Ph: (800) 245-3723 or (805) 933-3688 Fax: (805) 933-1865 www.ameribike.com Email: turtle@ameribike.com Anchoring Information NOTE: Hole position is only A 11 approximate and not critical. «A„ I" Top View Anchoring Flange Inside Locker Locker Base Flange Concrete or Asphalt Nail in anchor (provided by Manufacturer) 301P American Bicycle Security Company P.O. Box 7359 mr- Ventura, CA 93006 Ph: (800) 245-3723 or (805) 933-3688 Page 4 of 4 Fax: (805) 933-1865 www.ameribike.com Email: turtle@ameribike.com PC RESOLUTION NO.2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA23-0027, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW RESTAURANT TO INCORPORATE A DRIVE-THRU LOCATED AT 29540 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (APN 921-320- 061) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On January 17, 2023, Robert Vermeltfoort, on behalf of Ono Hawaiian BBQ, filed Planning Application No. PA23-0027, a Conditional Use Permit Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on April 17, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. D. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA23-0027 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Conditional Use Permit, Development Code Section 17.04.010.E.1 A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The conditional use will allow for the development of a drive-thru facility in a Community Commercial zoning district. Drive-thru lanes are an allowable use in Community Commercial districts upon the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, the conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The proposed conditional use permit will allow for the operation of a drive-thru lane. The drive-thru lane will be integrated into the project site. In addition, the drive-thru lane will be shielded from view with appropriate landscaping. Finally, potential impacts from the drive-thru lane was studied by a traffic consultant. This consultant determined that the drive-thru lanes will not adversely affect the adjacent drive aisles or right-of-way. This means the drive-thru lane is designed to be compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures. The drive-thru lane will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The site for the conditional use is located within a fully developed commercial center with a variety of uses. The site's size and shape is large enough to accommodate the conditional use with regard to accommodating the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by Planning Commission. The project is required to provide 61 parking spaces but proposes to provide 78 parking spaces. The proposed conditional use meets or exceeds all Development Code requirements with regard to drive-thru and will be well integrated with other uses in the center. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The conditional use has been reviewed and conditioned to ensure consistency with the Building Code, Development Code, and Fire Code. These codes contain provisions designed to ensure eses are not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Negative Impacts are not anticipated. E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the planning director, planning commission, or city council on appeal. The decision to conditionally approve the project is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Conditional Use Permit Application: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (15332, Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects); The project will allow for the operation of a drive-thru at a proposed quick service restaurant. The site is smaller than five acres within city limits and is surrounded by urban uses. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan for Temecula as well as applicable zoning regulations. The project site has been fully developed and used as a restaurant for decades and therefore has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. In addition, the site can be serviced by all utilities. The queuing analysis conducted by Trames Solutions, Inc. demonstrated that the drive-thru will not impede traffic in and out of the project site. In addition, the construction of the restaurants with the drive-thru lanes will not result in any significant impacts to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Section 4. Conditions, Statement of Operations, and Plans. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA23-0027, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a new restaurant to incorporate a drive-thru located at 29540 Rancho California Road, subject to the Final Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, Statement of Operations set forth on Exhibit B, and the Plans set forth on Exhibit C, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 17th day of April 2024. Bob Hagel, Chair ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing PC Resolution No. 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of April 2024, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson Secretary CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ACCEPTANCE Planning Application Number: PA23-0027 Parcel Number(s): 921-320-061 By signing below, I/we have agreed to the following Conditions of Approval, including (but not limited to) any referenced documents, local, state, or federal regulations, statement of operations, hours of operation, floor plans, site plans, and Conditions that may require the payment or reimbursement of fees, as described. I/we have read the attached Conditions of Approval and understand them. I/we also understand that violations or non-compliance with these Conditions of Approval, may delay a project, and/or result in the revocation of a permit in accordance with the Temecula Municipal Code. I/we are also responsible for disclosing these Conditions of Approval to any successive owners/operators. I/we agree and commit to the City of Temecula that I/we will implement and abide by the Conditions of Approval, including any indemnification requirements imposed by those conditions. Property Owner Printed Name Property Owner Signature & Date Applicant Printed Name Applicant Signature & Date EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA23-0027 Project Description: Ono Hawaiian BBQ Conditional Use Permit: A Conditional Use Permit to allow a new restaurant to incorporate a drive-thru. The project is located at 29540 Rancho California Road. Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-320-061 MSHCP Category: Commercial DIF Category: Service Commercial TUMF Category: Per WRCOG Requirements Quimby Category: N/A (Non -Residential Project) New Street In -lieu of Fee: N/A (Not Located within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan) Approval Date: April 17, 2024 Expiration Date: April 17, 2026 PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of the Approval Page 1 of 6 Applicant Filing Notice of Determination. APPLICANT ACTION REQUIRED: The applicant/developer is responsible for filing the Notice of Determination as required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15062 within 48 hours of the project approval. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/ developer has not filed the Notice of Determination as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void due to failure of this condition. Failure to submit the Notice of Exemption will result in an extended period of time for legal challenges. FEES: Fees for the Notice of Exemption include the Fifty Dollar County ($50.00) administrative fee. The County of Riverside charges additional fees for credit card transactions. FILING: The City shall provide the applicant with a Notice of Determination within 24 hours of approval via email. If the applicant/developer has not received the Notice of Determination within 24 hours of approval, they shall contact the case Planner immediately. All CEQA documents must be filed online with the Riverside County Assessor —County Clerk- Recorder. A direct link to the CEQA filings page is available at TemeculaCA.gov/CEQA. COPY OF FILINGS: The applicant shall provide the City with a digital copy of the required filings within 48 hours. General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. Indemnity, Duty to Defend and Obligation to Pay Judgments and Defense Costs, Including Attorneys' Fees, Incurred by the City. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively "Indemnitees") from and against any claims, damages, actions, causes of actions, lawsuits, suits, proceedings, losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to the Planning Commission's actions, this approval and the City Council's actions, related entitlements, or the City's environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to reasonably cooperate in the defense, the Applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City or the Indemnitees. The City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City, and the other Indemnitees, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to require the Applicant to indemnify Indemnitees for any claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City's determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. Page 2 of 6 Expiration. This approval shall be used within 2 years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. Use means the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. A modification made to an approved development plan does not affect the original approval date of a development plan. 4. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to five extensions of time, one year at a time. A modification made to an approved development plan does not affect the original approval date of a development plan. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. 6. Water Quality and Drainage. Other than stormwater, it is illegal to allow liquids, gels, powders, sediment, fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain system or from leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval: a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately. b. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles onsite. c. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters. d. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. e. Ensure all trash bins are covered at all times. 7. Modifications or Revisions. The developer shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 8. Statement of Operations. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations dated January 3, 2023, on file with the Planning Division, unless a conflict exists between the Statement of Operations and these Conditions of Approval, in which case the Conditions of Approval control. 9. Revocation of CUP. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. 10. City Review and Modification of CUP. The City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission, and City Council retain and reserve the right and jurisdiction to review and modify this Conditional Use Permit (including the Conditions of Approval) based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of business, a change in scope, emphasis, size of nature of the business, and the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration or change of use. The reservation of right to review any Conditional Use Permit granted or approved or conditionally approved hereunder by the City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission and City Council is in addition to, and not in -lieu of, the right of the City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission, and City Council to review, revoke or modify any Conditional Use Permit approved or conditionally approved hereunder for any violations of the conditions imposed on such Conditional Use Permit or for the maintenance of any nuisance condition or other code violation thereon. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit 11. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this approval. Page 3 of 6 BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Requirements 12. Final Building and Safety Conditions. Final Building and Safety conditions will be addressed when building construction plans are submitted to Building and Safety for review. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), and related codes which are enforced at the time of building plan submittal. 13. Compliance with Code. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the most current edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and Temecula Municipal Code as identified in Title 15 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 14. ADAAccess. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. b. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entrance of the building. c. Accessible path of travel from parking to the furthest point of improvement. d. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. e. Accessible path of travel from public right-of-way to all public areas on site, such as trash enclosures, clubhouses, and picnic areas. 15. County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance. Applicant shall submit, at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights -of -way. All exterior LED light fixtures shall be 3,000 kelvin or below. 16. Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi -family residential projects or a recorded final map for single-family residential projects. 17. Clearance from TVUSD. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley Unified School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 18. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 19. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. Solid covers are required over new and existing trash enclosures. 20. Demolition. Demolition permits require separate approvals and permits. 21. Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On -site sewer and water plans will require separate approvals and permits. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements Page 4 of 6 22. Fire Dept. Plan Review. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. if the buildings are less than 3,600 square feet then they are not required to be equipped with a fire sprinkler system or a fire alarm system. for buildings that are equipped with a Type 1 hood system and required a hood extinguishing system, that hood system will be required to be tied in and monitored by a fire alarm system. this fire alarm panel will be allowed to be located inside the electrical room since there will be no dedicated fire sprinkler riser room. 23. Fire Flow. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial and residential buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2,000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure for a 2-hour duration for commercial projects. The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC Appendix B and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). Although the system there is existing, it may require upgrades to meet the current code requirements fire flow. 24. Hood Plans. Hood extinguishing system plans shall be submitted electronically to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Hood extinguishing system plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. The hood extinguishing system will be required to be tied into the fire alarm system for monitoring. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 25. Required Submittals (Fire Underground Water). The developer shall furnish electronic copies of the water system plans for any changes or modifications to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block, and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. Hydraulic calculations will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on -site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued (CFC Chapter 33 and Chapter 5). 26. Required Submittals (Fire Sprinkler Systems). Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted electronically to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Fire sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. 27. Required Submittals (Fire Alarm Systems). Fire alarm plans shall be submitted electronically to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Fire alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire alarm system is required to have a dedicated circuit from the house panel. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. The main fire alarm control panel will be located inside the fire sprinkler riser room and will not share with any other equipment except the fire sprinkler riser. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 28. Hydrant Verification. Hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers (blue dots) (Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 29. Knox Box. A "Knox -Box" shall be provided. The Knox -Box shall be installed a minimum of six feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire riser sprinkler room (CFC Chapter 5). Page 5 of 5 Vermeltfoort Architects Inc. Architecture and Planning MEMORANDUM DATE: 1/3/2023 TO: City of Temecula FROM: Robert Vermeltfoort RE: Section D: Statement of Operations Development Plan 29540 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA PROJECT #: 21035 The proposed building and site improvements are to be located at 29540 Rancho California Road (at the northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. This project will include the removal of an existing +/- 12,050 square foot building (Claim Jumper) and associated parking/landscaping/etc. We are proposing the construction of a 2,839 square foot wood -framed drive-thru building for Ono Hawaiian BBQ, with a small outdoor seating area. The current zoning for the area is CC — Community Commercial. The existing use is a vacant building. We feel this is an ideal location for the construction of this building as it is within an existing shopping center, and will not increase the traffic demand than what the previous user had. There will also be a 1,575 square foot drive-thru building for Better Buzz Coffee on the same site, under a separate Conditional Use Permit application. The hours of operation for this restaurant will be from 11am — 9pm, 7 days a week. The number of employees will be about 5-6 people per shift. We are proposing ample parking stalls for both employees and customers/visitors, by providing at total of 78 parking spaces (58 combined stalls are required for both users). The estimated customers for this restaurant will be 100 per day. This is a restaurant, so food will be served, but alcohol will not be offered. No live entertainment will be provided on this site. The landscaping will be lush and match the existing plants and trees within the existing and adjacent shopping centers, utilizing drought resistant plants, shrubs and trees. If you have any questions, please dot not hesitate to contact the office of VAI. Thank you, Robert Vermeltfoort VAI 8525 N. Cedar, Suite 106, Fresno, Ca. 93720 (559)432-6744 office (559)432-6745 fax E-01 EXIST. GONG. CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK TO REMAIN. E-02 EXIST. PROPERTY LINE TO REMAIN. 1 I EXIST. i E-03 EXIST. RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN. GAS STATION j E-04 EXIST. RETAINING WALL 4 MONUMENT SIGN TO REMAIN. E-05 EXIST. PARKING STALLS TO REMAIN. E-06 EXIST. LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN. j i E-07 EXIST. FIRE HYDRANT TO REMAIN. E-OS EXIST. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION TO BE RELOCATED. i 1 i E-Og EXIST. LIGHT POLE TO REMAIN. i E-10 EXIST. TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN. j j E-ll EXIST. SPLICE BOX TO REMAIN. - i 02-01 PARKING LOT STRIPING, PER CITY STANDARDS. 1 ! j i 02-02 DIRECTIONAL ARROWS, PER CITY STANDARDS. i � i 02-03 TRASH ENCLOSURE, PER CITY STANDARDS R-4 8 R-5. (12'-O"xl5'-4") 1 i 02-04 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL - "NO PARKING" LOADING ZONE d ACCESSIBLE SYMBOL. E-Oq 02-05 (2) I -LOOP BIKE RACK, "ULINE #H-28c12". 02-08 TYP. i 02-06 PAINT IN 12" HIGH LETTERS "GLEAN AIR/CARPOOL/EV". I d Eh:8 '2 8 , 02-07 GMU RETAINING WALL, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. u�u�u�u i u�u i�u u�+ uiu i�ff u� �' 4 1 i 02-OS TEMPORARY CONES (PROVIDED BY TENANT DURING BUSY HOURS 6 O ° ° O fM • t66j I TO RE-ROUTE GARS AS TO NOT BLOCK THE SHOPPING CENTER 'i i ENTRANCE). ° 538°5 '26"E 202.0 O� ° Jz • i 1 02-pq PAINT IN 12" HIGH WHITE LETTERS "KEEP CLEAR", w/ WHITE ����� ����•: ���������� ���������� �" �' i DIAGONAL STRIPING @ ENTRANCE TO ONO HAWAIIAN DRIVE-THRU _ d ° 10-44 02-70� 1 O s ! LANE. 02-02 ;o j i 02-70 GONG. PAVING, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. PATCH AG PAVING WHERE TYP. j E-04i REQUIRED. O 1 GONG. SIDEWALK, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. 1 O•, - f 02-05 / j_ i 02-72 GONG. RAMP w/ TRUNCATED DOMES, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. - 0 02-01 02-03 1 6 - o _ j 02-73 GONG. RAMP, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. E - 05 A »o HamiltonHoc?11' _ 12' _ 0" = ! o 02-01 j I 02-74 IS" WIDE GONG. RAMP, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. T TYP. - i - u TYP. 4 2,839 S.F. ! 02-g0 LANDSCAPING, SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. 1 E-06 1 55 -oil! o ° O 10-40 MAX. HEIGHT SIGN. 1 TYP. 29460 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD I c; O 1 ° ACCESSIBLE II=IlrllA LN 10-41 MENU BOARD, ORDER SCREEN 4 SPEAKER. PARKING 15-01 143' 10' \. SIGN, TYP. N 8°5 ' 6"W i y, 10-42 DIRECTIONAL "ENTRANCE" SIGN. I PRE -MENU BOARD. 10-42 o G VER D00 I 02-71 i p L I 10-44 DIRECTIONAL "THANK YOU - EXIT ONLY" SIGN. �- O d ^j o 26'-0' 02-07 ! z 15-01 (N) GAS METER, SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGS. A 15 i 16-01 (N) ELECTRICAL MAIN PANEL, SEE ELEC. DWGS. I 1 V310 d33N HV3l0 d33N �; , /I I rT 16-02 FUTURE EV CHARGING STATION, SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. EXIST. w 02-08 1 d o �� = kt�� j 16-03 (N) POLE MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE, SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. RETAIL 'O_ - � ! (TO MATCH SHOPPING CENTER) BUILDING ?1 Q 02-Og = 1 -43 ll <. 8-CAR OVERFLOW STACK m 1 E 0 R -n m P i I E- 01 (� I _ TYP. I KEYNOTES 2 ' EEP CLEAR KEEP CLE • I I I j 1 4 9 E 07 10-40 0 0 0 0 00 ' "�- W i ENGROACMENT 15 TYP. - PERMIT REQUIRED i ADDRESS: ° 4 ° o W Im FOR WORK WITHIN ! ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ BETTER BUZZ COFFEE EXIST. - jF 02-72 - i R.O.W. i 2g460 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. 2g440 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. AG PAVING Ln a TYPTEMECULA, CALIFORNIA g25gl TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA g25gl j 26' - 0" ° o 7I OWNER: 13_ z O E E-03 i GTR PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LLC 1 1 o 1- __ I O = ! 267g1 UNIT 'A' _ BETTER BUZZ ! CAPISTRANO BEACH, CA g2624 z F ----- i ! 0 1 E-OS COFFEE ROASTERSiu 3 -7 02-04 1,719 S.F. „ 1 v 0 02-03 O ! SITE INFO: 1 ' Q 8-CAR OVERFLOW STACK TYP. 12'-011 ! APN: q21-320-061 AGGE--IBLE 29440 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 1 �( PARKING INDICATES PARCEL GRANTED TO i LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 1 OF MAP 22863 — XI O : """ """ _ CITY OF TEMECULA, PER GRANT 1 SIGN. r = AREA: 1.61 NG: CC - O _ .. , I N T No - G l R :: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ...... S . 2003 258 6 O. DEED RECD. 4/II/03 AS j 02-05 .......: ' ! GENZONIERAL PLAN: CC - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL N38°51'26W 157.26' •" : ,.. „ 20'-0" 67'-0" j EXIST. LAND USE: RESTAURANT E-02 E-07 PROPOSED LAND USE: DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS EXIST. i TYP. 1 if ;_IG-�� EASEMENT 1 55,-o„ II II _ 1 •• +I I 1BUILDING INFO: .,...,...,...,...,.......,,..., ,. 1.,...,.................................. COFFEE S F ( 25 FAR ) j ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ: 2,83q S.F3.41 FAR.) v-� ! BETTER BUZZ 1, 575 2. li IT NE-11 i OCCUPANCY: A-2 _� ! TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-B (NON-SPRINKLERED) 00 IN w N ---A i 1 - I LOT COVERAGE: Ta-i0:)s I _ i BUILDING AREA: 6.30% (4,414 S.F.) If - If j PARKING AREA: 66.gl% (46,852 S.F.) (15, 280 S.F. ) 1 1 N38°51'26"W 16q.24' ,0' LANDSCAPE AREA: 21.82� N51°08 34E 16-03 ! HARDSCAPE AREA: 4.q(.% (3,475 S.F.) 14.41' TYP, PARKING: N38°51'26%W i REQUIRED: 60 STALLS 25.00' ! (1 SPACE PER -15 S.F.) ! I I , r I PROVIDED: 74 STANDARD STALLS e c,► ! �r� �•,, 1 VAN ACCESSIBLE STALLS ACCESSIBLE STALLS STALLS 78STA I • 4 DESIGNATED MOTORCYCLE STALLS EASEMENT NOTES: ! BICYCLE PARKING: 4 SHORT-TERM BICYCLE RACKS c i' J• _ EXIST. ! (2 PROVIDED cn EA. BLDG.) �► ` OFFICE "�, • ;�.:,�.`; AN EASEMENT FOR POLE LINES, CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF BUILDING NEVADA CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION NOW SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Oi EDISON COMPANY, REC'D 05/19/1937, IN BOOK 323, PAGE 387, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS ! • `" ° ' ~ �+ OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE LOCATED FROM RECORDS." A AN EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND CONDUITS AND i APPURTENANCES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AND COMMUNICATIONS, IN FAVOR OF GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, REC'D 04 16 1989 AS INST. i // j > - '� ► NO. 80220, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE i LOCATED FROM RECORDS." • !\, ti`\; -`a. A AN EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND CONDUITS AND APPURTENANCES FOR THE TRANSMITTING INTELLIGENCE BY ELECTRICAL MEANS, IN FAVOR OF i SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, REC'D 04/16/1989 AS INST. NO. 80220, OF OFFICIAL ! RECORDS OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE LOCATED FROM RECORDS." I SPECIAL NOTE: WHERE LISTED MAPPING LENGTH, BEARING AND DISTANCES DO NOT MATCH THE ! . -•� ,�` �" r , t g' RECORDED MAP PLEASE REFER TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT CALLS FOR THE EXCETPED •,g"M'\ �� ,fit_ '� , sr� �c ass PROTIONS OF MAP 22863. NORTH 20 OVERALL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=20'-0" 8 SITE INFORMATION 4 z O w w Q 0 X L L ° O N o No o o o c� U c c CO)_ Q �Q a= � CD U� 0 0 T u, O .0 Q C O n� Ln -0Ln- o cu7 o CL Qo • V bJJ CVO � RCN � U � O Lr) c3 U U u� O t+^^ U i-I Lr) U c� i-I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p LLJ Q z G�� 00 , >� Q 't o v z v7 w w J J/1#SAP (s)� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ TEMECULA RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. & YNES RD. TEMECULA, CA 92591 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ND I..L W Q 4L � w 0 W� co z w O � 'nn ^ V1 O OL 0. D O 0— W (- ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ISSUE DATE: 8-q-22 REV. DATE: PROJECT NO.: 21035 DRAWN BY: NL SHEET: PC RESOLUTION NO.2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA23-0026, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW COFFEE SHOP TO INCORPORATE A DRIVE-THRU LOCATED AT 29540 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (APN 921-320- 061) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On January 17, 2023, Robert Vermeltfoort, on behalf of Better Buzz Coffee Roasters, filed Planning Application No. PA23-0026, a Conditional Use Permit Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on April 17, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. D. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA23-0026 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Conditional Use Permit, Development Code Section 17.04.010.E.1 A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The conditional use will allow for a drive-thru facility in a Community Commercial zoning district. Drive-thru lanes are an allowable use in Community Commercial districts upon the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, the conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The proposed conditional use permit will allow for the operation of a drive-thru lane. The lane will be integrated into the project site. In addition, the drive-thru lane will be shielded from view with appropriate landscaping. Finally, potential impacts from the drive-thru lane was studied by a traffic consultant. This consultant determined that the drive-thru lanes will not adversely affect the adjacent drive aisles or right-of-way. This means the drive-thru lane is designed to be compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures. The drive-thru lane will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The site for the conditional use is located within a fully developed commercial center with a variety of uses. The site's size and shape is large enough to accommodate the conditional use with regard to accommodating the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by Planning Commission. The project is required to provide 61 parking spaces but proposes to provide 78 parking spaces. The proposed conditional use meets or exceeds all Development Code requirements with regard to drive-thru and will be well integrated with other uses in the center. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The conditional use has been reviewed and conditioned to ensure consistency with the Building Code, Development Code, and Fire Code. These codes contain provisions designed to ensure eses are not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Negative Impacts are not anticipated. E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Director, Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal. The decision to conditionally approve the project is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Conditional Use Permit Application: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects); The project will allow for the construction of two structures each housing quick service restaurants with drive-thru facilities on a site smaller than five acres within city limits and surrounded by urban uses. The proposed uses and overall design of the project are consistent with the General Plan for Temecula as well as applicable zoning regulations. The project site has been fully developed and used as a restaurant for decades and therefore has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. In addition, the site can be serviced by all utilities. The queuing analysis conducted by Trames Solutions, Inc. demonstrated that the drive-thru will not impede traffic in and out of the project site. In addition, the construction of the restaurants with the drive-thru lanes will not result in any significant impacts to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Section 4. Conditions, Statement of Operations, and Plans. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA23-0026, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a new coffee shop to incorporate a drive-thru. The project is located at 29540 Rancho California Road, subject to the Final Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, Statement of Operations set forth on Exhibit B, and the Plans set forth on Exhibit C, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 17th day of April, 2024. Bob Hagel, Chair ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing PC Resolution No. 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of April 2024, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson Secretary CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ACCEPTANCE Planning Application Number: PA23-0026 Parcel Number(s): 921-320-061 By signing below, I/we have agreed to the following Conditions of Approval, including (but not limited to) any referenced documents, local, state, or federal regulations, statement of operations, hours of operation, floor plans, site plans, and Conditions that may require the payment or reimbursement of fees, as described. I/we have read the attached Conditions of Approval and understand them. I/we also understand that violations or non-compliance with these Conditions of Approval, may delay a project, and/or result in the revocation of a permit in accordance with the Temecula Municipal Code. I/we are also responsible for disclosing these Conditions of Approval to any successive owners/operators. I/we agree and commit to the City of Temecula that I/we will implement and abide by the Conditions of Approval, including any indemnification requirements imposed by those conditions. Property Owner Printed Name Property Owner Signature & Date Applicant Printed Name Applicant Signature & Date EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA23-0026 Project Description: Better Buzz Coffee Roasters Conditional Use Permit: A Conditional Use Permit to allow a new coffee shop to incorporate a drive-thru. The project is located at 29540 Rancho California Road. Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-320-061 MSHCP Category: Commercial DIF Category: Service Commercial TUMF Category: Per WRCOG Requirements Quimby Category: N/A (Non -Residential Project) New Street In -lieu of Fee: N/A (Not Located within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan) Approval Date: April 17, 2024 Expiration Date: April 17, 2026 PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of the Approval Page 1 of 6 Applicant Filing Notice of Determination. APPLICANT ACTION REQUIRED: The applicant/developer is responsible for filing the Notice of Determination as required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15062 within 48 hours of the project approval. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/ developer has not filed the Notice of Determination as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void due to failure of this condition. Failure to submit the Notice of Exemption will result in an extended period of time for legal challenges. FEES: Fees for the Notice of Exemption include the Fifty Dollar County ($50.00) administrative fee. The County of Riverside charges additional fees for credit card transactions. FILING: The City shall provide the applicant with a Notice of Determination within 24 hours of approval via email. If the applicant/developer has not received the Notice of Determination within 24 hours of approval, they shall contact the case Planner immediately. All CEQA documents must be filed online with the Riverside County Assessor —County Clerk- Recorder. A direct link to the CEQA filings page is available at TemeculaCA.gov/CEQA. COPY OF FILINGS: The applicant shall provide the City with a digital copy of the required filings within 48 hours. General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. Indemnity, Duty to Defend and Obligation to Pay Judgments and Defense Costs, Including Attorneys' Fees, Incurred by the City. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively "Indemnitees") from and against any claims, damages, actions, causes of actions, lawsuits, suits, proceedings, losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to the Planning Commission's actions, this approval and the City Council's actions, related entitlements, or the City's environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to reasonably cooperate in the defense, the Applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City or the Indemnitees. The City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City, and the other Indemnitees, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to require the Applicant to indemnify Indemnitees for any claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City's determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. Page 2 of 6 Expiration. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. Use means the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. A modification made to an approved development plan does not affect the original approval date of a development plan. 4. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to five extensions of time, one year at a time. A modification made to an approved development plan does not affect the original approval date of a development plan. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. 6. Modifications or Revisions. The developer shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 7. Statement of Operations. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations dated January 3, 2023, on file with the Planning Division, unless a conflict exists between the Statement of Operations and these Conditions of Approval, in which case the Conditions of Approval control. 8. Revocation of CUP. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. City Review and Modification of CUP. The City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission, and City Council retain and reserve the right and jurisdiction to review and modify this Conditional Use Permit (including the Conditions of Approval) based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of business, a change in scope, emphasis, size of nature of the business, and the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration or change of use. The reservation of right to review any Conditional Use Permit granted or approved or conditionally approved hereunder by the City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission and City Council is in addition to, and not in -lieu of, the right of the City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission, and City Council to review, revoke or modify any Conditional Use Permit approved or conditionally approved hereunder for any violations of the conditions imposed on such Conditional Use Permit or for the maintenance of any nuisance condition or other code violation thereon. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit 10. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this approval. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Requirements 11. Final Building and Safety Conditions. Final Building and Safety conditions will be addressed when building construction plans are submitted to Building and Safety for review. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), and related codes which are enforced at the time of building plan submittal. Page 3 of 6 12. Compliance with Code. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the most current edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and Temecula Municipal Code as identified in Title 15 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 13. ADAAccess. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. b. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entrance of the building. c. Accessible path of travel from parking to the furthest point of improvement. d. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. e. Accessible path of travel from public right-of-way to all public areas on site, such as trash enclosures, clubhouses, and picnic areas. 14. County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance. Applicant shall submit, at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights -of -way. All exterior LED light fixtures shall be 3,000 kelvin or below. 15. Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi -family residential projects or a recorded final map for single-family residential projects. 16. Clearance from TVUSD. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley Unified School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 17. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 18. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. Solid covers are required over new and existing trash enclosures. 19. Demolition. Demolition permits require separate approvals and permits. 20. Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On -site sewer and water plans will require separate approvals and permits. 21. Hours of Construction. Signage shall be prominently posted at the entrance to the project, indicating the hours of construction, as allowed by the City of Temecula Code Section 9.20.060, for any site within one -quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized Government Holidays. 22. House Electrical Meter. Provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with single user buildings shall clearly show on the plans how the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. FIRE PREVENTION Page 4 of 6 General Requirements 23. Fire Dept. Plan Review. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. if the buildings are less than 3,600 square feet then they are not required to be equipped with a fire sprinkler system or a fire alarm system. for buildings that are equipped with a Type 1 hood system and required a hood extinguishing system, that hood system will be required to be tied in and monitored by a fire alarm system. this fire alarm panel will be allowed to be located inside the electrical room since there will be no dedicated fire sprinkler riser room. 24. Fire Flow. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial and residential buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2,000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure for a 2-hour duration for commercial projects. The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC Appendix B and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). Although the system there is existing, it may require upgrades to meet the current code requirements fire flow. 25. Hood Plans. Hood extinguishing system plans shall be submitted electronically to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Hood extinguishing system plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. The hood extinguishing system will be required to be tied into the fire alarm system for monitoring. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 26. Required Submittals (Fire Underground Water). The developer shall furnish electronic copies of the water system plans for any changes or modifications to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block, and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. Hydraulic calculations will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on -site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued (CFC Chapter 33 and Chapter 5). 27. Required Submittals (Fire Sprinkler Systems). Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted electronically to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Fire sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. Fire sprinkler riser shall be located in the fire sprinkler riser room which will house only the fire sprinkler riser and fire alarm control panel. 28. Required Submittals (Fire Alarm Systems). Fire alarm plans shall be submitted electronically to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Fire alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire alarm system is required to have a dedicated circuit from the house panel. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. The main fire alarm control panel will be located inside the fire sprinkler riser room and will not share with any other equipment except the fire sprinkler riser. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 29. Hydrant Verification. Hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers (blue dots) (Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). Page 5 of 6 30. Knox Box. A "Knox -Box" shall be provided. The Knox -Box shall be installed a minimum of six feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire riser sprinkler room (CFC Chapter 5). Page 6 of 6 Vermeltfoort Architects Inc. Architecture and Planning MEMORANDUM DATE: 1/3/2023 TO: City of Temecula FROM: Robert Vermeltfoort RE: Section D: Statement of Operations Development Plan 29540 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA PROJECT #: 21035 The proposed building and site improvements are to be located at 29540 Rancho California Road (at the northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. This project will include the removal of an existing +/- 12,050 square foot building (Claim Jumper) and associated parking/landscaping/etc. We are proposing the construction of a 1,575 square foot wood -framed drive-thru building for Better Buzz Coffee Roasters, with a small outdoor seating area. The current zoning for the area is CC — Community Commercial. The existing use is a vacant building. We feel this is an ideal location for the construction of this building as it is within an existing shopping center, and will not increase the traffic demand than what the previous user had. There will also be a 2,839 square foot drive-thru building for Ono Hawaiian BBQ on the same site, under a separate Conditional Use Permit application. The hours of operation for this restaurant will be from 5am — 8pm, 7 days a week. The number of employees will be about 24-5 people per shift. We are proposing ample parking stalls for both employees and customers/visitors, by providing at total of 78 parking spaces (58 combined stalls are required for both users). The estimated customers for this restaurant will be 100 per day. This is a restaurant, so food will be served, but alcohol will not be offered. No live entertainment will be provided on this site. The landscaping will be lush and match the existing plants and trees within the existing and adjacent shopping centers, utilizing drought resistant plants, shrubs and trees. If you have any questions, please dot not hesitate to contact the office of VAI. Thank you, Robert Vermeltfoort VAI 8525 N. Cedar, Suite 106, Fresno, Ca. 93720 (559)432-6744 office (559)432-6745 fax E-01 EXIST. GONG. CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK TO REMAIN. E-02 EXIST. PROPERTY LINE TO REMAIN. 1 I EXIST. i E-03 EXIST. RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN. GAS STATION j E-04 EXIST. RETAINING WALL 4 MONUMENT SIGN TO REMAIN. E-05 EXIST. PARKING STALLS TO REMAIN. E-06 EXIST. LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN. j i E-07 EXIST. FIRE HYDRANT TO REMAIN. E-OS EXIST. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION TO BE RELOCATED. i 1 i E-Og EXIST. LIGHT POLE TO REMAIN. i E-10 EXIST. TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN. j j E-ll EXIST. SPLICE BOX TO REMAIN. - i 02-01 PARKING LOT STRIPING, PER CITY STANDARDS. 1 ! j i 02-02 DIRECTIONAL ARROWS, PER CITY STANDARDS. i � i 02-03 TRASH ENCLOSURE, PER CITY STANDARDS R-4 8 R-5. (12'-O"xl5'-4") 1 i 02-04 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL - "NO PARKING" LOADING ZONE d ACCESSIBLE SYMBOL. E-Oq 02-05 (2) I -LOOP BIKE RACK, "ULINE #H-28c12". 02-08 TYP. i 02-06 PAINT IN 12" HIGH LETTERS "GLEAN AIR/CARPOOL/EV". I d Eh:8 '2 8 , 02-07 GMU RETAINING WALL, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. u�u�u�u i u�u i�u u�+ uiu i�ff u� �' 4 1 i 02-OS TEMPORARY CONES (PROVIDED BY TENANT DURING BUSY HOURS 6 O ° ° O fM • t66j I TO RE-ROUTE GARS AS TO NOT BLOCK THE SHOPPING CENTER 'i i ENTRANCE). ° 538°5 '26"E 202.0 O� ° Jz • i 1 02-pq PAINT IN 12" HIGH WHITE LETTERS "KEEP CLEAR", w/ WHITE ����� ����•: ���������� ���������� �" �' i DIAGONAL STRIPING @ ENTRANCE TO ONO HAWAIIAN DRIVE-THRU _ d ° 10-44 02-70� 1 O s ! LANE. 02-02 ;o j i 02-70 GONG. PAVING, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. PATCH AG PAVING WHERE TYP. j E-04i REQUIRED. O 1 GONG. SIDEWALK, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. 1 O•, - f 02-05 / j_ i 02-72 GONG. RAMP w/ TRUNCATED DOMES, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. - 0 02-01 02-03 1 6 - o _ j 02-73 GONG. RAMP, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. E - 05 A »o HamiltonHoc?11' _ 12' _ 0" = ! o 02-01 j I 02-74 IS" WIDE GONG. RAMP, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. T TYP. - i - u TYP. 4 2,839 S.F. ! 02-g0 LANDSCAPING, SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. 1 E-06 1 55 -oil! o ° O 10-40 MAX. HEIGHT SIGN. 1 TYP. 29460 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD I c; O 1 ° ACCESSIBLE II=IlrllA LN 10-41 MENU BOARD, ORDER SCREEN 4 SPEAKER. PARKING 15-01 143' 10' \. SIGN, TYP. N 8°5 ' 6"W i y, 10-42 DIRECTIONAL "ENTRANCE" SIGN. I PRE -MENU BOARD. 10-42 o G VER D00 I 02-71 i p L I 10-44 DIRECTIONAL "THANK YOU - EXIT ONLY" SIGN. �- O d ^j o 26'-0' 02-07 ! z 15-01 (N) GAS METER, SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGS. A 15 i 16-01 (N) ELECTRICAL MAIN PANEL, SEE ELEC. DWGS. I 1 V310 d33N HV3l0 d33N �; , /I I rT 16-02 FUTURE EV CHARGING STATION, SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. EXIST. w 02-08 1 d o �� = kt�� j 16-03 (N) POLE MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE, SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. RETAIL 'O_ - � ! (TO MATCH SHOPPING CENTER) BUILDING ?1 Q 02-Og = 1 -43 ll <. 8-CAR OVERFLOW STACK m 1 E 0 R -n m P i I E- 01 (� I _ TYP. I KEYNOTES 2 ' EEP CLEAR KEEP CLE • I I I j 1 4 9 E 07 10-40 0 0 0 0 00 ' "�- W i ENGROACMENT 15 TYP. - PERMIT REQUIRED i ADDRESS: ° 4 ° o W Im FOR WORK WITHIN ! ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ BETTER BUZZ COFFEE EXIST. - jF 02-72 - i R.O.W. i 2g460 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. 2g440 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. AG PAVING Ln a TYPTEMECULA, CALIFORNIA g25gl TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA g25gl j 26' - 0" ° o 7I OWNER: 13_ z O E E-03 i GTR PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LLC 1 1 o 1- __ I O = ! 267g1 UNIT 'A' _ BETTER BUZZ ! CAPISTRANO BEACH, CA g2624 z F ----- i ! 0 1 E-OS COFFEE ROASTERSiu 3 -7 02-04 1,719 S.F. „ 1 v 0 02-03 O ! SITE INFO: 1 ' Q 8-CAR OVERFLOW STACK TYP. 12'-011 ! APN: q21-320-061 AGGE--IBLE 29440 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 1 �( PARKING INDICATES PARCEL GRANTED TO i LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 1 OF MAP 22863 — XI O : """ """ _ CITY OF TEMECULA, PER GRANT 1 SIGN. r = AREA: 1.61 NG: CC - O _ .. , I N T No - G l R :: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ...... S . 2003 258 6 O. DEED RECD. 4/II/03 AS j 02-05 .......: ' ! GENZONIERAL PLAN: CC - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL N38°51'26W 157.26' •" : ,.. „ 20'-0" 67'-0" j EXIST. LAND USE: RESTAURANT E-02 E-07 PROPOSED LAND USE: DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS EXIST. i TYP. 1 if ;_IG-�� EASEMENT 1 55,-o„ II II _ 1 •• +I I 1BUILDING INFO: .,...,...,...,...,.......,,..., ,. 1.,...,.................................. COFFEE S F ( 25 FAR ) j ONO HAWAIIAN BBQ: 2,83q S.F3.41 FAR.) v-� ! BETTER BUZZ 1, 575 2. li IT NE-11 i OCCUPANCY: A-2 _� ! TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-B (NON-SPRINKLERED) 00 IN w N ---A i 1 - I LOT COVERAGE: Ta-i0:)s I _ i BUILDING AREA: 6.30% (4,414 S.F.) If - If j PARKING AREA: 66.gl% (46,852 S.F.) (15, 280 S.F. ) 1 1 N38°51'26"W 16q.24' ,0' LANDSCAPE AREA: 21.82� N51°08 34E 16-03 ! HARDSCAPE AREA: 4.q(.% (3,475 S.F.) 14.41' TYP, PARKING: N38°51'26%W i REQUIRED: 60 STALLS 25.00' ! (1 SPACE PER -15 S.F.) ! I I , r I PROVIDED: 74 STANDARD STALLS e c,► ! �r� �•,, 1 VAN ACCESSIBLE STALLS ACCESSIBLE STALLS STALLS 78STA I • 4 DESIGNATED MOTORCYCLE STALLS EASEMENT NOTES: ! BICYCLE PARKING: 4 SHORT-TERM BICYCLE RACKS c i' J• _ EXIST. ! (2 PROVIDED cn EA. BLDG.) �► ` OFFICE "�, • ;�.:,�.`; AN EASEMENT FOR POLE LINES, CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF BUILDING NEVADA CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION NOW SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Oi EDISON COMPANY, REC'D 05/19/1937, IN BOOK 323, PAGE 387, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS ! • `" ° ' ~ �+ OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE LOCATED FROM RECORDS." A AN EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND CONDUITS AND i APPURTENANCES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AND COMMUNICATIONS, IN FAVOR OF GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, REC'D 04 16 1989 AS INST. i // j > - '� ► NO. 80220, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE i LOCATED FROM RECORDS." • !\, ti`\; -`a. A AN EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND CONDUITS AND APPURTENANCES FOR THE TRANSMITTING INTELLIGENCE BY ELECTRICAL MEANS, IN FAVOR OF i SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, REC'D 04/16/1989 AS INST. NO. 80220, OF OFFICIAL ! RECORDS OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. "SAID EASEMENT CANNOT BE LOCATED FROM RECORDS." I SPECIAL NOTE: WHERE LISTED MAPPING LENGTH, BEARING AND DISTANCES DO NOT MATCH THE ! . -•� ,�` �" r , t g' RECORDED MAP PLEASE REFER TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT CALLS FOR THE EXCETPED •,g"M'\ �� ,fit_ '� , sr� �c ass PROTIONS OF MAP 22863. NORTH 20 OVERALL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=20'-0" 8 SITE INFORMATION 4 z O w w Q 0 X L L ° O N o No o o o c� U c c CO)_ Q �Q a= � CD U� 0 0 T u, O .0 Q C O n� Ln -0Ln- o cu7 o CL Qo • V bJJ CVO � RCN � U � O Lr) c3 U U u� O t+^^ U i-I Lr) U c� i-I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p LLJ Q z G�� 00 , >� Q 't o v z v7 w w J J/1#SAP (s)� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ TEMECULA RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. & YNES RD. TEMECULA, CA 92591 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ND I..L W Q 4L � w 0 W� co z w O � 'nn ^ V1 O OL 0. D O 0— W (- ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ISSUE DATE: 8-q-22 REV. DATE: PROJECT NO.: 21035 DRAWN BY: NL SHEET: Notice of Public Hearin THE CITY OF TEMECULA - 41000 Main Street- Temecula, CA 92590 — TemeculaCA.gov A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter(s) described below: Case No.: PA23-0026, PA23-0027, PA23-0030 Applicant: Robert Vermeltfoort, on Behalf of Better Buzz Coffee and Ono Hawaiian BBQ Project Location: 29540 Rancho California Road Proposal: A Development Plan to allow the construction of two commercial structures totaling approximately 4,414 square feet and related Conditional Use Permits for drive-thru lanes. Structures will be used for a restaurant and coffee shop. Environmental Action: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff has determined that the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects. If the project is approved, Notice of Exemption will be filed. Case Planner: Eric Jones,951-506-5115 PLACE OF HEARING: 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590, City of Temecula, Council Chambers DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 17, 2024 TIME OF HEARING: 6:00 PM 4, LASGOV O Q ® Project Site 2 oGP co 14 ►W 0 400 800 Feet �O The complete agenda packet (including any supplemental materials) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — TemeculaCA.gov and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. Any writing distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — TemeculaCA.zov — and will be available for public review at the meeting. Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the Planning Commission shall be filed within time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the Planning Commission shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice. Questions? Please call the Community Development Department at (951) 694-6400. City of Temecula Community Development 41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590 Phone (951 ) 694-6400 • TemeculaCA.gov VIA -ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL CEQAProces sina(& asrclkrec. com April 18, 2024 Supervising Legal Certification Clerk County of Riverside P.O. Box 751 Riverside, CA 92501-0751 SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application Numbers PA23-0030, PA23-0026, and PA23-0027, a Development Plan to allow the construction of two commercial structures totaling approximately 4,414 square feet and related Conditional Use Permits for drive-thru lanes. Structures will be used for a restaurant and coffee shop. The project is located at 29540 Rancho California Road. Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed is the Notice of Exemption for the above referenced project. In addition, pursuant to Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) the Applicant will pay for the County Administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507. The payment of the $50.00 filing fee is under protest. It is the opinion of the City that the administrative fee has been increased in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of State Law. Under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507, the County is entitled to receive a $25.00 filing fee. Also, please email a stamped copy of the Notice of Exemption within five working days after the 30-day posting to the email listed below. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Eric Jones at email: eric.jones@TemeculaCA.gov. Sincerely, Matt Peters Assistant Director of Community Development Enclosures: Notice of Exemption Form Electronic Payment - Filing Fee Receipt City of Temecula Community Development Planning Division Notice of Exemption TO: County Clerk and Recorders Office FROM: Planning Division County of Riverside City of Temecula P.O. Box 751 41000 Main Street Riverside, CA 92501-0751 Temecula, CA 92590 Project Title: Ono Hawaiian BBQ & Better Buzz Coffee (PA23-0026, 0027, 0030) Description of Project: A Development Plan to allow the construction of two commercial structures totaling approximately 4,414 square feet and related Conditional Use Permits for drive-thru lanes. Structures will be used for a restaurant and coffee shop. Project Location: 29540 Rancho California Road Applicant/Proponent: Robert Vermeltfoort, on behalf of Better Buzz Coffee and Ono Hawaiian BBQ The Planning Commission approved the above -described project on April 17, 2024 and found that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. Exempt Status: (check one) ❑Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); Section 15268); ❑Statutory Exemptions (Section Number: ) ❑Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); Section ®Categorical Exemption: (Section 15332, Class 32, 15269(a)); infill Development Projects) ❑Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); Section ❑Other: Section 15162 Categorical Exemption 15269(b)(c)); Statement of Reasons Supporting the Finding that the Project is Exempt: The project will allow for the construction of two structures each housing quick service restaurants on a site smaller than five acres within city limits and is surrounded by urban uses. The proposed uses and overall design of the project are consistent with the General Plan for Temecula as well as applicable zoning regulations. The project site has been fully developed and used as a restaurant for decades and therefore has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. In addition, the site can be serviced by all utilities. Finally, the project will not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Contact Person/Title: Eric Jones, Associate Planner Telephone Number (951) 506-5115 Signature: Matt Peters, Assistant Director of Community Development Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office: Date: Item No. 3 STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Luke Watson, Deputy City Manager DATE OF MEETING: April 17, 2024 PREPARED BY: Mark Collins, Assistant Planner APPLICANT NAME: City of Temecula PROJECT Long Range Project Number LR21-1331, a Community Wildfire SUMMARY: Protection Plan (CWPP) CEQA: Categorically Exempt Per Section 15061(B)(3) Statutorily Exempt Per Section 15262 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution of the Planning Commission adopting the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). BACKGROUND SUMMARY The City of Temecula, along with other communities in Southern California, has a long and important history with wildfire. Historically, each community has dealt with the issue of wildfire prevention on its own, without required consistency between jurisdictions. This individual approach has created a patchwork of policies across communities which cross multiple jurisdictions, each potentially having its own policy, equipment, and personnel. Although these individual approaches do benefit the community, this does not allow for a regional or even community wide approach to wildland fires, which is a detriment to the safety of all residents and structures within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) across the state. As fire science, specifically wind and ember behavior modeling improves, it further highlights the holistic and multi -agency approach necessary to address such a complex and multi -faceted issue. To address these growing concerns, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 emphasized the need for federal agencies to work collaboratively with communities in the WUI. This is accomplished through a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), which is an opportunity to influence and, in some cases, specify how agencies perform fuel reduction activities on properties within the CWPP. Recent fire activity has highlighted the danger and potential impacts to Temecula's residents, communities, infrastructure, and the environment. The lessons learned from recent fires in the area were not lost, and the City quickly applied for and was awarded a Cal Fire Grant totaling $433,866 to develop a Community Wildfire Protection Plan or "CWPP," for a 177-acre site located roughly at the confluence of the Temecula, Pechanga, and Murrieta Creeks. The City contracted with Steven W. Carothers and Associates (SWCA) Environmental to accomplish these goals. SWCA has substantial experience in the region and specifically with developing CWPP's. A Development Team was brought together that included representatives from all property owners within the project area as well as various stakeholders representing various interests and organizations, and surrounding Homeowners Association (HOA) Representatives. This team provided their expertise in various fields to ensure the plan provided the maximum protection for the community as well as the natural environment and all life that lives or traverses the project site. Community involvement and participation is a key component of a CWPP. To that end, the City held a thirty (30) day Public Comment Period for the community at large, or any interested party, to provide their comments on the proposed CWPP. In addition, there were two public workshops held at the Conference Center located at City Hall on February 22"d, 2024 at 9:OOam and again at 2:OOpm. Staff received positive feedback and valuable insights from various parties at these meetings, comments were incorporated where possible. The Development Team met on February 6th, 2023, for an initial review of the project scope, future meeting schedule, introductions for all parties and an overview of the components/processes of a CWPP. The Team met again on October 16th, 2023, to review some initial biological studies as well as some draft documents and the online ArcGIS Story Map. The Development Team met a final time on March 6th, 2024, to review the final CWPP. This CWPP is one step in Temecula's efforts to reduce wildland fire risks for the 177-acre project site as well as the surrounding communities. This CWPP is an organizing document and does not implement any specific actions or activities that would make any physical changes to the environment. The next step is an implementation agreement between the stakeholders, property owners, and agencies. This agreement would implement specific actions discussed in the CWPP, these actions would be analyzed for potential environmental impacts through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for specific proposed actions. ANALYSIS The Temecula Creek CWPP was created using CalFire grant funding, however it does not fund the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis of the project, the implementation plan/agreement, or long-term monitoring agreement which are critical to ensure the long-term success of this CWPP. The 177 acres that comprise the Temecula Creek CWPP were specifically selected because the project site contains some of the most significant fire risks within the City. Additionally, the area contains substantial cultural, environmental and wildlife resources. This CWPP is intended to be the first step in implementing a citywide CWPP with the eventual goal of creating a regional CWPP that would consolidate and bring together all stakeholders and property owners under a single plan with unified goals. N Temecula's CWPP is designed to be a public facing, interactive tool for the community to understand the wildland fire risk to their property and learn prevention measures and methods to harden and/or protect their homes and families. Along with the CWPP physical documents, the City, with SWCA has developed an online public facing ArcGis Story Map that presents the CWPP as in interactive tool available to the community. Although this plan specifies and recommends specific actions, timing and methods for fuels reduction, it does not mandate these actions for property owners. This plan takes into account the varying interests that are present at the project site and attempts to balance those interests as best possible while accomplishing the goals within the CWPP. Staff has reviewed the General Plan and has determined that this project is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use and Public Safety Element of the adopted General Plan. A review of the General Plan did not identify any goals or policies that provided contrary policy direction or that indicated an inconsistency between the CWPP and the adopted General Plan. The specific examples demonstrating consistency are listed below. Land Use Element: Goal 5 A land use pattern that protects and enhances residential neighborhoods. Policy 6.4 Protect and enhance significant ecological and biological resources within and surrounding Temecula. Policy 6.3 Conserve the natural resources of areas watercourses, include Santa Gertrudis, Temecula, and Murrieta Creeks, through appropriate development densities. Public Safety Element: Goal 1 Protection from natural hazards associated with geologic instability, seismic events, wild land fires, flooding, and dam failures. Policy 1.8 Reduce the risk of wild land fires through imposition of site -specific development standards during project review and coordination with the City Fire Department and other organizations. Additionally, staff reviewed the Quality of Life Master Plan (QLMP) 2040, and has determined that this project is consistent with and furthers the goals contained therein. Quality of Life Master Plan (QLMP) 2040: Core Value No. 1 A safe and prepared community. Core Value No. 3 A healthy and livable community. Core Value No. 5 A sustainable and resilient City. Core Value No. 6 Accountable and responsive city government. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in The Press -Enterprise on April 4, 2024. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Title 14, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines), the project is categorically exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines Section 1506 1 (13)(3), and statutorily exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15262.. This project does not propose or authorize any changes to the physical environment and is a planning document only. ATTACHMENTS: 1. PC Resolution 2. Exhibit A — CWPP 3. Exhibit B — CWPP Appendices 4. Notice of Public Hearing 5. Draft Notice of Exemption PC RESOLUTION NO. 2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT NO. LR21-1331, THE TEMECULA CREEK COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN (CWPP) AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER SECTION 15061(B)(3) AND SECTION 15262 Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The City of Temecula adopted the Quality of Life Master Plan (QLMP) 2040, on November 15, 2022. The QLMP identified the need to implement a fire safety document and was included as a Strategic Objective. B. On December 28, 2021, the City of Temecula accepted a CalFire Grant (Grant No. 5GG20167) totaling $378,000.00 with a City contribution of staff time totaling $55,866.00, with a grand total of $433,866.00 for the purpose of creating the Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). C. The City selected Steven W. Carothers and Associates (SWCA) Environmental from the proposals received during the Request For Proposal (RFP) process and entered into an agreement from January 10, 2023 through August 31, 2023 for the purpose of achieving this goal through the creation of a CWPP. D. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the CWPP Project (LR21-1331) and environmental review on April 17, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. E. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Long Range Project No. LR21-1331. F. The CWPP project demonstrates consistency with the Goals, Policies and Programs of the General Plan. The findings of consistency set forth in the staff report are incorporated herein by this reference. G. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of this resolution: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review per Section 15061(B)(3). B. Additionally, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be statutorily exempt from further environmental review per Section 15262. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 17th day of April 2024. Bob Hagel, Chair ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing PC Resolution No. 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of April 2024, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson Secretary Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan 5 SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS J R The Heart of Southern California Wine Country Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants for the City of Temecula -tea- 4'. Y i.: v:t.. E y. 4 �y - '��' �.: tic •.;: ,l a: r s: .z r F "lpam� _ .. � � _;"'� :•�x+ . We would like to formally thank the Development Team and all stakeholders, notably California Department of Fish and Wildlife, TEAM Resource Conservation District (RCD), Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Pechanga Band of Indians, Riverside County Flood Control, The Nature Conservancy, San Diego State University Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Caltrans, County of Riverside Emergency Management Department, and the City of Temecula for contributing their time and expertise throughout the planning process. Funding for this project was provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) through the California Climate Investments Fire Prevention Grants. For additional information, questions, or concerns regarding this project, please contact Project Manager Angela Chongpinitchai at angela.chongpinitchai(c�swca.com. SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS https://www.swca.com/ The entities listed below participated in the development of and/or reviewed and are in support of the Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan: Signature Name (printed) Date Signature Name (printed) Date City of Temecula/Position (printed) City of Temecula/Position (printed) Signature Name (printed) Date Signature Name (printed) Date City of Temecula/Position (printed) City of Temecula/Position (printed) Signature Name (printed) Date Cal OES/Position (printed) Signature Name (printed) Date Pechanga Band of Indians/Position (printed) Signature Name (printed) Date Meadowview/Position (printed) Signature Name (printed) Date Rancho California Water District/Position (printed) Signature Name (printed) Date Riverside County Flood Control/Position (printed) Signature Name (printed) Date SoCal Gas/Position (printed) Signature Name (printed) Date SDSU/Position (printed) Signature Name (printed) Date The Nature Conservancy/Position (printed) Signature Name (printed) Date U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Position (printed) Signature Name (printed) Date Signature Name (printed) Date U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Position (printed) Signature Name (printed) Date Caltrans/Position (printed) CDFW/Position (printed) CONTENTS J- Abbreviations and Acronyms.................................................................................................................... v ExecutiveSummary .............................................................................................................................. ES-1 What is the Purpose of this Community Wildfire Protection Plan? ................................................... ES-1 Howis the Plan Organized?............................................................................................................. ES-1 How was the Temecula Creek CWPP Developed?......................................................................... ES-2 Who Will Lead the Implementation of this CWPP?.......................................................................... ES-2 DevelopmentTeam List.................................................................................................................... ES-3 CityReview Team List...................................................................................................................... ES-3 Whereis the Planning Area?............................................................................................................ ES-4 What is the Current Wildfire Situation?............................................................................................ ES-4 How will the Risk Assessment Impact My Insurance?..................................................................... ES-6 When Does the CWPP Need to be Updated?.................................................................................. ES-6 Chapter1 — Introduction.............................................................................................................................1 Goal of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan.......................................................................................2 Alignment With The National Cohesive Strategy...................................................................................2 Alignment with Plans and Fire Policies..................................................................................................3 FireManagement Policy..................................................................................................................3 ManagementDirection.....................................................................................................................4 FederalDirection..............................................................................................................................7 PlanningProcess....................................................................................................................................7 DevelopmentTeam................................................................................................................................7 PublicInvolvment.............................................................................................................................7 PlanningArea.........................................................................................................................................8 LandOwnership...............................................................................................................................8 Topography...................................................................................................................................... 9 Vegetation........................................................................................................................................ 9 Wildlife.............................................................................................................................................. 9 Page I i Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Population......................................................................................................................................10 Social Vulnerability and Environmental Justice.............................................................................10 Evacuation Resources...................................................................................................................12 WaterAvailability and Supply........................................................................................................13 Public Education and Outreach Programs...........................................................................................15 Local and State Programs.............................................................................................................15 Chapter 2 — Fire and Fuels Potential.......................................................................................................17 Wildland-Urban Interface......................................................................................................................17 Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Regimes...................................................................................................20 Weather Patterns and Climate Change................................................................................................21 FireHistory ...........................................................................................................................................23 UnhousedPopulations...................................................................................................................27 FireResources.....................................................................................................................................29 LocalResponse.............................................................................................................................31 StateResponse..............................................................................................................................31 FederalResponse..........................................................................................................................32 TribalResponse.............................................................................................................................32 MutualAid......................................................................................................................................32 CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones................................................................................................ 33 Chapter 3 — Community Risk Assessment.............................................................................................35 Purpose................................................................................................................................................35 Risk Assessment Inputs and Methodology.......................................................................................... 36 Inputs.............................................................................................................................................. 36 Methodology................................................................................................................................... 36 Risk Assessment Results..................................................................................................................... 39 Risk Assessment Inputs Definition.......................................................................................................41 Highly Valued Resources and Assets............................................................................................41 FuelModels....................................................................................................................................45 Weather.......................................................................................................................................... 48 Historic Fire Occurrence (Density).................................................................................................48 Rateof Spread............................................................................................................................... 50 IntegratedHazard..........................................................................................................................52 CrownFire Activity......................................................................................................................... 56 StructureExposure Score..............................................................................................................56 Chapter 4 — Mitigation Strategies............................................................................................................ 61 Cohesive Strategy Goal 1: Restore and Maintain Landscapes............................................................62 FuelsReduction Plan..................................................................................................................... 63 Cohesive Strategy Goal 2: Fire -Adapted Communities........................................................................66 Cohesive Strategy Goal 3: Wildfire Response..................................................................................... 72 Preparedness................................................................................................................................. 72 Chapter 5 — Monitoring and Evaluation.................................................................................................. 76 Fuels Treatment Monitoring..................................................................................................................78 Implementationof the CWPP............................................................................................................... 79 CWPPEvaluation................................................................................................................................. 80 Page I ii Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Timeline for Updating the CWPP..........................................................................................................81 References................................................................................................................................................. 82 Glossary..................................................................................................................................................... 89 Appendix A: Natural Resources Appendix B: Cultural Resources Appendix C: CEQA Resources APPENDICES FIGURES Figure 1.1. The CWPP incorporates the three primary goals of the Cohesive Strategy and post - fire recovery and serves as a holistic plan for fire prevention and resilience ............................. Figure 1.2. Disadvantaged communities near the PIZ............................................................................. Figure 1.3. Fire hydrant locations near the planning area....................................................................... Figure 2.1. WUI communities in and near the PIZ................................................................................... Figure 2.2. Example of WUI in the PIZ.................................................................................................... Figure 2.3. Monthly climate norms for the city of Temecula.................................................................... Figure 2.4. Total number of reported wildfires per time period within a 10-mile buffer of the project........................................................................................................................................ . Figure 2.5. Fire size classes per time period within a 10-mile buffer of the project ................................. Figure 2.6. Total number of reported wildfires in a given month (1911-2023) within a 10-mile bufferof the project site............................................................................................................... Figure 2.7. Wildfire cause within in a 10-mile buffer of the project site ................................................... Figure 2.8. Wildfire history in the Temecula Creek area from 1911 through 2023. Wildfires without perimeter data are represented by a point.................................................................................. Figure 2.9. Trespassing access points near the Pechanga Parkway bridge ........................................... Figure 2.10. Primary modes of fire spread: surface spread (A), crown fire via ladder fuels into tree canopies (B), and spot fires from embers(C)............................................................................. Figure 2.11. Fire response areas and capacity in the Temecula Creek planning area vicinity ............... Figure 2.12. CAL FIRE —designated FHSZs............................................................................................. Figure 3.1. Schematic of the risk assessment inputs.............................................................................. Figure 3.2. Risk assessment classification in and around the PIZ.......................................................... Figure 3.3. Vegetative communities composing natural HVRAs............................................................. Figure 3.4. Socioeconomic HVRAs.......................................................................................................... Figure 3.5. Scott and Burgan (2005) fuel models within the PIZ............................................................. Figure 3.6. Fire occurrence density (fire history) in the PIZ..................................................................... Figure 3.7. Influence of slope and wind on rates of spread and fuel availability ..................................... Figure 3.8. Rate of spread in the PIZ....................................................................................................... Figure 3.9. Integrated hazard in the PIZ.................................................................................................. Figure 3.10. Conditional flame length in the PIZ...................................................................................... Figure 3.11. Burn probability in the PIZ................................................................................................... .3 11 14 19 20 22 23 24 24 25 26 27 28 30 34 38 40 42 44 47 49 50 51 53 54 55 Page I iii Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA Figure 3.12. Crown fire activity in the PIZ..................................................................................... Figure 3.13. Structure exposure score for the PIZ and adjacent communities. Each class is 1.5 times as exposed as the preceding class, with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highestscore possible...................................................................................................... Figure 3.14. Ember exposure zones of the PIZ............................................................................ Figure 4.1. CAL FIRE recommendations for defensible space zones .......................................... Figure 4.2. CAL FIRE recommendations for vertical spacing of trees and shrubs on private property............................................................................................................................ Figure 4.3. CAL FIRE recommendations for horizontal spacing of trees and shrubs on private property............................................................................................................................ Figure 4.4. Suppression difficulty index in the planning area ....................................................... TABLES Table 1.1. List of State Direction, Bills and Programs............................................................ Table 2.1. Mean Annual Temperature and Precipitation in Temecula ................................... Table 2.2. Fire Stations within 5 miles of the Project Site ....................................................... Table 2.3. Response Authority and FHSZ Classification in the Planning Area ...................... Table 3.1. Risk Assessment Inputs, Sources, and Weights ................................................... Table 3.2. Fuel Model Classification for Temecula Creek CWPP PIZ.................................... Table 4.1. Recommendations to Create Resilient Landscapes (Potential Fuels Treatments) Table 4.2. Recommendations for Creating Fire -Adapted Communities (Reducing Structural Ignitability and Defensible Space).............................................................................. Table 4.3. Recommendations for Safe and Effective Wildfire Response ............................... Table 5.1. Recommended Monitoring Strategies 58 60 67 68 69 74 .6 21 31 33 37 45 65 70 75 77 Page I iv Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS °F Degrees Fahrenheit BLM Bureau of Land Management CA GOPR California Governor's Office of Planning and Research CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal OES California Governor's Office of Emergency Services CaIVTP California Vegetation Treatment Program CAR Community at risk CCI California Climate Investments CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDI California Department of Insurance CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERT Community Emergency Response Team Cohesive Strategy National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CRS Congressional Research Service CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ES Executive summary ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHSZ Fire hazard severity zone FIREMON Fire Effects Monitoring and Inventory System FRA Federal Responsibility Area FRAP Fire and Resource Assessment Program GACC Geographic Area Coordination Center GIS Geographic information system HFRA Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 HMP Hazard mitigation plan HVRA Highly valued resource or asset ICARP Integrated Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Program IFTDSS Interagency Fuel Treatment Decision Support System LHMP Local hazard mitigation plan LRA Local Responsibility Area MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Page I v Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFPA National Fire Protection Association NIFC National Interagency Fire Center NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NWCG National Wildfire Coordinating Group OEM Office of Emergency Management PFD Pechanga Fire Department PIZ Project influence zone PRC Public Resources Code RAWS Remote automated weather station SAF Society of American Foresters SDI Suppression difficulty index SDSU San Diego State University SES Structure exposure score SMER Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve SRA State Responsibility Area SWCA SWCA Environmental Consultants TEAM RCD Temecula-Anza-Elsinore-Murrieta Resources Conservation District TNC The Nature Conservancy USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFA U.S. Fire Administration USFS U.S. Forest Service WFDSS Wildland Fire Decision Support System WRSC Western Regional Strategy Committee WUI Wildland-urban interface Page I vi Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN? The purpose of the 2024 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) is to develop a comprehensive and specialized strategy to address wildfire risks within and around the 177-acre Temecula Creek project site. In the CWPP and appendices, wildfire hazards and risks are identified and assessed, mitigation strategies and fuels reduction treatments are recommended, and an outline for environmental compliance and permitting for implementation of fuels treatments in a biologically and culturally sensitive riparian area near urban development are presented. This CWPP also aims to create increased public awareness, enhancing residents' understanding of the natural and human -caused risks of wildland fires that threaten lives, safety, and the local economy, and to identify other wildfire prevention and mitigation measures that property owners can undertake that enhance wildland fuels reduction on the landscape. By addressing critical fire prevention needs while considering environmental, cultural, and wildlife factors, the 2024 Temecula Creek CWPP will serve as a model for similar high fire -risk areas in the city. The following are the minimum requirements for a CWPP, as stated in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) (Society of American Foresters [SAF] 2004): Collaboration: Local and state government representatives, in consultation with federal agencies or other interested groups, must collaboratively develop a CWPP. • Prioritized Fuel Reduction: A CWPP must identify and prioritize areas for hazardous fuels reduction and treatments and recommend the types and methods of treatment that will protect one or more communities at risk (CARs) and their essential infrastructures. Treatments of Structural Ignitability: A CWPP must recommend measures that homeowners and communities can take to reduce the ignitability of structures throughout the area addressed by the plan. HOW IS THE PLAN ORGANIZED? The CWPP provides background information about the community's wildland fire environment, a risk assessment, mitigation strategies including a fuels reduction plan, and monitoring recommendations for the project. Appendices provide additional information on permitting and environmental compliance. Chapter 1 provides a general overview of CWPPs, the Development Team, planning area, land ownership, and public involvement. Chapter 2 presents an overview of the WUI, fire environment, and specific information about vegetation and fire history as well as fire management and response. Chapter 3 describes the risk assessment, results of the assessment, and community values at risk. Chapter 4 provides the Action Plan, or the mitigation strategies, including a fuels reduction plan, and preparedness. Chapter 5 presents monitoring strategies to assist in tracking project progress and in evaluating work accomplished. Page I ES-1 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA Appendix A Natural Resources Appendix B Cultural Resources Appendix C CEQA Compliance HOW WAS THE TEMECULA CREEK CWPP DEVELOPED? A group of multijurisdictional agencies, organizations, and community members joined together as a Development Team to develop this CWPP. Development Team members brought years of experience working locally in interdisciplinary natural resource management and contributed their expertise to this CWPP. The CWPP planning process served multiple purposes. First was to model and map wildfire risk, incorporating valued resources and assets in and adjacent to the project site. Second was to identify a fuels reduction plan to help manage wildland fuels contributing to wildfire risk. The Development Team tailored the fuels management approach to the unique needs of the Temecula Creek area. Lastly, the CWPP planning process facilitated the Development Team holistically developing an approach to the complex yet critical area in and around Temecula Creek and the adjacent communities, allowing the plan to serve as a model for other areas in the city. The development of the CWPP also provided for public involvement where community members were engaged in providing input through public meetings, social media, and online forums. The CWPP planning process brings together land managers into a Development Team, providing opportunities to build lasting working relationships and encourage collaboration across jurisdictions. The success of the CWPP is rooted not only with land management agencies, but also property owners, taking steps to mitigate fire risk in the area. In addition, the City of Temecula 2023 Emergency Operations Plan and the 2023-2027 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), as well as other relevant planning documents, were consulted to develop this CWPP. Therefore, projects identified in this CWPP align with the wildfire -specific hazard mitigation actions identified in the Mitigation Strategy of the LHMP (City of Temecula Office of Emergency Management [Temecula OEM] 2023a, 2023b). This CWPP furthers the City of Temecula's Quality of Life Master Plan 2024 Core Value No. 1, which is to be a "Safe and Prepared Community." WHO WILL LEAD THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS CWPP? CWPPs do not have the authority to mandate implementation of any of the recommendations, but the message throughout this document is that the greatest fire mitigation could be achieved through joint actions across jurisdictional boundaries. Implementation of most projects identified in this CWPP will require the collaboration and cooperation of multiple individuals and entities such as the City; partnering organizations and academia; local, state, and federal agencies; landowners of the project site; and property owners in the adjacent communities and homeowners associations. The plan will be governed by the City of Temecula; however, to ensure the CWPP moves forward, all land managers of the project area, as well as nearby property owners, share the responsibility to implement wildfire mitigation measures. The Development Team lists the key stakeholders involved in the process who will play a critical role in implementing this CWPP in the future. Page I ES-2 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA DEVELOPMENT TEAM LIST name Adam Eventov *rganization SoCal Gas Adrian Shum Caltrans Bjana Jefferson California Department of Fish and Wildlife Cara Lacey The Nature Conservancy Imad Guirguis Riverside County Flood Control James Mace U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jose Ortega California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Riverside) Karin Cleary -Rose U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kelcey Stricker Pechanga Nation Mark Collins City of Temecula Matt Rahn Local Expert Pablo Bryant San Diego State University Subject Matter Expert Richard Kim California Department of Fish and Wildlife Teri Biancardi Meadowview Community, T.E.A.M. R.C.D. Tom Greene Rancho Water Trish Smith The Nature Conservancy CITY REVIEW TEAM Betsy Lowrey LIST OrganizationName City of Temecula Chris Durham Riverside County Sheriff's Office Elsa Wigle Riverside County Fire Department Haide Urais City of Temecula Jennifer Kenitzer Riverside County Sheriff's Office John Crater CAL FIRE Katie Garcia City of Temecula Luke Watson City of Temecula Matt Peters City of Temecula Mikel Alford City of Temecula Ron Moreno City of Temecula Stacy Fox City of Temecula Stuart Kuhn City of Temecula Tyren Hundley City of Temecula Page I ES-3 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA WHERE IS THE PLANNING AREA? The planning area includes the approximately 177-acre Temecula Creek project site and the 0.5-mile project influence zone (PIZ) for a total of 2,413 acres (Figure ES 1). WHAT IS THE CURRENT WILDFIRE SITUATION? The large conservation reserves to the west of the planning area consist mainly of untouched chaparral plant communities and steep, rugged terrain. While there are breaks in the fuel continuity along the interface, this region still poses a significant challenge for firefighting efforts because of access, terrain, and expected fire behavior. The project site itself is predominantly riparian, but it faces the threat of invasive species, increased human activity, and more fire ignitions, all of which are aligned to alter the historical fire regime. The PIZ is vulnerable to Santa Ana winds, which are predominantly from a northeasterly direction. Fire starts during this weather phenomenon often become wind -driven and are difficult to control, spreading across large areas. The dense chapparal vegetation on the western and northwestern slopes of Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER) also pose a high fire threat during peak fire season or when drought conditions dry out the decadent vegetation; coupled with seasonal conditions, such as the Santa Ana winds and a drought -prone climate, there is a heightened risk of rapid wildfire growth during the months when these conditions align. In the previous 15 years, three fires over 10 acres in size have occurred within 1 mile of the project site. Page I ES-4 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA .� 'e-• 1 It a q iA - — StrsemlRNer Ownership RNersitle County, CA � s a rt re — 13 A Gf HEf21 LLCC3tion 10H HS-0 Tribal Truss Lands _Map, Roadway Burseu o}Land Management — Rcatlway 'A Dept, W Flsh.t WMdlile Q Temecula U-1, ptoyecl Revi,tlary Local Gevetnmanl *t lnlluan4 zoneM E Mile Butters �NOn-Pro}It Consarventiesand Ttuats NM I99351ahRve CzlManla N FtpS 0906 Feet 33,9]9]°N 11y12]B'W .1p iNs —� C' IT acids Rounds QU State Lands ry )♦ Rlversitle Ceanly Flead Conlml � 0ty a T--i. o Fs�a•RCYfio�r �..aF.a- re 124,0a0 � C, ✓•r SW Ca7.—Raw Figure ES.1. Temecula Creek CWPP planning area and ownership. Page I ES-5 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA HOW WILL THE RISK ASSESSMENT IMPACT MY INSURANCE? The wildfire risk assessment conducted for this CWPP is not intended to be used to determine insurance premiums of home and property. Insurance companies utilize their own wildfire risk assessments to write and renew policies. Furthermore, a partnership between Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), and California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (CA GOPR) has led to the development of regulatory action that creates insurance incentives for implementing actions that build up home and community resilience to wildfire. This new wildfire safety regulation aims to make insurance more affordable while increasing public involvement in risk mitigation and awareness regarding local hazards (California Department of Insurance [CDI] 2022). Wildfire risk reduction actions identified in this CWPP (such as home hardening, creating defensible space, and community collaboration) are in alignment with the mitigation actions specified in the Safer from Wildfires initiative. Additionally, under California Code of Regulations Section 2644.9, the Safer from Wildfires initiative, insurers must now consider and reflect key factors such as community -level mitigation designations and property -level mitigation when developing rates. Insurers must also provide greater transparency to policyholders by disclosing information surrounding important items such as potential discounts, risk assignments, and mitigative actions that could lead to reduced premium costs. Therefore, implementing actions to reduce wildfire risk, such as those identified in this CWPP, may support homeowners to qualify for insurance discounts. To learn more about insuring your home from wildfire incidents, please explore the following web pages: Safer from Wildfires: Being Safer from Wildfires can help with your insurance: https://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumers/200-wrr/Safer-from-Wildfires.cfm What does being Safer from Wildfires mean for my Insurance?: https://www.insurance.ca.gov/0250- insurers/0800-rate-filings/0200-prior-approval-factors/upload/FAQ-Mitigation-in-Rating-Plans-and-Wildfire- Risk-Models-Regulation 2023-02-16.pdf California FAIR Plan Association: https://ains.assembly.ca.gov/sites/ains.assembly.ca.gov/files/FAIR%20PIan-Factsheet-2.23.23.pdf WHEN DOES THE CWPP NEED TO BE UPDATED? The CWPP should be treated as a living document to be updated annually or immediately following a significant fire event. The plan should continue to be revised to reflect changes, modification, or new information. These elements are essential to the success of mitigating wildfire risk and will be critical in maintaining the ideas and priorities of the plan in the future. The story map associated with this CWPP is an easy way to relay updates to the stakeholders and communities as they occur. Just as the Development Team and stakeholders convened to develop this initial CWPP, any updates should be a collaborative effort too. Chapter 5 provides an evaluation framework that can help guide the overall CWPP update process. Page I ES-6 The United States is facing urgent forest and watershed health concerns. Contributing to this is the increasing total acres burned from wildfire nationwide in recent years (Congressional Research Service [CRS] 2023). Since 2000, an average of 7 million acres burns every year due to wildfire, more than doubling the annual average of acres burned in the 1990s (CRS 2023). Communities are consistently experiencing more destructive wildfire seasons in recent years as the wildland-urban interface (WUI) expands. Most of California's wildfires with the highest number of structures damaged occurred in the last decade (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CAL FIRE] 2023a). Nationwide, 69% of buildings destroyed by wildfire are in the WUI, and in California specifically, it is 75% (Kramer et al. 2018). These statistics demonstrate that wildfires are becoming larger and increasingly impactful to the natural and human -made environment. California's Forests and Rangelands 2017 Assessment states that California, like other western states, faces urgent issues concerning frequent and severe pest and wildfire events that are unprecedented and threaten the sustainability of forests, watersheds, and interrelated ecosystems. As wildfire severity increases, communities need a plan to help prepare for, reduce the risk of, and adapt to wildland fire events. Community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs) help accomplish these goals. A CWPP provides recommendations that are intended to reduce, but not eliminate, the extreme severity or risk of wildland fire. The development of a CWPP is rooted in meaningful collaboration among many stakeholders, including local, state, and federal officials. The City of Temecula is one of many landowners of the project site and project influence zone (PIZ). The planning process involves looking at past fires and treatment accomplishments using the knowledge and expertise of the professional fire managers of the area along with strategic public input. A CWPP does not mandate the type and prioritization of fuels treatments and other preparedness projects; it is the discretion of and responsibility of the governing agency or landowner to implement wildfire mitigation treatments. Page 1 1 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA GOAL OF A COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN The goal of a CWPP is to enable local communities to improve their wildfire -mitigation capacity while working with government agencies to identify high fire risk areas and prioritize areas for mitigation, fire suppression, and emergency preparedness. Another goal of the CWPP is to enhance public awareness by helping residents better understand the natural and human -caused risks of wildland fires that threaten lives, safety, and the local economy, and the steps property owners can take to reduce these risks. The minimum requirements for a CWPP, as stated in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA), are: Collaboration: Local and state government representatives, in consultation with federal agencies or other interested groups, must collaboratively develop a CWPP (Society of American Foresters [SAF] 2004). • Prioritized Fuels Reduction: A CWPP must identify and prioritize areas for hazardous fuels reduction and treatments and recommend the types and methods of treatment that will protect one or more communities at risk (CARs) and their essential infrastructures (SAF 2004). Treatments of Structural Ignitability: A CWPP must recommend measures that homeowners and communities can take to reduce the ignitability of structures throughout the area addressed by the plan (SAF 2004). This 2024 Temecula Creek CWPP intends to provide a project -level review of wildfire risk and mitigation needs, bringing together responsible wildfire management and collaborating entities in the City to address the identified needs and provide support for planning and implementation. Additional information on the environmental compliance process to have "shovel -ready" fuels reduction projects is available in the appendices. ALIGNMENT WITH THE NATIONAL COHESIVE STRATEGY This 2024 CWPP is aligned with the Cohesive Strategy and its Phase III Western Regional Action Plan by adhering to the nationwide goal "to safely and effectively extinguish fire, when needed; use fire where allowable; manage our natural resources; and as a Nation, live with wildland fire" (Forests and Rangelands 2014:3). The primary national goals identified as necessary to achieving the vision are: Restore and maintain landscapes: Landscapes across all jurisdictions are resilient to fire - related disturbances in accordance with management objectives. • Fire -adapted communities: Human populations and infrastructure can withstand a wildfire without loss of life and property. Wildfire response: All jurisdictions participate in making and implementing safe, effective, risk - based wildfire management decisions. Page 1 2 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA For more information on the Cohesive Strategy, please visit: https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/documents/strategy/CSPhaseI I INationalStrategyApr2014. pdf Alignment with these Cohesive Strategy goals is described in more detail in Chapter 4, Mitigation Strategies. With many western communities situated in fire -prone landscapes, a fourth goal, post -fire recovery, has been added to the CWPP strategy. Figure 1.1. The CWPP incorporates the three primary goals of the Cohesive Strategy and post -fire recovery and serves as a holistic plan for fire prevention and resilience. ALIGNMENT WITH PLANS AND FIRE POLICIES This CWPP aligns with multiple local, state, and federal planning documents; some of these are discussed in more detail below. FIRE MANAGEMENT POLICY The primary responsibility for WUI fire prevention and protection lies with property owners, and state and local governments. Property owners must comply with existing state statutes and local regulations. These primary responsibilities should be carried out in partnership with the federal government and the private Page 1 3 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA sector. The current federal fire policy states that protection priorities are 1) life, 2) property, and 3) natural resources. Information regarding local, state, federal, and tribal fire response is available in Chapter 2. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Municipal Direction: Temecula Fire Code and Plans The City of Temecula Municipal Code includes Title 15, Buildings and Construction, as well as Title 16, Fire Code. Title 15 ensures new development complies with the use of fire-resistant materials and other fire mitigation measures during construction. Title 16 is adopted from the 2022 edition of the California Fire Code, with amendments, additions, and deletions specific to the City of Temecula housed in Chapter 15.16.020. The Fire Code is effective within the city boundaries, including private land. The City of Temecula Municipal Code 8.16, Hazardous Vegetation, provides guidance on the abatement of flammable material, including "dry grass, stubble, Russian thistle (tumbleweeds), brush, weeds, rank grow, sagebrush, chaparral or other vegetation which constitutes a fire hazard." This section also includes information regarding enforcement, notice, and penalties for violation of the code. City of Temecula General Plan: The General Plan for the City of Temecula was initially developed in 1993 and subsequently updated in 2005. The purpose of the Temecula General Plan is to provide guidance for development both within incorporated areas and the surrounding land that is relevant to the City's planning endeavors (City of Temecula 2005). The public safety chapter contains a section on fire hazards and a thorough discussion regarding the wildfire risks faced by the city. This includes information on wildfire planning, such as pertinent codes, wildfire hazard assessments, and emergency preparedness (City of Temecula 2005). The City of Temecula 2022 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: In 2022, the City of Temecula updated its local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP). The purpose of the LHMP is to identify potential hazards and mitigation strategies in the city. This plan is intended to guide decision -makers on the best approaches for protecting life and property, and to aid in prioritizing projects and resource allocations. In recognizing the need for a comprehensive and strategic approach to hazard mitigation, hazards have been added, renamed, and expanded to ensure more complete coverage. The prioritized hazards in the City of Temecula are wildfire, transportation failure, electrical failure, flood, earthquake, communications failure, pandemic, extreme heat, and drought (Temecula OEM 2023a). The Temecula Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the western portion of the city as highly susceptible to wildland fire hazards due to a combination of topography, weather, and fuel (City of Temecula 2022a). A few specific wildfire -related mitigation actions identified and proposed in the LHMP are outlined below: • Conduct a wildland vegetation management project for Temecula Creek • Conduct an aggressive weed abatement program • Enhance wildfire -fighting apparatuses and equipment • Carry out public education, trainings, and workshops for mitigative actions such as defensible space • Update and implement new building codes, with improved inspections of businesses City of Temecula Emergency Operations Plan: In 2023, the Temecula OEM developed the City of Temecula Emergency Operations Plan. The plan's purpose is to enhance the emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation endeavors of the City of Temecula. Integrated into the plan are Page 1 4 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA concepts and principals aimed at satisfying the Standardized Emergency Management System, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) planning guidance, California Code of Regulations, and the National Incident Management System standards. The plan addresses mitigation phases associated with both post -disaster and pre -disaster management activities, developing a comprehensive strategy to reduce the damaging impacts associated with unavoidable hazards (Temecula OEM 2023a). City Of Temecula Draft Urban Forest Management Plan: In 2022, the City of Temecula prepared the Draft Urban Forest Management Plan. The plan sets goals for managing the urban forest, such as developing management plans for public natural areas, promoting good urban forestry on private lands, implementing strong tree protection ordinances, addressing stormwater and planning issues, enforcing consistent tree protection policies, and conducting regular monitoring. Wildfire is highlighted as a major hazard facing the City of Temecula, and the plan emphasizes that healthy and resilient urban forests can reduce the risk of high -severity wildfire spread as well as loss of life and property (City of Temecula 2022b). Caltrans Office of Vegetation and Wildfire Management In January 2021, the Governor's Office released the California Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, and state highways were identified as a "critical part of the solution" with direction to create fire -safe roadways. Caltrans' role in the Action Plan is to assist the state toward wildfire resilience by providing a highway system that prioritizes vegetation management along primary emergency evacuation routes, as well as a system that can function as a shaded fuel break or fire control line. In response to this effort, Caltrans has established the Office of Vegetation and Wildfire Management (OVWM), which oversees and administers the Vegetation Management Program, which includes managing the Fuel Reduction Service Contracts to meet the department's wildfire resilience goals. Caltrans is responsible for roads in and around the planning area. California Department of Fish and Wildlife —Managed Land The planning area is located directly adjacent to, and includes portions of, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-owned lands. In 2021, the CDFW initiated the largest wildfire protection and resiliency endeavor in its history, with a focus to improve wildfire protection and resiliency in most of its ecological reserves, wildlife areas, and surrounding communities. Methods employed by the CDFW to accomplish its wildfire resiliency goals include the installation of fire breaks, brush removal, vegetation thinning, livestock grazing, and controlled burns (CDFW 2021 a). Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve The San Diego State University (SDSU) College of Science's Field Program administers the 4,344-acre SMER. It is a combination of multiple agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), SDSU, and CDFW. The SMER is one of the last refugia for the California coastal shrub community and habitat for multiple threatened and endangered species (SDSU 2023a). The SMER is directly to the west of the project site and is managed as a habitat conservation area, and a linkage between the Santa Ana and Palomar Mountain ranges. The Nature Conservancy Since the early 1980s, TNC has acquired over 3,100 acres of the SMER within the CWPP project site, which have since been transferred to SDSU and CDFW (TNC 2023). These lands were protected as part Page 1 5 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA of a larger effort to connect the Santa Ana Mountains through the SMER to the Palomar Mountains and other protected lands in the eastern Peninsular Ranges, also known as the Santa Ana -Palomar Mountains Linkage. Recently, through a grant provided by the State of California Wildlife Conservation Board, TNC completed plans and specifications to enhance the function of a 58-acre area of Temecula Creek where it intersects Interstate 15 (1-15) as a wildlife corridor. These plans and specifications are focused on controlling nonnative plants and reducing human impacts associated with noise and unauthorized human uses. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is a 1.25-million-acre multijurisdictional program for western Riverside County that encompasses the City of Temecula. The focus is on maintaining species biodiversity through habitat conservation and local level land use policy decisions, and act as a regulatory framework. Compliance with MSHCP recommendations will also provide California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance for any development project (City of Temecula 2023b). See Appendix A, Natural Resources, for additional information. State Direction, Bills, and Programs Table 1.1. List of State Direction, Bills and Programs Category: Bills: Climate Change/ Forest Resilience AB 179: funding for wildfire resilience and forest health Climate Change/ Forest Resilience SB 246: established ICARP and Adaptation Clearing House for data and coordination Community Risk Reduction PRC 4202: mandates designation of all SRA land into FHSZ Community Risk Reduction PRC 4290.1: designated "Fire Risk -Reduction Community" Community Risk Reduction PRC 4290.5: State Board identifies high risk communities and make recommendations Community Risk Reduction PRC 4290: base level fire safety standards Community Risk Reduction SB 1241: minimize unreasonable wildfire risk, developed FHSZ Community Risk Reduction SB: 901: fuel breaks and greenbelt regulations Community Risk Reduction SB 535: priority CCI program funding for disadvantaged communities Community Risk Reduction SB 1205: mandatory inspection of schools, hotels, and apartment buildings Evacuation Planning AB 1409: local level evacuation regulation and scenario planning Evacuation Planning CFAC 2350: 'pass program' to allow agriculture operators access to closed areas Evacuation Planning SB 99: identify communities with less than two evacuation routes Homeowner Risk Reduction AB 3074: defines Zone 0 and ember resistant areas Homeowner Risk Reduction AB 38: financial support for home hardening Homeowner Risk Reduction PRC 4291: defensible space standard Page 1 6 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA California Plans and Programs: Strategic Plan for California: wildfire -resistant environment, increase cooperation Fire Hazard Planning Technical Advisory: regulatory committee for wildfire in General Plans California Forest and Rangeland Assessment: evaluates and delineates priority landscapes Vegetation Management Plan: resource management and wildfire fuel hazards in SRA California Vegetation Treatment Program: programmatic EIR for 20.3 million acres on SRA land for fuels reduction California Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan: increase fuel breaks, protect communities, improve infrastructure AB = Assembly Bill; SB = Senate Bill; PRC = Public Resources Code; CFAC = California Food and Agriculture Code FEDERAL DIRECTION This CWPP aligns with the three goals of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. See Chapter 4 for more details. PLANNING PROCESS The SAF, in collaboration with the National Association of Counties and the National Association of State Foresters, developed a guide entitled Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan: A Handbook for Wildland-Urban Interface Communities (SAF 2004) to provide communities with a clear process in developing a CWPP. The guide outlines eight steps for developing a CWPP that have been adopted in the preparation of the Temecula Creek CWPP. DEVELOPMENT TEAM The City of Temecula invited engagement from local agencies in the development of this 2024 Temecula Creek CWPP. Stakeholder involvement is critical in producing a meaningful document that includes all collaborators' diverse perspectives. The Development Team drives the planning process in its decision making, data sharing, experience, and communication with community members. The project was kicked off on February 3, 2023; the Development Team met for the first time on November 16, 2023, participated in the public meetings on February 22, 2024, and convened for the final time on March 6, 2024. The Development Team and the City Review Team lists are provided in the Executive Summary. PUBLIC INVOLVMENT As previously stated, the HFRA outlines requirements of a CWPP, with collaboration being one of the three. In addition to key stakeholders being engaged with the project via the Development Team, Temecula residents had the opportunity to provide input and feedback. The draft CWPP and associated Story Map were made available for public review and comment from February 12, 2024 through February 26, 2024. Two public outreach meetings were hosted at the Temecula Civic Center on February 22, 2024, to allow community members and other interested parties the opportunity to learn more about the project, ask questions, and provide feedback. Comments received were incorporated into the documents. Page 1 7 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Public education and outreach programs are a common factor in virtually every agency and organization involved with wildfire concerns. Detailed information on some of these programs can be found in the Public Education and Outreach Programs section of this document, as well as in the associated project Story Map. PLANNING AREA The planning area includes the 177-acre project site as well an additional 0.5-mile PIZ buffer for a combined 2,236 acres. (Figure ES.1). The project site has WUI areas to the north and southeast and is in a CAL FIRE —designated very high fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) (Figure 2.12). The project site has increased wildfire risk due to overgrown invasive vegetation, illegal dumping, human waste, and persistent trespassing including illegal camping and human fire ignitions. I-15 bisects the project site, and several residential streets, including Putting Green Court, Rainbow Valley Boulevard, Jedidiah Smith Road, Cupeno Lane, Canterfield Drive, Samantha Lane, and Strawberry Field Lane, are directly adjacent to the project site. The planning area encompasses critical riparian and wildlife habitat. Temecula Creek flows into the Santa Margarita River, the largest free -flowing river in Southern California, and is a water source for Camp Pendleton (City of Temecula 2022b). There is critical wildlife habitat for approximately 70 federally and state -listed endangered and threatened species, including least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). The planning area is also a regionally designated wildlife movement corridor (see the Wildlife subsection below for more information). This project aims to reduce wildfire risk, which will benefit not only the project site but also up to approximately 28,491 adjacent acres and more than 3,000 homes by reducing wildfire risk and spread potential (City of Temecula 2022a). This larger project influence includes potentially reducing wildfire risk to six adjacent communities (some beyond the PIZ), four of which (City of Temecula, the Pechanga Reservation, De Luz, and Rainbow) are designated "At Risk" of wildfire (City of Temecula 2022a). In this situation, at -risk communities are those that CAL FIRE has identified as areas with the "Highest Wildfire Threats to Communities," adjacent to vast State Responsibility Areas (SRAs). Additional details on at -risk communities are provided in the Wildland-Urban Interface section of Chapter 2. The City of Temecula is a 37.27-square-mile area and is situated in the southwestern portion Riverside County (U.S. Census Bureau 2022). The city shares a border with the City of Murrieta to the north and is surrounded by unincorporated portions of Riverside County on its west, south, and east sides. The city's western sector exhibits a diverse geography composed of steep mountains and foothills that transition to the flat lands of Temecula Valley. The Santa Margarita Mountains to the west drain toward the Pacific Ocean, often influencing local climate patterns such as winds and fog that are channeled inland. The eastern part of the city is characterized by flatter landscapes and rolling hills, supporting neighborhoods and open space (City of Temecula 2005). LAND OWNERSHIP The project site comprises multiple parcels, the majority of which are owned by the City of Temecula and Riverside County Flood Control (Figure ES.1). The PIZ covers lands managed by the CDFW or BLM, other local government parcels, and Tribal Trust lands of the Pechanga Band of Indians (Pechanga Band), and a multitude of private property owners. Page 1 8 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA There are many communities within the PIZ; which are discussed in more detail in the Wildland-Urban Interface section of Chapter 2. TOPOGRAPHY Temecula Creek is predominantly a dry and sandy drainage. The drainage walls are moderate slopes leading to flat terrain that has been developed. The exception is the land to the southwest of the planning area which features steeper slopes, dissecting topography, and rough terrain. The PIZ topography is characterized by a contoured, mountainous western portion and a lower -laying eastern portion. The Cleveland National Forest sits to the south and west of Temecula, and features steep mountainous terrain covered in dense vegetation. Northwest of 1-15, the Santa Rosa Plateau offers flat mesas that reveal vernal pools supporting diverse flora and fauna. The Santa Margarita drainage, partially within Temecula, serves as a topographical funnel westward to the Pacific Ocean, with variable weather patterns including hot summers, common fog penetration, and strong southwest winds. The Pechanga Reservation to the south and east of 1-15 is marked by flatlands, rolling hills, each supporting varied vegetation. Temecula also includes multiple residential communities from the flatter valley floors to rolling hills, and even steep slopes to the west. VEGETATION The western portion of the city is characterized by steep mountainous terrain and is dominated by avocado groves and chaparral like chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), sagebrush (predominantly Artemisia californica), buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and other coastal scrub species, as well as annual grasses. To the northwest, the Santa Rosa Plateau has stands of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii) savanna woodlands. Vegetation in the eastern portion of the city, which comprises master -planned communities in the foothills, includes chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) and grasses (CAL FIRE 2023b). The riparian habitat of Temecula Creek specifically is highly diverse; during spring 2023 field surveys, crews found 21 vegetative communities in the project site alone and three more within 300 feet of the boundary. These surveys identified 127 distinct species, including 52 nonnative species and two of "special concern:" chaparral sand verbena (Abronia villosa) and white rabbit -tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum). Invasive species have become a major threat to the function of riparian areas, often altering the fire regime to burn at a higher severity than the historic fire regime. Tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) is especially well known for this; it is highly flammable and can resprout after a fire much faster than native vegetation (Lambert et al. 2010). For more information on riparian vegetation click here. WILDLIFE The project site is bordered to the west by the SMER, one of the last mountain habitat refuges in Southern California, providing critical habitat to over 70 federal and state threatened and endangered species. The project site is an important linkage between SMER and Palomar Mountain (Santa Ana - Palomar Mountains Linkage) for wildlife because it supports intact and diverse habitat (SDSU 2023b). During wildlife surveys, field crews found ample evidence of coyote (Canis latrans) and bobcat (Lynx rufus) moving across the 1-15 corridor via the project site. There was also an abundance of prey species in the project site, indicating that predators may hunt, not merely traverse, through the area. While photographic and track evidence of mountain lion (Puma conco/or) crossings exists, the amount of illegal Page 1 9 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA trespassing and human presence is a strong deterrent for mountain lions to fully cross the project site (Martin 2022). In the PIZ, Temecula Creek merges with Murrieta Creek to form the beginning of Santa Margarita Creek. This river provides habitat and spawning grounds for the endangered southern California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), whose habitat has been drastically reduced by dams along most rivers in its historic habitat (SDSU 2023b). POPULATION In 2022, the population estimate of the City of Temecula was 111,752 persons, an increase of 11.6% over the 2010 census numbers of 100,003. Between 2017 and 2021, there were 34,266 households in the city, with approximately 3.19 persons per household. According to the 2020 census, the city has a population density of approximately 2,051.8 (U.S. Census Bureau 2022). SOCIAL VULNERABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FEMA defines social vulnerability as the susceptibility of social groups to the negative impacts of natural hazards (e.g., wildfire), which include disproportionate death, injury, loss, or disruption of livelihood (FEMA 2022). Specific groups of individuals may be more susceptible to natural hazards because of socioeconomic status, physical state, or other factors. For instance, elderly individuals or those with a physical disability may have more difficulty in quickly evacuating during wildfire emergencies, and individuals with low incomes may be less able to harden and improve their homes to reduce structural ignitability (Figure 1.2). At the state level, the California Environmental Protection Agency designates disadvantaged communities with respect to environmental pollution. The designation is based on pollution burden, prior designation as a disadvantaged community, and prioritizing these communities for funding through the California Climate Investments (CCI) program. This includes the Wildfire Prevention Grants Program, which is administered by CAL FIRE (State of California 2022). The CCI program aims to allocate resources and funding for projects that directly benefit priority populations (including low-income communities, disadvantaged communities, and vulnerable populations disproportionately affected by climate change impacts). As of November 2022, approximately 73% of CCI grants funded projects that enhance the well-being and resilience of these communities, promoting equity and environmental justice across the state (CCI 2023). The City of Temecula LHMP employs the FEMA definition of risk, which is stated as a combination of hazard, vulnerability, and exposure. Temecula is home to populations that, due to their increased level of vulnerability, are at greater risk to climate -related impacts. The CCI program has identified the Pechanga Band as a disadvantaged community situated just south of Temecula on the Pechanga Reservation. Native American populations are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change due to a combination of cultural, socioeconomic, and geographic factors. These factors can exacerbate the challenges they face in adapting to and mitigating climate -related risks (U.S. Global Change Research Program 2018). Page 1 10 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Figure 1.2. Disadvantaged communities near the PIZ. Page 1 11 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA EVACUATION RESOURCES The Public Safety element of the City of Temecula General Plan contains guidance, policies, plans, and programs on disaster preparedness. Outlined within the Public Safety element is the utilization of the City's circulation system for evacuations routes. The accessibility of safe and practical evacuation routes central to planned circulation are exhibited in the General Plan. The Public Safety Element also highlights the efforts made by the fire department to ensure that new structures follow safety requirements and conduct public outreach surrounding wildfire hazard (City of Temecula 2005). Evacuation planning within the City of Temecula LHMP was guided by a range of policies and programs that address emergency evacuation, such as Assembly Bill 477, City of Temecula Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), and the mass care and shelter plan. Additionally, wildfire is identified as a hazard requiring comprehensive evacuation planning, proposing a city-wide mass evacuation plan as a future mitigative project. The City has established a fire department webpage on its website that provides a list of resources for wildfire preparedness and response. The webpage contains home hardening and defensible space information, fire safety tips, evacuation preplanning, and a fire severity zone viewer (City of Temecula 2023d). Temecula's wildfire preparedness page can be accessed here The City of Temecula partnered with Smart911 to adopt the Temecula ALERT program to inform residents of a variety of emergencies (shelter in place, boil water, evacuate, etc.). The system will give a recorded voice message to landlines and a text message to cellular devices. This platform uses geolocation technology; people who work in Temecula but live elsewhere will receive alerts if they are registered and in the area. For more information visit the Temecula ALERT website. The County of Riverside Emergency Management Department has developed Alert RivCo, an alert system that is used to warn the public in the event of an emergency. The primary phone number for every business and residence in Riverside County with a traditional landline phone service is part of Alert RivCo. Residents can also register their cell phones with the system to receive notifications via text or email. For more information, visit the Alert RivCo website. Riverside County, in conjunction with the National Weather Service, can interrupt many television and radio broadcasts to issue evacuation alerts and warnings. This is not defined specifically to Temecula, but rather the entire county. In Temecula, TV channel 3 and radio station 1610 AM offer updates on emergencies (City of Temecula 2023c). In the event of evacuating livestock and other large animals, Riverside County has established its own Agricultural Pass program, allowing livestock owners to access restricted areas to carry out essential agricultural operations during ongoing incident management with approval of law enforcement and/or incident commanders. This program emphasizes preplanning of landowners and livestock owners and collaboration with emergency responders during natural disasters. To learn more about and begin the Riverside County Agricultural Pass application process, please click here. Table of Contents Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA WATER AVAILABILITY AND SUPPLY The Temecula area relies on several key reservoirs for its water supply. Vail Lake Reservoir, situated east of Temecula, has a capacity of 45,000 acre-feet, but due to drought conditions, it currently holds only a third of that capacity. It receives inflow from Temecula Creek and Wilson Creek and discharges water back into Temecula Creek. Lake Skinner Reservoir, located 10 miles northeast of the city with a surface elevation of 1,500 feet, has a capacity of 44,200 acre-feet. It is primarily fed by the Colorado River Aqueduct and the State Water Project, and it releases water into Tucalota Creek and the Santa Margarita River. Northeast of Temecula, in unincorporated Hemet, Diamond Valley Lake stands as one of Southern California's largest reservoirs, boasting a surface elevation of 1,748 feet and a vast capacity of 800,000 acre-feet. It receives its water from the State Water Project and serves as a source of potable water for Metropolitan Water District customers (City of Temecula 2022a). The installation of fire hydrants and other on -site water systems are to be compliant with 2022 California Fire Code, per the guidelines of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 24, 2019. Installations must also meet a range of specifications related to fire flow, hydrant type, number, and spacing, as well as inspections and certifications to be considered for approval by the Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau (City of Temecula 2022c). Figure 1.3 shows the abundance of fire hydrants surrounding the planning area, although there is a notable absence of hydrants in the undeveloped chaparral vegetation within the SMER south-southwest of the project site. Page 1 13 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Figure 1.3. Fire hydrant locations near the planning area. Page 1 14 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PROGRAMS Public education and outreach programs are a common factor in virtually every agency and organization involved with the wildfire issue. As mentioned in the General Plan, it is the City of Temecula's aim to ensure that the public is educated on the appropriate protocols that could potentially lessen the impact of natural disasters, such as wildfires (City of Temecula 2005). Currently, SDSU and local elementary schools provide education programs on local ecological topics. To improve preparedness, the City would benefit from additional public education programs on wildfire prevention and mitigation measures for property owners and communities. LOCAL AND STATE PROGRAMS Temecula Fire Department The Temecula Fire Department is committed to safeguarding life, property, and the environment through a comprehensive emergency response program that utilizes well -trained personnel, advanced technology, modern equipment, and responsible financial practices. The department provides a variety of educational materials and programs to improve residents' understanding of fire and how to prepare for wildfire events. These programs include defensible space inspections, annual inspections of schools and hospitality/multifamily properties, community fire inspection workshops, and CAL FIRE mitigation guides and checklists, as well as CPR and first aid training courses (City of Temecula 2023d). Temecula-Anza-Elsinore-Murrieta Resource Conservation District The Temecula-Anza-Elsinore-Murrieta Resource Conservation District (TEAM RCD) covers an area of 505,000 acres, or approximately 789 square miles, in Southern California. As noted in its mission statement, TEAM RCD is committed to advancing natural resource conservation, public outreach, and sustainable living throughout the district. TEAM RCD takes part in a range of activities, including mitigation efforts, public outreach and education programs, and collaboration with affiliate groups and agencies through meetings, workshops, and conferences. Board meeting documents such as agendas, minutes, transcripts, and other documents are available on TEAM RCD's webpage. You can learn more about TEAM RCD at its webpage located here. Temecula Office of Emergency Management The Temecula OEM is responsible for coordinating emergency response services for the residents of Temecula. In alignment with the Emergency Operations Plan, the Temecula OEM is focused on public outreach, encouraging residents to be prepared for disasters. The Temecula OEM provides a webpage of resources for various disaster and emergency scenarios including wildland fires, as well as general CAL FIRE recommendations for mitigative actions such as defensible space, home hardening, and evacuation preparedness. The webpage also provides links to the City's emergency notification system sign-up, CERT training, and emergency planning resources. Please visit the following website to access these resources and learn more about Temecula OEM. Page 1 15 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Pechanga Monitoring Program The Pechanga Monitoring Program aims to protect the environment and preserve the cultural heritage of the Pechanga Band. On -site monitors utilize traditional environmental knowledge, spiritual beliefs, and ethical principles to supervise the environmental review process. While not all inappropriate development can be prevented throughout the extensive Pechanga ancestral lands program, monitors work closely with developers and nonnative archaeological monitors to preserve significant artifacts and landscapes while educating those participating in the process. Pechanga's monitoring efforts involve partnerships with academia, professionals, and their tribal nation, resulting in a highly regarded program that serves as a model nationwide. Their site monitor certification program is driven by tribal goals and supported by leading experts in anthropology and archaeology (Pechanga Band 2023a). Page 1 16 *7- CHAPTER 2 - FIRE AND FUELS POTENTIAL WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE Cities and counties are continuously challenged to accommodate both current and future residents in need of safe and affordable housing. In California, approximately 180,000 homes need to be constructed annually to meet demand (California Department of Housing and Community Development 2018). Over the past few decades, jurisdictions across the state have approved many new housing units. These are often placed within or near wildland areas, creating "wildland-urban interface" (WUI) conditions. Today, more than 60,000 communities across the United States are at risk for WUI fires, as the WUI expands by over 2 million acres annually (U.S. Fire Administration [USFA] 2021 b). When it comes to wildfire, WUI conditions are linked with an increased risk of loss of human life, property, natural resources, and economic assets. According to the 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California, "since the turn of the century there has been a steep increase in structures lost compared to the 1990s" (CAL FIRE 2018a). The WUI is composed of both interface and intermix communities and is defined as areas where human habitation and development meet or intermix with wildland fuels (U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture 2001:752-753). • Interface areas include housing developments that meet or are in the vicinity of continuous vegetation. • Intermix areas are those areas where structures are scattered throughout a wildland area where the cover of continuous vegetation and fuels is often greater than cover by human habitation. CAL FIRE further defines WUI using housing density classes here. In the WUI, fire can move readily from vegetation to structures and other development, and when conditions are right, from structure -to -structure. This greatly increases the potential for damage to or loss of life and property. Continued human expansion in the WUI combined with effects from climate change conducive to more extreme fire behavior has created the need to modify current incident response and management policies while managing risk. Page 1 17 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Chapter 15.16 of the Temecula Municipal Code cites the adoption of the 2022 edition of the California Building Code and 2022 Fire Code (Amended) to direct new construction within the city. Established within the 2022 Fire Code are regulations on fire management activities and requirements for construction and development practices. These directives are aimed at limiting the risk of fire intrusion and safeguarding communities, including those with populations in the WUI (City of Temecula 2023a). A CWPP offers the opportunity for collaboration of land managers to establish a definition and boundary for the local WUI; to better understand the unique resources, fuels, topography, and climatic and structural characteristics of the area; and to prioritize and plan fuels treatments to mitigate fire risks. According to the HFRA, the WUI can be defined by a CWPP. The Temecula Creek CWPP uses the CAL FIRE term project influence zone (PIZ) to define a 0.5-mile buffer around the project site boundary that encompasses immediately adjacent WUI communities (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). While the WUI, as well as potential benefits from project activity implementation, extends beyond the 0.5-mile PIZ, 0.5 mile is commensurate with the scale of the project boundary (177 acres) and fire -modeling metrics related to the likelihood of canopy fire and spotting potential. A community's risk to wildfire is determined by the housing density and FHSZ ranking (CAL FIRE 2023b). The CAL FIRE Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) has identified the City of Temecula as an "at risk" community (CAL FIRE 2023b). According to parcel data, within the City of Temecula, communities within 0.5 mile of the project site include Rancho Meadows, Los Ranchitos, California Sunset, Santiago Ranchos, Veranda at Bridlevale, Country Glen/Bridlevale, Bridlevale, Redhawk, Wolf Creek, TR 21067, Spanish Oaks, Rainbow Canyon, and Homes by the Green. At -risk communities outside of the City of Temecula but within 0.5 mile of the project site include De Luz and Pechanga. Specifically, the De Luz community is known for its avocado agricultural production alongside affluent residential neighborhoods. The fuels, topography, and accessibility in and around the project site make it difficult to control a fire in some areas. The Santa Margarita River drainage occurs in this area, and homeless encampments are evident along the mouth of the drainage, adding another complexity to the fire environment. Westerly afternoon winds occurring in nearby Old Town Temecula pose a threat to fire spreading rapidly downhill, particularly when there is a fire start in the chapparal of the SMER. Seasonal Santa Ana winds also create complex fire conditions with a strong wind component. Page 1 18 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Figure 2.1. WUI communities in and near the PIZ. Page 1 19 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Figure 2.2. Example of WUI in the PIZ. VEGETATION, FUELS, AND FIRE REGIMES Within the PIZ, two major fire regimes are present: mixed chaparral and montane riparian. A fire regime characterizes the spatial and temporal patterns of fire and impacts to the landscape, including fire intensity, frequency, and seasonality of which they occur. Fire regimes are affected by vegetation (fuels), terrain, slope exposure, and other factors. Historic fire regimes maintained relatively lower fuel loads for chaparral, with smaller but more frequent fires creating a mosaic pattern across the landscape. However, human development and expansion of the WUI along with contemporary fire suppression practices and invasive species have increased the likelihood of human ignitions and led to increased fuel accumulation. Mixed chaparral communities in the PIZ consist of several species, including manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), shrub live oak (Quercus turbinella), mountain mahogany, and, in places, a variety of grass types. Most shrubs associated with chaparral vegetation have characteristics that increase flammability. They typically grow quickly; generate plentiful fine, dead branches; and have leaves with high resin content (oils) (Abrahamson 2014). When chaparral communities burn, fire spreads through the shrub canopy, typically resulting in a stand -replacement crown fire (Abrahamson 2014). Historically, this community has had stand -replacing fire return intervals anywhere from 30 to 125 years; however, repetitious fire (under 10 years) allows nonnative species to outcompete tall shrubs (U.S. Forest Service [USFS] 2012). Invasive grasses frequently colonize chaparral stands that are in recovery from a disturbance and persist until the shrubs close the canopy; however, if fire occurs during the grass succession phase, competition from chaparral shrub species is reduced and can allow grass seeds to survive and propagate a cycle of more frequent fires and decreased shrub cover (USFS n.d.(a)). Page 1 20 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Riparian ecosystems hold significant ecological importance (food and habitat, water filtration, flood mitigation, etc.), despite their relatively modest spatial footprint on the landscape and the PIZ. While there can be a wide variety of species associated with this regime, in Southern California, it is usually dominated by sage, chaparral, and a multitude of willow species (Salix spp.), but it is an extremely biodiverse area. Fire return interval and severity can vary dramatically, but this system will usually burn every 37 to 75 years, usually at a low to mixed severity (although this is tied to drought and fuel loadings) (Fryer 2015). Overall, this is a fire-resistant and resilient system. Plant communities generally resprout well and burn less severely; however, high amounts of chaparral, and especially fire -prone invasive species, can increase the fire behavior severity and return interval (Keeley 2006; Lambert et al. 2010). See Chapter 3 for more details on fuels within the planning area. WEATHER PATTERNS AND CLIMATE CHANGE Temecula's climate is a result of its highly varied topography and proximity to the Pacific Ocean. The cooling influence of the westerly onshore flows contributes to frequent fog in the Santa Margarita drainage and afternoon winds. Its climate is defined as Mediterranean with a relatively consistent, mild temperature and weather pattern (Table 2.1). The city is subject to extreme heat events, which can be problematic during warmer months and drought years. Little to no precipitation falls in the county during the summer months (Temecula OEM 2023a; Visit Temecula Valley 2023). Table 2.1. Mean Annual Temperature and Precipitation in Temecula Norm91 m 1991-2020 14.7 78.9 50.6 64.8 Source: PRISM Climate Group (2023) The hottest months in Temecula are typically July, August, and September. During these months, the maximum average high temperature reaches around 93°F, 95°F and 91 °F, respectively. While seasonal heat can push temperatures even higher, the and conditions often help keep the nights relatively cooler. The minimum average temperature during these months is around 60oF. In contrast, the coldest months in Temecula are January and December, where the maximum average temperature is around 67°F. The minimum average temperature during these months is around 42°F. Temecula experiences relatively low levels of precipitation throughout the year. The average annual precipitation in Temecula is around 14.5 inches. The months with the highest precipitation are typically January and February, with rainfall amounts of 3.2 and 3.7 inches, respectively. The following months, March and April, see a decrease in precipitation, with 2.3 and 0.9 inches recorded, respectively. As the year progresses into the drier months, the precipitation continues to decrease significantly, with the summer months experiencing the least rainfall. From May through September, the precipitation levels drop significantly, with each month averaging less than 0.4 inch of rainfall and August receiving less than 0.1 inch. Monthly climate norms (30-year averages) for Temecula are graphed below (Figure 2.3). Page 1 21 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA 120 4 3.5 100 3 M LL 80 M C. (U 2.5 M. L � � rt is 60 2 p a`) = 1.5 ECL 40 1 H v 20 0.5 • ' 0 — 0 Q C 75 L Q C Q LL Q a) V O (D (U O a) Month "' z Precipitation Minimum Temperature Average Temperature Maximum Temperature Figure 2.3. Monthly climate norms for the city of Temecula. Source: PRISM Climate Group (2023) Human -induced climate change will have a disproportionately large impact on numbers of fires, fire spread and intensity, and altering fire regimes (Westerling et al. 2011). Even differences of seasonal weather patterns can account for drastic change in fire frequency and intensity (Keeley and Syphard 2016). This increase in fire behavior and fire seasons, coupled with expansion of homes into the WUI, requires advanced planning and coordination across jurisdictions. Frequent drought, suppression -based fire management practices, and climate change have interacted to increase ecosystem vulnerability to uncharacteristic wildfires. Removing natural fire from a fire -dependent ecosystem, and the increased occurrence of drought, insects, and diseases stemming from climate change, have led to increased fuels buildup and alterations to vegetation composition and structure. Specifically, widespread tree mortality from different stressors adds to the fuels buildup, increases fire behavior, and poses increased hazards to firefighters during wildfire operations (Wayman and Safford 2021). These vegetation changes increase the risk of uncharacteristically large, high -severity fires (CDFW 2021 b). In the past few years, fires have grown to record sizes and are burning earlier, longer, hotter, and more intensely than they have in the past (Westerling et al. 2006; Westerling 2016). Approximately 60% of the top 20 largest wildfires in California occurred in the last 5 years, including the August Complex Fire (August 2020) and the Dixie Fire (July 2021), which burned a combined total of nearly 2 million acres and well over 2,000 structures (CAL FIRE 2023c). It is important to note that fire is a natural part of California's diverse landscapes and is essential to many ecosystems across the state, as many are fire -dependent or fire -adapted (CDFW 2021 b). However, frequent, uncharacteristically large, high -severity wildfires often have negative impacts to ecosystem processes. Page 1 22 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA FIRE HISTORY For centuries, many California Native American tribes recognized the interdependence between fire and the ecosystem, using fire to maintain ecosystem health. However, in the 1800s, a shift in management actions led to issues such as overstocked stands, decreased health and resilience, and increased vulnerability to uncharacteristic wildfire (Anderson 2006). In analyzing the fire history for the project site, a buffer of 10 miles from the project site was chosen to reflect the diverse terrain and fuel types of the landscape more accurately. The Temecula region shows a high degree of variability in historic fire events (1911-2023). Overall, there were fewer fires from the 1960s through the mid-1990s; in recent years, the number of ignitions has increased drastically (Figure 2.4). While the planning area has limited fire occurrence overall, in 1980 there were eight separate ignitions within the project site. Wildfires in the area also vary greatly in size, with historic fires ranging from less than 10 acres to over 50,000 acres. Notably, very few fires are contained before they reach at least 10 acres (Figure 2.5). Fires per Era, 1911 - 2023 500 462 450 400 350 L ii 300 4- 0 250 E 200 0 Z 150 128 100 85 50 19 0 1911- 1999 2000 - 2009 2010 - 2019 2020 - 2023 Time Period Figure 2.4. Total number of reported wildfires per time period within a 10-mile buffer of the project. Page 1 23 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Fires by Size Class Per Era, 1911 - 2023 500 400 L LL 0 300 L 200 E 7 z 100 1911- 1999 2000 - 2009 2010 - 2019 2020 - 2023 Time Period ■A ■B ■C ■D ■E OF Figure 2.5. Fire size classes per time period within a 10-mile buffer of the project. Note: A = 0 to 0.25 acre, B = 0.26 to 9.9 acres, C = 10 to 99.9 acres, D = 100 to 299 acres, E = 300 to 999 acres F = 1,000 to 4,999 acres (NWCG 2009) Most fires in the Temecula region have historically occurred in July; however, the months of June through September have experienced the highest number of fires in the 10-mile analysis area (Figure 2.6). Natural causes make up only 1 % of the total wildfires, while almost 40% are human caused. Human - caused fires are a concern as more people live and recreate in the WUI. In the past two decades, human - caused fires have increased compared to the previous century (Li and Banerjee 2021). The remainder are classified as "unknown cause" (Figure 2.7). 120 100 w 80 LL 60 w E M 40 Fires per Month, 1911 - 2023 111 59 86 Z 30 29 28 18 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul M onth 79 80 49 32 30 11111 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 2.6. Total number of reported wildfires in a given month (1911-2023) within a 10-mile buffer of the project site. Page 1 24 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Fires by Cause Per Era, 1911 - 2023 500 400 L 0 300cu - L —c 200 E 7 z 100 o 1911— 1999 2000 — 2009 2010 — 2019 2020 — 2023 Time period ■ Natural ■ Human ■ Unknown/Undetermined Figure 2.7. Wildfire cause within in a 10-mile buffer of the project site. Note that data are from publicly available sources, and data for some fires may be missing or incorrect. This is due to the loss or damage of historical records, as well as inadequate documentation (CAL FIRE 2022). Given the limitations of the data, our fire history analysis may contain discrepancies. Data collection methods have also changed recently, which could account for the increase in fire activity since 2020. However, it is also a safe assumption that number of fires has remained at the very least consistent, and perhaps underreported. Recent large, severe wildfires include the 2007 Poomacha and Rice Fires, and the 2014 Tomahawk Fire. The Poomacha Fire started in early October southeast of the PIZ in the Palomar Mountains and burned 9,470 acres and 278 structures in under a month. It came within 10 miles of the PIZ. The Rice Fire started just 4.5 miles south of Rainbow, jumped 1-15, and burned almost 50,000 acres and 157 structures in 39 days before it was contained. Both fires were human -caused, with a 2-week overlap when they were burning at the same time. The Tomahawk Fire started on Camp Pendleton and burned 5,365 acres, coming within 9 miles of the PIZ. The cause of this fire is unknown. There have also been numerous smaller fires in the PIZ. In 2016, the Temecula Fire burned 140 acres along 1-15 just south of the project site, the 2007 Rosa Fire spotted into the PIZ from the SMER burning a total of 410 acres, and the Checkpoint Fire burned 10 acres on the Temecula Creek Golf Course (Figure 2.8). In close proximity to Temecula, the Holy Fire in Orange County burned in August 2018 and wasn't fully contained until January 2019. It consumed 23,136 acres in the Holy Jim Canyon area, west of North Main Divide, within the Cleveland National Forest. This prolonged wildfire led to the destruction of 24 structures, including residential and commercial properties, and loss of life (CAL FIRE 2023c). Areas surrounding Temecula, throughout Riverside County, have also experienced ongoing drought conditions, exacerbating the impacts of recent significant fires. Fire activity in Riverside County's Riverside Unit has generally followed historical averages, but the impact of drought has been significant. Notably, the Esperanza Fire in 2006 and the subsequent Silver Fire in 2013 altered the vegetation fuel type from chaparral to grass, increasing the risk of roadside fire ignitions along Highway 243. The Cranston Fire in the San Jacinto Range threatened the community of Idyllwild, burning 13,000 acres (CAL FIRE 2023c). Page 1 25 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Figure 2.8. Wildfire history in the Temecula Creek area from 1911 through 2023. Wildfires without perimeter data are represented by a point. Page 1 26 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Unauthorized trespassing has increased the threat of human -caused fires within the Temecula Creek area. The Temecula Creek and Pechanga Creek floodplains have a history of human activity, including recreational and encampment uses. In 2021, a trespassing survey of the floodplains found that unauthorized access occurs in this area due to lack of fencing or holes in the existing chain -link fence (Figure 2.9) (ICF 2021). Compared with natural ignition sources such as lightning, human -caused ignitions often occur during extreme fire weather and can cause more damage to infrastructure and ecosystems (Hantson et al. 2022). Figure 2.9. Trespassing access points near the Pechanga Parkway bridge. UNHOUSED POPULATIONS With continued economic and social trends exacerbating the level of housing insecurity, urban areas throughout the United States have recently experienced significant increases in unhoused populations. As a result, fire departments are responding to a growing number of incidents involving fires that either result from or impact unhoused people and their shelters or encampments. To survive in often harsh environments without adequate protection from the elements, many people living in unhoused communities utilize fire as a tool for general survival. This includes burning open flames to allow themselves to keep warm and cook food. Very few people living under these conditions are aware of fire safety. Additionally, unhoused people are often situated in areas of existing high fire risk, such as densely vegetated riverbank or vacant and unmaintained buildings. In search for a solution, nonprofit and research organizations have begun examining the behaviors that contribute to fire risk and establishing programs through which unhoused people are provided fire safety gear and proper training to educate them in fire safety and response. These groups are advocating for increased awareness to both those experiencing houselessness and the wider public, with a push for intervention and assistance to those at risk (Verzoni 2023). The increased ignition risk posed by unhoused populations, and the wildfire exposure and risk to these communities, has been raised throughout the country. These areas are not typically classified as WUI, but due to the growing hazards in these areas, mitigation measures to address the Page 1 27 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA hazard are recommended at the CWPP annex level, when appropriate. Additionally, the variable nature of fires impacting unhoused people can add complexity to coordinating proper and effective response protocols. Unhoused encampments can be in areas where either wildland or structure fire response occurs, adding another layer of complexity to fire response and suppression. Responders must account for other safety concerns such as hazardous materials and lack of structural integrity from makeshift shelters. Fire Behavior There are three primary modes to describe fire spread: surface fire, crown fire, and spotting (Figure 2.10). Surface fire occurs in surface and ground fuels, crown fire spreads through canopy fuels via ladder fuels, and spotting involves the transportation of embers ahead of the main fire. (A) Surface fire (B) Crown Fire (C) Embers (airborne burning debris) Figure 2.10. Primary modes of fire spread: surface spread (A), crown fire via ladder fuels into tree canopies (B), and spot fires from embers (C). Image "C" source: https://www.nist.gov/feature-stories/piecing-together-timeline-californias-deadliest-wildfire An assessment of fire behavior was conducted using an industry standard fire behavior modeling platform, the Interagency Fuel Treatment Decision Support System (IFTDSS), as well as ArcGIS Desktop Spatial Analyst tools. IFTDSS is a web -based application designed for fuels treatment planning and analysis. It models fire behavior across an area of interest under a variety of weather conditions while including a spatial mapping component, using LANDFIRE fuel model data. Additional information regarding IFTDSS can be obtained here. Additional details regarding these fire behavior metrics can be found in the Risk Assessment Inputs Definition section of Chapter 3. Future Challenges Fire incidents in the region have a variety of challenging conditions, including Santa Ana and other regional winds, dense human populations, WUI, and human ignitions. Without appropriate wildfire mitigation efforts in the project site and surrounding communities, this situation could worsen under a warmer climate. Both the City of Temecula and Riverside County have implemented strategic plans and partnerships to boost fire resilience and readiness, with a focus on enhancing evacuation procedures, Page 1 28 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA defensible space inspections, and fuels treatments. Additionally, the CAL FIRE Riverside Unit has initiated planning for the establishment of a fuels reduction buffer along the entire border of the county, including the WUI surrounding Temecula (CAL FIRE 2020). Within the last 10 years, a record number of acres have burned, and numbers have surged since the turn of the century. In 2022, 68,988 fires were reported nationwide, burning over 7.5 million acres (National Interagency Fire Center [NIFC] 2023). Of these, more than 360,000 acres were burned in California (CAL FIRE 2023a). With increased fires comes increased suppression costs; though the United States experienced a decrease in acres burned in 2022, the 2021 fire season beat all previous records, with federal firefighting costs hitting over $4 billion (NIFC 2021). FIRE RESOURCES California contains many federal, state, and local fire protection organizations that are well integrated through a variety of mutual aid and fire protection agreements and coordinated by organizations such as the California Wildfire Coordinating Group, the Northern and Southern California Geographic Area Coordination Centers (GACCs), and FIRESCOPE. Agencies such as California Emergency Management, USFS, and CAL FIRE form the basis for a robust wildfire response capacity that can be deployed in wildfire situations throughout the state. Within California, fire response is broken down into three areas: Local, State, and Federal Responsibility Areas. Local Responsibility Area (LRA) is a legal term defining the area where the local government has financial responsibility for the prevention and suppression of wildfire. State Responsibility Area (SRA) defines where the state government is responsible for wildfire response, and Federal Responsibility Area (FRA) defines where the federal government is responsible. Most of Temecula is within the LRA; however, the western portion of the city that is classified as a very high FHSZ is primarily SRA land (Figure 2.11). Page 1 29 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Figure 2.11. Fire response areas and capacity in the Temecula Creek planning area vicinity. Page 1 30 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA LOCAL RESPONSE The City of Temecula Fire Department consists of a Division Chief, two Battalion Chiefs, 60 firefighting personnel, and additional staff members responsible for plan review, inspection services, and administrative support. The Riverside County Fire Department has three additional stations within the Temecula Division that support the city stations. Fire engines are typically staffed with a team of four individuals, including at least one paramedic and three EMTs, ensuring that each incident has the necessary key personnel (City of Temecula 2023d). The Riverside County Fire Department operates in partnership with CAL FIRE, offering emergency response to those living in unincorporated areas of the county and to cities such as Temecula. With a commitment to safeguard life, property, and the environment, the Riverside County Fire Department's emergency operations include firefighting, emergency medical services and support, and hazardous materials. The Riverside County Fire Department is dedicated to delivering exceptional services by prioritizing customer experience, fostering innovative practices, and employing its resources responsibly and efficiently. The fire stations located closest to the project site are listed in Table 2.2. below. Table 2.2. Fire Stations within 5 miles of the Project Site Riverside County Fire Department Station 12 - Temecula 1.2 Riverside County Fire Department Station 92 - Wolf Creek 1.45 Riverside County Fire Department Station 84 - Parkview 1.5 Pechanga Fire Department Station 2 1.75 Pechanga Fire Department Station 177 2.52 Riverside County Fire Department Station 73 - Rancho California 2.77 North County Fire Protection District Station 6 3.86 Note: distances are approximate from the fire station to the project site boundary STATE RESPONSE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) CAL FIRE is responsible for initial fire response within SRAs, or where the State is responsible for fire response, in California. SRAs are located in the western portion of Temecula and are serviced by the Riverside County Unit. Dispatch, coordination, and logistical support is provided via the CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department's Perris Emergency Command Center (ECC, which is a prominent regional fire service organization within California, focusing largely on integrated, cooperative, regional fire protection and emergency services (Riverside County Fire Department 2021). Page 1 31 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA FEDERAL RESPONSE U.S. Forest Service The USFS Cleveland National Forest provides multiple wildland fire resources in the area, including station locations in Murrieta and Palomar. Resources include, but are not limited to, engines, hotshot crews, aerial resources, and prevention technicians. In the event of an emerging incident, they also have the capacity to bring in a variety of outside resources and support teams. Bureau of Land Management The BLM Desert District administers minimal acres within the PIZ and has fire resources in Palm Springs. The district also has the capability to provide national fire resources and support teams. CAL FIRE, USFS, and BLM resources are all dispatched from the same interagency center in El Cajon. TRIBAL RESPONSE The Pechanga Fire Department (PFD) is committed to protect the lives and property of the Pechanga Tribe and Reservation from various threats, including fires, medical emergencies, and disasters, while emphasizing prevention, education, and emergency preparedness. The PFD maintains a range of response equipment, including a Type 1 Pierce engine, an American La France 100-foot Tiller Quint, two Type III engines, and a US&R vehicle. PFD's service area is a 10-square-mile WUI, which includes nearly 600 residents and thousands of people working in the Tribe's establishments, notably the Pechanga Resort and Casino. To aid in fire prevention and enhance community wildfire resilience, the department has a fuels management crew dedicated to removing flammable vegetation and maintaining fuel breaks around the Reservation. Furthermore, PFD actively engages in FEMA and CAL FIRE initiatives, demonstrating a commitment to excellence and continuous improvement. Its aim is to be recognized as the "best Tribal Fire Department in the United States and across Indian Country" (Pechanga Band 2023b). MUTUAL AID The wildland fire community is well known for its development of mutual aid agreements at the federal, state, and local levels. Such automatic aid agreements allow for the closest forces to respond to an incident as quickly as possible regardless of jurisdiction. Such agreements may also describe how reimbursement will be conducted; state resources responding to wildfires on federal land may have their associated costs reimbursed by the responsible federal agency, and the reverse is true for federal resources suppressing a wildfire on state land. According to the City of Temecula LHMP, the city has mutual aid agreements focused primarily on public safety and emergency management, some of which are with the State of California. The City of Temecula is also capable of forming partnerships with neighboring cities, counties, outside agencies, special districts, and companies. Typically, partnerships are established through a memorandum of understanding that outlines the scope of work, mission, and the roles and responsibilities of each party involved. Page 1 32 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA CAL FIRE FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES In accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) 4202, CAL FIRE maintains FHSZ data for the entire state. The FHSZs rely on the most advanced scientific data and are determined by considering key factors such as vegetation, topography, and weather (CAL FIRE 2023d). Three classes of fire hazard severity classifications exist: moderate, high, and very high. Fire hazard severity considers the amount of vegetation, temperature, wind, humidity, and topography, and represents the likelihood of an area burning over a 30- to 50-year interval. These zones reflect the likelihood of a fire occurring in a given area and the potential behavior of such a fire. In Temecula, the mountain and foothill communities of the Santa Margarita Mountains are designated as very high FHSZs (CAL FIRE 2023d). Figure 2.12 shows the FHSZs for the PIZ. Table 2.3 shows the breakdown of FHSZ classification and responsibility. Table 2.3. Response Authority and FHSZ Classification in the Planning Area Response Authority Hazard Classification Acres Local Response Area Urban Un-zoned 785.5 Local Response Area Moderate 288.3 Local Response Area High 378.4 Local Response Area Very High 617.2 State Response Area Moderate 19.2 State Response Area Very High 147.6 Page 1 33 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Figure 2.12. CAL FIRE —designated FHSZs. Page 1 34 CHAPTER 3 - COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT Disclaimer The purpose of the risk assessment is solely to provide a landscape and community -level overview of general wildfire risks within the planning area as of the date hereof, and to provide a potential resource for pre -fire planning efforts. This risk assessment is premised on various assumptions and models based on data, software tools, and other information provided by third parties (collectively, "Third -Party Information and Tools'). SWCA, Incorporated, doing business as SWCA Environmental Consultants ("SWCA'), relied on various Third -Party Information and Tools in the preparation of this risk assessment, and SWCA shall have no liability to any party in connection with this risk assessment including, without limitation, as a result of incomplete or inaccurate Third -Party Information and Tools used in the preparation hereof. This risk assessment may not be relied upon by any party without the express written consent of SWCA. SWCA hereby expressly disclaims any responsibility for the accuracy or reliability of the Third -Party Information and Tools relied upon by SWCA in preparing this risk assessment. SWCA shall have no liability for any damage, loss (including loss of life), injury, property damage, or other damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with this risk assessment, including any person's use or reliance on the information contained in this risk assessment. Any reproduction or dissemination of this risk assessment or any portion hereof shall include the entirety of this plan disclaimer. PURPOSE The intent of the risk assessment is to create a useable reference for evaluating the hazard of wildland fires to communities, valued assets, and open spaces within the planning area, including the WUI, and the exposure and susceptibility. Although many definitions exist for hazard and risk, the terms in this document are as defined by the USFS as follows (USFS 2020): Hazard is the likelihood and intensity of a wildfire occurring in a location on the landscape. Risk is the hazard plus the exposure and susceptibility to that hazard. Page 1 35 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA The risk assessment characterizes predicted threat from fire on values that often overlap across the landscape. It uses a GIS-based model formed from key inputs. The resulting risk assessment classifies the relative amount of risk across the landscape within the analysis area. This assessment aids land managers, fire officials, stakeholders, and community members in planning treatments across the landscape and on private parcels, designing adaptive monitoring programs, and developing preparedness measures for communities to reduce the fire risk. The City of Temecula LHMP recognizes wildland fire occurrence as a high annual threat event with high consequence, exacerbated by heavy fuel loads, highly susceptible topography, and critical weather conditions (Temecula OEM 2022a). RISK ASSESSMENT INPUTS AND METHODOLOGY INPUTS The risk assessment was conducted using a desktop analysis of the following inputs: Values — natural and human -made assets we care about on the landscape. • Highly valued resources and assets (HVRAs) o Natural o Cultural o Socioeconomic HVRAs were determined through a collaborative effort of the City of Temecula, the Development Team, and findings from field surveys. They include natural assets (plant and wildlife communities), human - made assets (utilities, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure), and cultural assets. Landscape Fire Behavior — the likelihood and intensity of a fire occurring on the landscape, influenced by the fire environment. • Historic fire occurrence density • Rate of spread • Integrated hazard o Conditional flame length o Burn probability • Crown fire activity • Structure exposure score METHODOLOGY The risk assessment, using a weighted sum model, assigned a weight to all the inputs, resulting in a comprehensive qualitative risk assessment for the landscape (Figure 3.1). In a weighted sum model, the weighted values of each pixel (30 x 30 meters) from each input are added together so that the resulting data set contains pixels with summed values of all the inputs. Each of the original pixel values have been Page 1 36 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA reclassified with a new value between 1 and 4, based on the significance of the data (1 = lowest, 4 = highest). The landscape is thus classified by categories of fire risk —low, moderate, high, and extreme. This was done using the natural breaks method (Jenks method). The risk assessment data have been processed using Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS Desktop and the ESRI Spatial Analyst Extension. Information on these programs can be found at http://www.esri.com. Data have been gathered from all relevant agencies, and the most current data available have been used. Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 illustrate the inputs and the relative weights assigned within the risk assessment modeling framework, as well as the data source. Table 3.1. Risk Assessment Inputs, Sources, and Weights Rate of Spread IFTDSS 1 Crown Fire Activity IFTDSS 1 Conditional Flame Length IFTDSS 0.5 Burn Probability IFTDSS 0.5 Fire Occurrence Density CAL FIRE (2023a), NIFC (2023) 1 Structure Exposure Score SoCal RRK' 1 Natural HVRAs Development Team 0.33 Cultural HVRAs Development Team 0.33 Socioeconomic HVRAs Development Team 0.33 ' Southern California Regional Resource Kit Page 1 37 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Crown Fire Activity 1/6 L � r Rate of Spread 1/6 M., � •' 1` •ek. f 1 Integrated Hazard —Burn Probability & Conditional Structure Exposure Scare Flame Length 1/6 1/6 1 HVRAs: Natural, Cultural, and Socioeconomic Fire Occurrence Density 1/6 1/6 i z^-T. - 0� � - Lr _ }`•' Risk Assessment Figure 3.1. Schematic of the risk assessment inputs. Page 1 38 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS The risk assessment (Figure 3.2) shows almost the entirety of the project site (>98%) as "extreme risk." This is largely due to the natural resource and cultural resource HVRAs (the latter not publicly mapped to maintain confidentiality of sensitive sites). Riparian communities (i.e., the project site) are of extreme importance for wildlife, native plant communities, and water quality. These include wetland vegetative communities and riverine habitats. While these areas are less likely to burn (unless under dry conditions), factors like increased presence of nonnative plants (such as tamarisk), extended drought, and illegal trespassing have increased the potential for wildfire in these critical riparian areas. The proximity to chaparral fuels where extreme fire behavior is common, also increases risk to the project site. Low -intensity surface fire in riparian habitats can provide ecosystem benefits (Pettit and Naiman 2007) but altered fire frequency and fire behavior can lead to loss of ecosystem integrity, provide an opportunity for invasive species to further colonize and spread, and pose a threat to nearby communities. Areas within the PIZ to the west of 1-15 are rated as extreme and high risk to wildfire not only because of the presence of multiple HVRAs but also because of steep terrain and the fuel type (heavy fuel loads, flammable materials), which influence fire behavior. This is the area modeling the most extreme fire behavior for all metrics. Risk assessment ratings for areas within the PIZ to the north of the project site are a mixture of extreme, high, and moderate. While much of this area is considered non -burnable (urban development), there is still a high risk rating due to flammable fuels (grass, shrubs) intermixed with communities, moderate to high fire behavior (rate of spread, flame length) in flammable fuels, historic fire occurrence, and higher structure exposure scores. Overall, most of the PIZ (63%) is classified as extreme and high risk. While fire behavior modeling shows the high -risk areas north of State Highway 79 would support more extreme fire behavior (rates of spread up to 100 chains per hour and flame lengths in excess of 4-8 feet), these fuel types are broken up with urban development (the community of Los Ranchitos) and are not likely to lead to sustained fire growth in wildland fuels. However, there is an opportunity for embers near structures, which could lead to structure -to -structure ignition, although this modeling and risk assessment do not directly consider that. Page 1 39 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA r IgUIV J.L. RIDM a„VDDIIIVIIL Na„IIWaLIVII III a11U a1VU11U LIM rIL Page 1 40 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA RISK ASSESSMENT INPUTS DEFINITION HIGHLY VALUED RESOURCES AND ASSETS The HVRAs list was compiled from City data, public sources and databases, field surveys by resource specialists, and Development Team input. The identification of HVRAs can inform treatment recommendations. Appropriateness of treatment, land ownership, locations of ongoing projects, available resources, and other physical, social, or ecological barriers must all be considered to fully prioritize areas for treatment. Geolocation data for distinct natural, socioeconomic, and cultural values were compiled to create an HVRA layer, where each layer is weighted equally against the other two. The scope of this CWPP does not allow determination of the absolute natural, socioeconomic, and cultural values that could be impacted by wildfire in Temecula. In terms of socioeconomic values, the impact due to wildfire would cross many scales and sectors of the economy and call upon resources locally, regionally, and nationally. Home values (monetary) were not a part of any HVRA, but housing density is part of the data layers in the structure exposure score (Clark et al. 2023). Natural Values at Risk Temecula has a variety of natural resources of particular concern to land managers: wildlife, botany, and waters (Figure 3.3). Examples of natural values identified include the following: • Open space • Scenic rural areas • Downstream water quality • Temecula Creek • Habitat corridor for bobcat, coyote, gray fox, and mountain lion • Habitat for prey species • Rare plants • Native riparian plant communities Page 1 41 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA r r -21 I - 0Gv; O �S> P TAM We11dMlRlpallan Yegela[toM1 GOlnmaarkk mentl Carla BalmsM1 M1laaM1ec: U~V.P., bn tdnmapleea Ratl &wrnw Medtemmen Gesaa Grnesiand: Anoyo Willow TM1icxe[a. 5aNx lasidepis lusodeaon Schtloonopbc us�arrrlas. celaomicusjTyphe Letilornie EurJlwM1eal Saub: Erroponnm laackrJelvm 8mmus rubons-Mired Hubs Seminatuml Cena�l Merelrs. Tapno artgasnloiw-rYPlM reulglw, anga#ifain, la ia7Aadwiaaon Aseaclenon Aaezkdpn ryphe domhyensis Associatnn MNktal ib.ckets', Battharls saNnYdia Sambcvs Ceti4amie Sageb—h- 01eck Sage Swb: Artertuva UpkM Muslakamr Star -Thistle EleUs', Haschkldk _Fremont Cmttonwootl Forest antl Wowrand. Pop- x-Qirerclrs apriblia Rsso¢ienon niyraA.....alwn Melelsl Thickets, 8acchans saHcildia Aasoaerion saHlomlca-SaNio rnpNlfera Baccharls samrhrcldas incaele Semi-narural Aasona[m Asaocietian WiMOaIsaM Annual Brame GiassNnds: Brwnus Fremont Co[ .wood For al antl Woodand. Poyulas Notloeg ReggenlcFe_earern Geltlenrap- MerA C.—Liva Osl Wooalentl ena Fours[ Oua2us drandrua-Averra vVC Semrnetuiel A°vaietlon - Nx goaVVNrgNAsarxievon 5aetlbas MvdAXe:<r1 Fd d0lgrasNna FmrwM Cottamseatl Famst antl Woodland: Papunr6 0.s°onaLop fremonlaI Bxclrmrs M1amcralmn Benner Willow Tnckata, SeMx exrgrie Assvcu[ion agnRYia Assncm[ion Coyote Brvsh Sctva'. Bacchalu plNraMr A99oweonOpen E—yplua-tree H...-81—Loruel RMerlrre Xabdale Waln Gmeee. Sneamhed safniYeMo paodd q's Web Red Wllb Riparian W-dI,d Tarnanak Thi3ets, lamarii app. Semi-wtural of EucalypNs {globuius. ce.reMuleruul 5ami-natural ed Land Gmer Grtegariea � eM Rneai, SONx gooddingx SeHx faeidgere nswcieodn Assaie4on Aesecietren Rampae case Ratcnee'. canagaua Unwra. _ p¢valopen zwroanal � p�ewmad AeeoG.tian rtAry —Mrghway sn.csae t;,anhG ° m VegelalfOn —Major Roatlwey x —Rpatlway falB leeaveerDhne [irwna —StreamfRlver y3Ay y IZIzarW N Q Temecula Greek Prnjecl Rountlary A \ 1-15.000 SWCA Figure 3.3. Vegetative communities composing natural HVRAs Note: different habitats were given different weights based on local knowledge of biological importance'. ' Habitat and land cover type (vegetation) with the greatest biological value were determined per the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) Analysis for Riparian/Riverine Habitat. Page 1 42 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Socioeconomic Values at Risk Socioeconomic values include, but are not limited to, population statistics, recreation facilities, the built environment, and critical infrastructure (Figure 3.4). Socioeconomic values in the risk assessment include the following: • Public safety infrastructure 0 Communication sites • Highways and major roads 0 Hazardous materials sites • Municipal infrastructure • Homes, businesses, and buildings • Recreation sites (e.g., golf courses, parks, trails) Page 1 43 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA 1 P Ri1A- � pMPR SN C 1 r NALDrIRE PROTCCTiOe RANnT Fire Stalion —•� St.- Main R'nnsidc Comn,�CF CrilicalInfratructure 0 L.-IGONe—tBullding —Highway © Law Enforcement Facility — Maior Roadway aao nea stxerane rerroma yl F1P5 aws Feet Hazardous waste Site Roadway — sheam�l,rer v- ,,M i»tx> n q 4. Cell Phone Antenna — Cell PrcjW Influence Zorle (5.5 Mlle Butted INe Trail +^^ + T:24,000 0 Te -l. Creek Project Boundary SWCA Figure 3.4. Socioeconomic HVRAs. Page 1 44 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Cultural Values at Risk Cultural values include, but are not limited to, tribal sites, culturally sensitive features, and historical landmarks. Cultural values in the risk assessment predominantly relate to the Pechanga Band; due to the sensitive nature of these values, the exact locations and descriptions are not disclosed. Cultural resources were given a different rating based on resource type and geographic location.' FUEL MODELS Fuels are classified using Scott and Burgan's (2005) Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Model classification system. Wildland fuels are grouped into fuel types based on the primary fuel that carries the fire: non - burnable (NB), grass (GR), grass -shrub (GS), shrub (SH), timber litter (TL), timber understory (TU), and slash-blowdown (SB). Generally, fuel types with a smaller number indicate a lower fuel loading. Table 3.2 provides a description of each fuel type, and Figure 3.5 shows the fuel model classification on the landscape. Table 3.2. Fuel Model Classification for Temecula Creek CWPP PIZ i. GR1: Grass is short, patchy, and possibly heavily grazed. Spread rate is moderate (5-20 chains/hour); flame length low (1-4 feet); fine fuel load (0.40 ton/acre). 6.3% cover in PIZ, 140 acres. ii. GR2: Moderately coarse continuous grass, average depth about 1 foot. Spread rate high (20-50 chains/hour); flame length moderate (4-8 feet); fine fuel load (1.10 tons/acre). 4.1% cover in PIZ, 92 acres. iii. GR3: Very coarse grass, average depth 2 feet. Spread rate high (20-50 chains/hour); flame length moderate (4-8 feet). <0.1% cover in PIZ, 0.2 acre. i. GS1: Shrubs are about 1-foot high, low grass load. Spread rate moderate (5-20 chains/hour); flame length low (1-4 feet); fine fuel load (1.35 tons/acre). 19.0% cover in PIZ, 425 acres. ii. GS2: Shrubs are 1-3 feet high, moderate grass load. Spread rate high (20-50 chains/hour); flame length moderate (4-8 feet); fine fuel load (2.1 tons/acre).15.5% cover in PIZ, 347 acres. iii. GS3: Moderate grass and shrub load, average depth less than 2 feet. Spread rate high (20-50 chains/ hour); flame length moderate (4-8 feet). 1.1 % cover in PIZ, 23 acres. i. SH2: Moderate fuel load (higher than SH 1), depth about 1 foot, no grass fuels present. Spread rate low (2-5 chains/hour); flame length low (1-4 feet); fine fuel load (5.2 tons/acre). 0.1% cover in PIZ, 2.7 acres. ii. SHS: Heavy shrub load, depth 4 to 6 feet. Spread rate very high (50-150 chains/hour); flame length very high (12-25 feet). 4.9% cover in PIZ, 111 acres. 3 A cultural resource within the project site was weighted the highest; a cultural resource that intersected, was immediately adjacent to, or within an undeveloped area was weighted moderate; and an isolated cultural resource in a developed area was weighed the lowest. Page 1 45 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA i. TU2: Moderate litter load with shrub component. Spread rate moderate (5-20 chains/hour); flame length low (1-4 feet). <0.1% cover in PIZ, 0.4 acre. ii. TU3: Moderate litter load with grass and shrub components. Spread rate high (20-50 chains/hour); flame length moderate (4-8 feet). 0.2% cover in PIZ, 4.3 acres. 5. Dead and downed woody fuel (litter) beneath a forest canopy (Timber Litter) i. TL1: Low to moderate load, fuels 1-2 inches deep. Spread rate very low (0-2 chains/hour); flame length very low (0-1 foot). <0.1% cover in PIZ, 0.4 acre. ii. TL2: Low load, compact. Spread rate very low (0-2 chains/hour); flame length very low (0-1 foot). 0.1 % cover in PIZ, 2.0 acres. iii. TL3: Moderate load. Spread rate very low (0-2 chains/hour); flame length low (1-4 feet); fine fuel load (0.5 ton/acre). 2.7% cover in PIZ, 60 acres. iv. TL5: High load conifer litter. Spread rate low (2-5 chains/hour); flame length low (1-4 feet). 0.1 % cover in PIZ, 2.1 acres v. TL6: Moderate load, less compact. Spread rate moderate (5-20 chains/hour); flame length low (1-4 feet). 0.4% cover in PIZ, 9.2 acres. 6. Insufficient wildland fuel to carry wildland fire under any condition (non -burnable) i. NB1: Urban or suburban development; insufficient wildland fuel to carry wildland fire. 45% cover in PIZ, 1,013 acres. ii. NB8: Open water. <0.1% cover in PIZ, 0.2 acre. iii. NB9: Bare ground. 0.1 % cover in PIZ, 2.7 acres. Notes: Based on Scott and Burgan's (2005) 40 Fire Behavior Fuel Models. Page 1 46 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Figure 3.5. Scott and Burgan (2005) fuel models within the PIZ. Page 1 47 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA WEATHER Fire behavior and integrated hazard modeling was conducted in IFTDSS using the 97t" percentile weather conditions from the nearby Santa Rosa Plateau remote automated weather station (RAWS). RAWS constantly collects various weather metrics and provide historical averages for percentiles; from the RAWS data, average wind was from the west at 20 miles per hour, dead fine fuel moistures were 3%, live herbaceous fuel moistures were 34%, and live woody fuel moistures 75%. HISTORIC FIRE OCCURRENCE (DENSITY) Historic fire is the documented record (1911-2022 for the PIZ) of past wildfires within a specific area and time frame. It includes data about when and where fires occurred, size (acres), intensity, and impacts. Analyzing historic fire occurrences is crucial for understanding a region's fire history, assessing fire risk, and informing wildfire management strategies. Figure 3.6 illustrates documented historic fire occurrences. Page 1 48 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA 6 ` 2 0 Pg �� .4z cnr or 7—cuu00mrunrrr W FIREPROTECTbNPWd 0 Fire Occurrence incident L; Project Influence Zone (0.5 Mile Buffer) wVersldeco��ry, ra 1AOe" c os� m Fire Occurrence — Highway Fire Cdcurrence De—ty (rireS per Square rn la) Density —Major Roadway 0-2.5 No t9a35 rep tS�Feet Rc2dWay 2.5-5 33.4J4]°N 11J.12J8°W N — Stream/River 5. - 7.5 A (] Temecula Creek Project Boundary e v 12g000 .- 5°a SWCA Figure 3.6. Fire occurrence density (fire history) in the PIZ. Page 1 49 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA RATE OF SPREAD The rate of spread, or the speed at which fire is moving away from the point of origin, is influenced by slope and wind (Figure 3.7). Fire typically moves at a faster rate uphill than downhill and is pushed in the same direction as the wind. Thus, the steeper the slope and the higher the wind, the faster the rate of spread. Additionally, steep slopes bring the fuels above the fire closer to a growing fire, making them more likely to burn. In general, slower rates of surface fire spread are commonly associated with timber - dominated areas, while moderate and high rates of spread are associated with grass and shrub fuels and riparian vegetation. Figure 3.8 illustrates the rate of spread classifications for the PIZ. In the project site, fire is expected to move quickly due to flashy fuels, and extremely fast in the mountains west of 1-15 due to fuel type, fuel loading, and topography. Slope and Rate of Spread °K Slope influences fire behavior Faster ignition and spread 40 foe .i r • 1` Fresh air Burning debris rolling down A slope Figure 3.7. Influence of slope and wind on rates of spread and fuel availability. Page 1 50 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Figure 3.8. Kate of spread In the PIZ. Page 1 51 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA INTEGRATED HAZARD Integrated hazard is a combination of conditional flame length and burn probability (Figure 3.9). Conditional Flame Length Flame lengths are determined by fuels, weather, and topography (Figure 3.10). Flame length is a particularly important component of the risk assessment because it relates to potential crown fire (particularly important in timber areas) and suppression tactics. Direct attack is usually limited to when flame lengths are less than 4 feet, and indirect suppression tactics when flame lengths exceed 4 feet. Additionally, engines and other heavy equipment, including aviation resources, are often necessary for suppression tactics when flame lengths exceed 4 feet. Burn Probability This is the likelihood that a given point on the landscape will burn if there is an ignition source (Figure 3.11). Burn probabilities consider the size and frequencies of past fires that occurred on a given landscape as well as the rate of spread based on available fuel types and weather conditions. While burning structures and other materials (vehicles and ornamental vegetation) can ignite additional combustible materials in the WUI, particularly when structures are not well separated, only wildland fire fuels were considered in this model (Maranghides et al. 2022; Suzuki and Manzello 2021). Any suppression actions taken in the event of a fire are also not factored into this metric. Burn probability combined with conditional flame length creates the integrated hazard metric as shown in Figure 3.9. Page 1 52 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA - '. __'�__ r" . m9 Ilk a- s3 JiL tr r -- 'f'�Nr _ + JkA Ap ■ cmor rr+r«a+cclee�.n —yY nlegraled Hexed Integrated Apr[trx.n v: atedFiaxard—M.K+Nw4.r+ly rvv+•wr�role Roi4xsy E +l nable Rd no wrnn N+D k9935o4Aa.0 UV.. — Sl—ft—r W+wl kJ 'O r] �}: it 77w N 11 ;0 Temewla peek PMJ@O &Ur'daq u4w H*Urd ti Prowl wlww 2D (0.5 MIM Butlers Mlme Haprd NV_ Hw.a 1 2-0.ODO SWCA Figure 3.9. Integrated hazard in the PIZ. Page 1 53 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA rigure s. iu. tonamonai name iengm in ine ric. Page 1 54 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA J--t--- -------- :W rMe AP r ClrYOF 3�eC4MCaePUraN-HlghWav RWIn F-WIW1lry 4rrtrsde Lou t ���SYr Burn Probability — M.j. R..&.y � NBuonhumae — eowy Roaurnea N0� �sa3�YERK — 31ream+River Q Temecula GaeH pralect 6vunCary .7 Loxea3 C— Ncnasorac� 33.4rn.r],v- N C! Prefect IMluent z" {0.5 Mlle BURR!) Middle Higher. 1'2a.000 Highest SWCA Figure 3.11. Burn probability in the PIZ. Page 1 55 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA CROWN FIRE ACTIVITY Crown fire activity describes the likelihood that a surface fire would transition, often via ladder fuels, to become a crown fire (Figure 3.12). Crown fires can be classified as either passive or active. A passive crown fire is dependent on surface fire. An active crown fire is independent of the surface fire and is sustained in the canopy. STRUCTURE EXPOSURE SCORE The structure exposure score (SES) is a proprietary model by Pyrologix LLC representing the level of wildfire exposure for a home in the case of a fire (at the pixel -level scale) (Southern California Regional Resource Kit [SoCal RRK] 2023). SES combines a WUI layer,' burn probability, and potential ember load production from surrounding vegetations (Clark et al 2023). The output is a ranked SES from 1 to 10, with each increasing step 1.5 times more exposed than the preceding one (e.g., homes in Class X are 1.5 more exposed than those in Class IX). Figure 3.13 provides detailed information on class breakdown. 4 WUI is defined as intermix, where at least 50% vegetation surrounds buildings, and interface, where structures are within 1.5 miles of a large patch of vegetation (Carlson et al. 2022). 5 The ember load is a proprietary model by Pyrologix LLC using the Wildfire Exposure Simulation Tool (WildEST), but is currently available for public use (SoCal RRK 2023). Page 1 56 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA fir All. intt0i�.:i.:.'r•—NIQMn'iV C�N�[MB Li In9uNri;,, Ct�:r :O S'-'�viS..T�•rl R.w�mernnku -. .- . lnlVr RN+ _ Crown F is k AG1Mly — fNnpl FloarMNy Dawn Flea AdwIty - VM Pas.rvCtl—Fire NIO t9935a1dNllC CYROIN t - $IrnnnilFGwf $.I.-Fue 17..>.1'Mp11 I� K 1 T9n404.11a GMR Pmjoct 5&Hr ry Na Fire , 1 2-0 WU SWCA Figure 3.12. Crown fire activity in the PIZ. Page 1 57 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Figure 3.13. Structure exposure score for the PIZ and adjacent communities. Each class is 1.5 times as exposed as the preceding class, with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest score possible. Page 1 58 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA Embers Ember exposure from wildland fires can pose a significant threat to homes and other structures in the WUI (Maranghides and Mell 2013). Spotting occurs when embers travel in advance of the flaming front; long-range spotting can be miles ahead of the main fire. Many factors determine whether an ember will result in an ignition (firebrand source and size, wind, receiving materials, exposure duration, etc.), but the potential for structure ignition from embers exists. Burning structures and other materials (vehicles and ornamental vegetation) have been identified as another source of embers that can ignite additional combustible materials in the WUI, particularly when structures are not well separated (Maranghides et al. 2022; Suzuki and Manzello 2021). Below, the ember exposure zone model describes the threat of embers in this WUI environment. While this metric was not incorporated into the risk assessment, the SES accounts for ember load production within its classification determination (see the Structure Exposure Score subsection above). Ember Exposure Zone Figure 3.14 illustrates the predicted amount of ember exposure through four levels of ember zones (El— E4). E1 has no significant ember exposure, E2 has low ember exposure, E3 has significant ember exposure, and E4 has extreme ember exposure. Ember exposure levels were created using the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Framework for Addressing the National Wildland Urban Interface Fire Problem — Determining Fire and Ember Exposure Zones using a WUI Hazard Scale (Maranghides and Mell 2013). Ember exposure threat was binned in levels 1 through 4, with the intensity of exposure increasing with each level, using an exposure matrix. While fire exposure (radiant and convective heat) is an equally important part of the threat, this categorization is only for ember exposure from wildland fire fuels. The exposure matrix used three categories for terrain (flat, steep slope, and ravine), three categories for wind (none, low, and high), and four categories for wildland fuels (homogenous surface fuels, inhomogenous surface fuels, inhomogenous shrubs and low vegetation, and canopied forest). In this scenario, wildland fuels are characterized by Scott and Burgan (2005) 40 Fire Behavior Fuel Models. The exposure matrix generally defined E1 as being flat, having no to light winds, and having a light fuel loading. E2 is defined as having moderate to steep slope, low winds, and a light to moderate fuel loading. E3 is defined as having steep slope, high winds, and moderate fuel loading. E4 is defined as having steep slope or ravines, high winds, and a high fuel loading. Fuels characteristics, defined in the specific fuel model, also influenced the resulting ember zones. While these metrics and categories are generalized and not all -encompassing, they are a realistic representation of the major influences in the fire environment. Ember generation can be defined as the function of wildland fuels, topography, and local winds together. Page 1 59 r RYUIC J. 14. CIIIVCI VAPVJVIB LVIICD VI UIG rlL. Page 1 60 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA CHAPTER 4 - MITIGATION Mai"�, i � !-� STRATEGIES This chapter provides project recommendations and implementation guidance. However, mitigation does not stop there. In addition to the recommendations, recognizing wildfire mitigation, preparedness, and resilience means being prepared both pre- and post -fire for the City of Temecula and local property owners. This plan has been aligned with the Cohesive Strategy and its Phase III Western Regional Action Plan by adhering to the nationwide goal: "To safely and effectively extinguish fire, when needed; use fire where allowable; manage our natural resources; and as a Nation, live with wildland fire. " (Forests and Rangelands 2014:3). CWPP recommendations have been structured around the three main goals of the Cohesive Strategy: restoring and maintaining landscapes, fire -adapted communities, and wildfire response. Many of the recommendations can be implemented at the property owner or community level. Managers can refer to the risk assessment results within the PIZ to help when planning fuels treatments and large-scale projects. Recommendation matrices are presented for components of the Cohesive Strategy goals to guide the implementation action plan for the project. Recommendations have been aligned with the strategies in the 2021 California's Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan (California Forest Management Task Force 2021) wherever possible. Page 1 61 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA COHESIVE STRATEGY GOAL 1: RESTORE AND MAINTAIN LANDSCAPES Goal 1 of the Cohesive Strategy and the Western Regional Action Plan is Restore and Maintain Landscapes: Landscapes across all jurisdictions are resilient to fire and other disturbances in accordance with management objectives. "Sustaining landscape resiliency and the role of wildland fire as a critical ecological process requires a mix of actions that are consistent with management objectives. The West will use all available methods and tools for active management of the landscape to consider and conserve a diversity of ecological, social, and economic values. The West will coordinate with all partners and seek continued stakeholder engagement in developing market -based, flexible and proactive solutions that can take advantage of economies of scale. All aspects of wildland fire will be used to restore and maintain resilient landscapes. Emphasis will be placed on protecting the middle lands near communities." (Western Regional Strategy Committee [WRSC] 2013:14). In this CWPP, recommendations to restore and maintain landscapes focus on vegetation management and hazardous fuels reduction. A main goal is to reduce the number of invasive species present in the project site. Invasives not only reduce ecological diversity, but also increase risk and severity of wildfire (Keeley 2006). Invasive species typically increase the window of opportunity for a wildfire to occur, increasing wildfire frequency; many native plants are damaged by increased fire frequency (Bell et al. 2009). Removal of invasive species can be achieved by various fuels treatment options, where specific treatment methods are determined by species composition, habitat type, weather conditions, vicinity to human development, and other factors (Table 4.1). Additionally, although there have been fewer studies on wildfire in riparian ecosystems, research shows it is ecologically significant, especially in the southern part of the state (Bendix and Commons 2017). The frequency and severity of wildfires in chaparral communities adjacent to riparian areas in Southern California may account for the spread to these ecosystems (Bendix and Commons 2017). Thus, it is important to manage fuel loads in riparian areas adjacent to communities to minimize wildfire risk by reducing fire behavior and the likelihood of wildfire spreading. Fuels management of both public and private land in the WUI is key to the survival of homes during a wildfire event. Research has shown how fuels treatments in the WUI can modify fire behavior to support suppression activities and protect homes (Evans et al. 2015). Fuels treatments on private lands is typically conducted through defensible space work by property owners; Cohesive Strategy Goal 2 below provides additional details on this topic. The importance of fuels management is reflected in policy at the federal level, with the HFRA requiring that federal land management agencies spend at least 50% of their fuels reduction funds on projects in the WUI. Fuels treatments on both public and private land in the WUI supports the project's potential larger influence on the at -risk communities beyond the PIZ. When applying fuels treatments, every effort should be made to align treatments with the State Forest Action Plan Assessment and Strategy (CAL FIRE 2018a, 2018b) with consideration of all appropriate best management practices and sound science. In addition, treatments should be strategically located in areas to maximize effectiveness of other planned and ongoing projects. When possible, simultaneously planning for the management of multiple resources while reducing fuels will ensure that the land remains viable for multiple uses in the long term. The effectiveness of any fuels reduction treatment depends on Page 1 62 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA the degree of maintenance and monitoring that is employed. Monitoring will also ensure that objectives are being met in a cost-effective manner. Controlling the unauthorized trespassing and dumping in the project site is another project objective. TNC has proposed fencing around a substantial portion of the area, including fencing around the proposed 1-15 overpass that will allow for wildlife, but not human, crossing. This will help increase connectivity and wildlife use of the area, as well as limit the amount of illegal dumping and human -caused ignitions in the project site. Controlling unauthorized trespassing and dumping is key to maintaining healthy ecosystems. FUELS REDUCTION PLAN Fuels treatments for the project will be selected based on the habitat type present. The PIZ includes a large area of riparian habitat suitable for special -status species. Only manual vegetation removal will occur in this area; the initial focus will be on removal of nonnative invasive vegetation and, to a lesser extent, native vegetation if needed to reduce high fire risk. West of 1-15, fuels are predominantly grasses and herbaceous plants with well -spaced (low -density) shrubs; there are also areas of riparian habitat. Invasive species would be removed manually (by hand) or with hand tools such as chainsaws or weed whackers when possible to do so without impacting critical habitat. Ladder fuels, especially invasive species, in the riparian areas may be removed or reduced to moderate fire behavior by decreasing the likelihood of fire transitioning from a surface fire to a canopy fire, reducing flame lengths, and reducing the spotting distance. In nonriparian areas, mowing would be the primary method to reduce the vegetation height (grass, herbaceous plants, non -woody shrubs) to moderate future fire behavior. Native plants would be planted as needed following the removal of invasive species. A planting prescription for specific native plant species, density, and location should be the result of a collaborative discussion and approval among different resource specialists to ensure a multidisciplinary approach. East of 1-15, where the fuel load is predominantly ladder fuels, trees and shrubs in dense areas may be thinned using hand tools such as chainsaws or weed whackers when possible without impacting critical habitat; invasive species would be the primary target. Mowing may also be used on the grasses and herbaceous plants in the nonriparian area to reduce vegetation height to moderate future fire behavior. Native plants would be planted as needed following the removal of invasive species. A planting prescription for specific native plant species, density, and location should be the result of a collaborative discussion and approval among different resource specialists to ensure a multidisciplinary approach. Table 4.1 identifies potential initial treatments, maintenance treatments, and monitoring recommendations for different vegetation types in the project site. Timing of fuels treatments depends on the targeted species, treatment method, and environmental conditions. Typically, removal or thinning of trees and shrubs is easiest in the winter and spring to avoid both dry and windy conditions when there is elevated fire risk, and wet conditions when resources such as soil could be negatively impacted by this type of work. However, species identification may be more challenging if leaf -out has not occurred. Mowing can generally occur year-round outside of wet conditions; it is most effective before grasses cure out and are more flammable (available to burn). Mowing needs regular maintenance treatments to ensure a shorter grass height is maintained. For additional details about monitoring programs for fuels treatments, see Chapter 5. In certain circumstances, future conditions may allow the use of prescribed burning and targeted grazing as treatment options to help maintain fuel loads. Prescribed burning mimics natural processes in a controlled setting, allowing for moderated fire behavior that benefits the ecosystem by increasing vigor Page 1 63 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA and abundance of fire -adapted native species, cycling nutrients, and promoting wildlife habitat (Tekalign and Kebede 2016). Prescribed burns during certain seasons, such as summer, can also be effective at controlling some invasive species (Ditomaso et al. 2006). Prescribed burning, however, cannot target specific species, and also brings in the smoke element to treatment planning; thus, it may not be the right treatment method for all areas. Limited operating periods, such as during nesting and breeding times, ensure that fuels reduction activities do not have adverse effects on wildlife. Additionally, fuels reduction treatments will involve input from all resource specialists to ensure a holistic management approach that not only reduces wildfire risk, but enhances critical habitat and ecosystem integrity, such as hydrologic functions. Fuels treatments will also be designed to minimize potential impacts to cultural resources; Pechanga Band members should be consulted to ensure incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge, especially in consideration of removal or replanting of culturally significant plant species. Environmental Compliance and Permitting Although the fuels reduction plan describes initial and maintenance fuels treatments in the project site, before implementation of any treatment, there must be agreement among all involved parties, alignment with guiding policy (such as the MSHCP), permitting, and the appropriate level of environmental compliance. For example, a CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement notification may be required for vegetation treatment within the riparian area. An individual water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board may also be needed for work in this area. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 nationwide permit would be required only if the proposed methods include a discharge of fill material. Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation would also be required. Appendix A contains additional information about natural resource processes and permits. Treatments on state-owned lands will require CEQA compliance. Appendix C contains information about the California Vegetation Treatment Program (CaIVTP) implementation and the CaIVTP treatable landscape. The CaIVTP Final Programmatic Environmental Report is applicable to projects at least partially within the SRA, including projects on private land, if they receive state or local government grants for vegetation treatment. It should be noted that the CaIVTP process is not necessarily restricted to the treatable landscape. Lands outside of the treatable landscape area may also qualify with proper paperwork and justification. In addition, CaIVTP is not the only option available to comply with CEQA requirements; project -specific Negative Declarations or Mitigated Negative Declarations may also be employed. Page 1 64 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA Table 4.1. Recommendations to Create Resilient Landscapes (Potential Fuels Treatments) V,g,tati,n/Fu,l Type Grasses, herbaceous plants Fuel. Treatment Activity Invasive species removalHuel L ... ti.n West of 1-15 Treatment Type S"v" Manual removal by: to Fronted ecosystem by removing invasive species Treatment Tm.fram. Yearly, as needed, her leaf -out to aid in plant M.ni-in, For invasive. removal: pretreatment, immediate post - (so a ripener) load reduction hand Reduce vegetation height before vegetation cures out identification but before seed spreading treatment, and thereafter yearly weed whackers and is available to burn, reducing flame lengths Grasses, herbaceous plants, Fuel load reduction West of 1-15 Manual removal by: Reduce vegetation height before vegetation cures out Yearly, as needed, after leaf -out to aid in plant For general fuels treabm nt : pre -Vestment, immediate and ladder fuels (some • hand and is available to burn, reducing flame lengths identification but before seed spreading post -treatment, and thereafter yearly npanan) weed whackers • Perform targeted reduction of ladder fuels contributing Mowing regularly as needed seasonally before grasses No monitoring needed for mowing Mechanical control by: to more extreme fire behavior (spotting, canopy fire) cure out owing Trees (riparian) Invasive species removalHuel West of 1-15 Manual removal using: Protect ecosystem by removing invasive species Yearly, as needed, after leaf -out to aid In plant For Invaslves removal: pre-treatment, Immediate post - load reduction cname— • Pertonn targeted reduction of ladder fuels contributing Identification treatment, and thereafter yearly W more extreme fire behavior (spotting, canopy fire) Trees, shrubs (riparian) Invasive species removal/fuel East of 1.15 Manual removal by: • Protect ecosystem by removing invasive species Yearly, as needed, after leaf -out to old in plant For invasive. removal: pretreatment, immediate post- loatl reduction • ad whackers Perform targeted reduction of ladder fuels contributing identification treatment, and thereafter yearly • chome— to more extreme fire behavior(spotting, canopy fire) • Increase spacing of Vass and shrubs to reduce fire spread Grasses, herbaceous plants Invasive spades removalHuel East of 1-15 Manual removal by: • Protect ecosystem by controlling invasive species Yearly, as needed, after leaf -out to aid in plant For invasives removal: pre-treatment, immediate post - (non -riparian) load reduction hand Reduce vegetation height before vegetation cures out identification but before seed spreading treatment, and thereafter yearly • weetl-whackers and is available to burn, reducing flame lengths Mowing regularly as needed seasonally before grasses cure out No monitoring needed for mowing Mechanical wnirol by: Page 1 65 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA COHESIVE STRATEGY GOAL 2: FIRE -ADAPTED COMMUNITIES Goal 2 of the Cohesive StrategyMestern Regional Action Plan is Fire - Adapted Communities: Human populations and infrastructure can withstand wildfire without loss of life and property. The basic premise of this goal is: "Preventing or minimizing the loss of life and property due to wildfire requires a combination of thorough pre -fire planning and action, followed by prudent and immediate response during a wildfire event. Post -fire activities can also speed community recovery efforts and help limit the long-term effects and costs of wildfire. CWPPs should identify high -risk areas and actions residents can take to reduce their risk. Fuels treatments in and near communities can provide buffer zones to protect structures, important community values and evacuation routes. Collaboration, self-sufficiency, acceptance of the risks and consequences of actions (or non -action), assisting those who need assistance (such as the elderly), and encouraging cultural and behavioral changes regarding fire and fire protection are important concepts. Attention will be paid to values to be protected in the middle ground (lands between the community and the forest) including watersheds, viewsheds, utility and transportation corridors, cultural and historic values, etc."(WRSC 2013:15). In this CWPP, recommendations for fire -adapted communities include public education and outreach actions and actions to reduce structural ignitability. Communities in the WUI are often most at risk from wildfires. Around Temecula Creek, some communities within 0.5 mile of the project site (that is, within the PIZ) are considered "at risk," as defined by CAL FIRE. The CAL FIRE FRAP uses both housing density and FHSZ ranking to determine which communities are at risk of wildfire (CAL FIRE 2023b). For more information on the at -risk communities in the project, see Chapter 2 (Figure 2.1). To reduce risk from wildfire, property owners can take several main actions: reduce structural ignitability, improve defensible space around structures, and increase public awareness. Table 4.2 provides a list of community -based recommendations to reduce structural ignitability and improve defensible space that should be implemented, at minimum, by property owners within the PIZ and, ideally, in adjacent communities beyond the PIZ. Reduction of structural ignitability depends largely on public education, which provides property owners the information they need to take responsibility for protecting their own properties. The importance of property owners maintaining defensible space cannot be overstated. Carrying out fuels reduction treatments on public land may only be effective in reducing fire risk to some communities. The Casualty Actuarial Society compared the impact of individual and community -level mitigation on individual homeowner risks. They found that "the model indicates that all mitigation measures reduce the individual risk, but individual home mitigation — which individual homeowners' control — can have a bigger impact than any community mitigation alone" (Casualty Actuarial Society 2023). If property owners have failed to provide mitigation efforts on their own land, the risk of home ignition remains high, and firefighter lives are put at risk when they carry out structural defense. Preparing for wildland fire by creating defensible space around the home is an effective strategy for reducing structural ignitability. Studies have shown that burning vegetation beyond 120 feet of a structure is unlikely to ignite that property through radiant heat (Butler and Cohen 1996), but fire brands (embers) that travel independently of the flaming front have been known to destroy houses that had not been Page 1 66 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA impacted by direct flame impingement. Hardening the home to ignition from embers, including maintaining vent coverings and other openings, is also strongly advised to protect a home from structural ignitability. Managing the landscape around a structure by removing weeds and debris within a 30-foot radius and keeping the roof and gutters of a home clean are two maintenance measures proven to limit combustible materials that could provide an ember bed and ignite the structure. In essence, reducing structural ignitability and creating defensible space are key for protecting from the potential loss and damage due to intense wildfires. CAL FIRE recommends keeping the first 5 feet around a home (Zone 0) clear of all vegetation; between 5 and 30 feet (Zone 1) removing dead vegetation, trimming grass, and trimming tree branches so there is at least 10 feet spacing; from 30 to 100 feet (Zone 2) removing needles and trimming grass to a maximum of 4-inch depth (Figure 4.1) (CAL FIRE 2023e). CAL FIRE also recommends certain minimal spacing of trees and shrubs on properties; this level of fuels treatments by the property owner ensures effective defensible space and supports fuels treatments on surrounding public land (Figures 4.2 and 4.3). For more information, visit the CAL FIRE Defensible Space website. Pertinent information regarding recent legislation related to Goal 2 of the Cohesive Strategy is provided in Table 1.1 of Chapter 1. Figure 4.1. CAL FIRE recommendations for defensible space zones. Note: The first 5 feet (Zone 0), from 5 to 30 feet (Zone 1), and from 30 to 100 feet (Zone 2). Page 1 67 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA 3X MEIGWr ;I OF SHRUB MINIMUM VERTICAL - f CLEARANCE 6 rooT - t MINIMUM CLEARANCE - X I 'A Figure 4.2. CAL FIRE recommendations for vertical spacing of trees and shrubs on private property. Page 1 68 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA Figure 4.3. CAL FIRE recommendations for horizontal spacing of trees and shrubs on private property. Page 1 69 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA Table 4.2. Recommendations for Creating Fire -Adapted Communities (Reducing Structural Ignitability and Defensible Space) Roofs Replace wood shake or shingle roofs with a Class A fire -rated roof, using materials such Due to its large surface area, your of is more susceptible to embers and flame. The following are vulnerable to wil afire: as omposition, metal, or tile. Combustible roof coverings such as a non -fire -retardant treated wood shake or shingle roof. California requires roof coverings and assemblies to be Class A • Inspect your roof and maintain it by removing tlebris and plugging gaps. rated. Common Class A roof coverings include asphalt shingles, the or cement shingles, or metal panels. • Gaps or openings in your roof assembly that have degraded exposing unprotected roof components. Debris accumulation on your roof, especially when located neat to vulnerable areas such as combustible wall intersections. Gutters • Keep gutters clear of debris. The following are vulnerable to wildfire: • Use a noncombustible gutter cover to prevent buildup of debris. Gutters without a gutter cover can allow accumulation of tlebris making it highly susceptible to embers and fie. If the tlebris catches on fire, it exposes unprotected combustible areas of your roof assembly. Gutters made of combustible materials such as vinyl can catch on fire and expose unprotected combustible areas of your roof assembly. Vents • Cover all vent openings with a 1/18-Inch to 1/8-Inch metal mesh. The following are vulnerable to wildfire: • Consider replacing screened vents with ember and flame -resistant vents. Access points such as your attic or cmM.p.. vents are areas embers or flames can enter and ignite combustible materials inside your home. • Inlet vent that allows for the entry of windblown vegetative debris. Ridge or off -ridge vents located on your roof are more susceptible. Vents constructed of flammable materials such as plastic are highly vulnerable to embers and flames. Eaves Plug or caulk gaps greater than 1/8 inch in size with durable caulk. The following are vulnerable to wildfire: • Remove or relocate small combustibles that are located underneath eaves. • Open save ccmdruction with gaps or penetrations between the rafter tails and blocking as they are entry points for embers. • Vents in eaves with gaps or penetrations in the blocking. • Wide oyelfiangs. • Combustible fuel sources next to your home that can create afire pathway for embers or flames to your eaves. Exterior Siding • When it's time to replace your siding use compliant noncombustible, ignition -resistant Exterior siding that is combustible, has gaps, holes, or rot is vulnerable to both embers and flame. The following are vulnerable to wildfire: siding or other materials approved by the Office of the State Fire Marshal. If Ignited, combustible siding can provide a path for flames to penetrate through other vulnerable areas such as windows, under-eave areas, or vents. • Caulk or plug gaps greater than 1/8 inch in siding and replace any damaged boards, including those with dry rot. Siding ignition from nearby combustibles that are too close to the house. • Build or remodel your walls with Ignition -resistant building materials like stucco, fiber is present Roof -to -wall areas where combustible sidingt. merit walls siding, fire -retardant treated wood, or other approved materials. • Gaps or penetretimm in the exterior covering that are larger than 118 inch. Windows • Install dual or multi -paned windows with at least one pane of tempered glass. The following are vulnerable to wildfire: • Install aluminum metal mesh window screensto op.nabi. windows to increase ember Windows that are left open unattended. resistance and reduce radiant heat exposure. • Combustible framing material that, when ignited, glass breaks or falls out providing a path for embers or flames to enter your home. • Radiant heat, which can cause windows to break even before fire reaches the house. Single -pane and large windows are particularly vulnerable. • Windows thalface large vegetation areas or have vegetation directly underneath. • Vinyl wIntlows that do not have an internal reinforcement bar in the horizontal or vertical separator member as they are prone to failure from radiant exposure due to deformation of the frame. Exterior Doors Install or replace non -compliant wood screen or sliding doors with a noncombustible Poorly sealed doors with gaps or penetrations provide a path for embers to enter your home or garege. The following are vulnerable to wildfire: option. Doors that have not or decay. • Install metal mesh screens in sliding or ...an doors. Combustible door framing material as embers tend to accumulate at the bottom thresholds and sides. • Relocate combustibles and flammables inside your garage an they are not located next to Ignition sources. Doors that have gaps or penetrations greater than 1/8 Inch. • Add metal flashing at garage doorjambs and headers. • Door screens that are not made of metal mesh. • Add gasketing (weather -striping) to garage doore to prevent ember Intrusion. Fuel sources stored nearbytle a which increases its ignition tembal. w po arms haveru Garage doors that lack gasketing or have gaps that allow for the intrusion o(embers. gap Decm/PorcheslBalmnies/Staire Remove tlebris accumulation such as leaves, pine needles, or flammable materials from Deck ignitions can start from flames underneath or embers on top. The following are vulnerable to wildf. underneath, on top of, or adjacent to your rack. • Combustible damaged or routing deck boards as they are more easily ignitable. • Relocate small combustibles to at least five feet away and bring them inside or away from Deck boards made of combustible materials that are attached to the residence. your home during high floe weather. Deck -to -wall Intersections that have combustible siding and no metal flashing. • Consider upgrading combustible deck boards with a noncombustible or ignition resistant option Combustibles within the first 0 to 5 feet zone around a combustible deck (patio furniture, planter boxes, door mats, etc.) • Combustible itemsstuned underneath your deck that could be an ignition source for fire. • Decks that overhang a slope that can be exposed to flames from trees or other vegetation downslope. Lattice or other combustible fencing options are used as a vertical enclosure under a deck, as it is readily ignitable. Page 1 70 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA Fences Replace attached combustible fencing or gates with a noncombustible option for the first Fences, especially when attached to your home can provide a direct fire pathway if ignited. The following are vulnerable to wildfire: five feel • Vegetative debris that accumulates at the base of a fence, especially climbing plants that use the fence as a trellis. • Locate parallel combustible fences at least 10 fast away from your residence (20 feet if Privacy fences are vulnerable to ignition due to the hon-mal to vertical intersections providing a ledge and backstop where embers can accumulate and there are two fences side by side). ignite. • Relocate any combustibles nearby and remove vegetation grown on fences. Vinyl fences are not as vulnerable to embers but can ignite through direct flame exposure from vegetative debris and are vulnerable to deformation from radiant heat exposure. Combustible fences or gates that are attached to the residence as they can create a direct path for fire. Combustible Attachments • Create a noncombustible harder orsection between other attachments and structures with Attachments like ceryorts, awnings, or retaining walls are often constructed of combustible materials and can provide a direct fire pathway to your home. The following mimum distance of 12 inches. are vulnerable to wildfire: • Remove vegetation from attachment Debris buildup alongside or on top of combustible attachments. • Detach the attachment from the residence if possible and have a minimum of 2 feet of • Combustible objects stored underneath, alongside, or next to combustible attachments. open space separation. Combustible attachments that when ignited can spread to places like eaves or siding. • Replace combustible attachments with a noncombustible option. Vegetation accumulation grown on attachments. Accessory Buildings • Create a 10-fool ember -resistant lone around all accessory buildings. If ignited, sheds can project embers or flames that can catch your home on fire if they are located too close. The following are vulnerable to wildfire: • Upgrade the accessory building with noncombustible and ignition -resistant materials. Outbuildings when ignited can bum longer from fire exposure due to size and often what is stored inside. • If possible, locate accessory builtlings 30 feet away from your home and avoid placing • The size and distance of an accessory building if located too close to your home or neighboring residence. near neighboring residences or other combustibles. Its placement, if near other cembusfibles such as a combustible fence or vegetation. • Plastic sheds as they are the most hazardous. • Gaps or openings in the accessory building's exterior siding or underneath if it has a combustible foundation that can expose the contents inside the building to Flame or embers. Defensible Space Zone 0 (fist 5 feet from home): use hardiii not combustible materials, for landscaping. Defensible space creates a buffer between the home and ignitable flames in the surrounding area. The following are benefits to creating defensible space: Remove all dead and dying plants. • Creates a harrier to slow or halt fire. • Zone 1 (5-30 feel from home): remove all dead plants and debris. Trim trees and ensure Helps ensure safety of firefighters during home defense. hurforeurn nearest of 10-foot distance from tree. • Zone (30-100 feet from home): Mow gross to maximum of 6 inches and remove fallen ' Increases chances of home surviving wildfire. leaves. Create vertical and honzontal spacing between trees and shrubs. Clear space round woodplles, outbuildings, and propane tanks. EM Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA COHESIVE STRATEGY GOAL 3: WILDFIRE RESPONSE Goal 3 of the Cohesive Strategy/Western Regional Action Plan is Wildfire Response: All jurisdictions participate in making and implementing safe, effective, efficient risk -based wildfire management decisions: A balanced wildfire response requires integrated pre -fire planning with effective, efficient, and coordinated emergency response. Pre -fire planning helps tailor responses to wildfires across jurisdictions and landscape units that have different uses and management objectives. Improved prediction and understanding of weather, burning conditions, and various contingencies during wildfire events can improve firefighting effectiveness, thereby reducing losses and minimizing risks to firefighter and public health and safety. Wildfire response capability will consider the responsibilities identified in the Federal Response Framework. Local fire districts and municipalities with statutory responsibility for wildland fire response are not fully represented throughout the existing wildland fire governance structure, particularly at the NWCG, NMAC, and GACC levels" (WRSC 2013:15). In this CWPP, recommendations for improving wildfire response include increased public awareness of access and evacuation protocols for improving firefighting capabilities. Informing and empowering the public so they can reduce dependence on fire departments is essential because these resources are often stretched thin due to limited personnel. Property owners can take preventative measures ahead of an incident that will help improve structure identification and firefighter access during an incident. Increasing awareness and knowledge to enhance community preparedness is a key factor in supporting local fire departments in fire response, particularly educating residents about emergency notifications and evacuation protocols, so that residents can safely evacuate an area while emergency responders prepare to protect life and property. Chapter 1 includes additional information on evacuation resources. PREPAREDNESS The City of Temecula promotes the CAL FIRE Ready, Set, Go! wildfire action plan. The plan provides instructions for the local community to prepare in advance of a wildfire event. The first step of the plan is to create and maintain defensible space around homes. Specific home -hardening actions are listed in Table 4.2. CAL FIRE recommends that no vegetation be planted within 5 feet of the home. Within 30 feet of the home, CAL FIRE recommends removal of all dead vegetation and horizontal spacing of at least 10 feet between trees. Within 100 feet of the home, grasses should be maintained at a maximum height of 4 inches and grasses trees and shrubs should be spaced both horizontally and vertically. In preparation for a potential wildfire event, families should prepare a Wildfire Action Plan, communication plan, and emergency supply kit. The plans should have important information including an escape route and meeting location as well as contact information. Emergency supply kits should be easily accessible in case of an evacuation. During an evacuation event, CAL FIRE recommends tuning in to TV/radio for updated notifications, evacuating early, reviewing the evacuation plan checklist, wearing 100% cotton clothing that will protect against heat and embers, and locating and evacuating pets. Seven fire stations are within 5 miles of the project site and 15 fire stations are within 10 miles of the project site (Table 2.2). Water is readily available at the many hydrants surrounding the project site Page 1 72 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA located to the southeast, east, and north. There is a lack of hydrants around the western and southwestern region of the project site as well as dense chaparral vegetation (Figure 1.3). If an incident were to occur in this area, firefighters would not be able to resupply water tanks/pumps until locating an additional source or receiving air support. Additionally, there is no fire station southwest of the project site (Figure 2.11). As a result, fire suppression would be more challenging at the southwest end of the project site (Figure 4.4). Suppression difficulty index (SDI), a rating of relative difficulty in performing wildfire suppression work in an area, factors in topography, fuels, expected fire behavior under severe fire weather conditions, firefighter line production rates in different fuel types, and accessibility, or distance from roads. The SDI for the project site and most of the PIZ is the lowest value; however, in the western portion of the PIZ, where there is a notable lack of access roads and water sources along with heavier fuel loadings of chaparral, there are high and highest SDI values (Figure 4.4). It should also be noted that there are isolated areas within the 177-acre project site that have a moderate SDI value. While SDI was not an input of the risk assessment, Figure 4.4 shows how the culmination of many factors result in an added level of complexity to wildfire management and response in and around the PIZ. Page 1 73 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Figure 4.4. Suppression difficulty index in the planning area. Page 1 74 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan SWCA Table 4.3. Recommendations for Safe and Effective Wildfire Response WR #1 Improve awareness of grants, rebates, and insurance Educate public in importance of defensible space and local ordinances. discounts both for property owners and HOAs. Conduct workshops, trainings, or seminars on topics. WR #2 Increase emergency awareness Create a flowchart that allows residents to identify the assistance they qualify for, and the point of contact for that program. WR #3 Community Firewise programs Educate property owners to get involved in home hardening and Firewise activities. Educate and encourage renters to assist property owners in activities. WR #4 Mobile platform emergency app Create a cohesive digital app where agencies can add updates of emergencies, wildfires, and evacuations local to the area. Include in the app a platform to inform residents of prescribed fires nearby. WR #5 Emergency response address verification Make street signs and house numbers highly visible to ensure emergency responders are quick and efficient with response or evacuation. WR #6 Public outreach Create a dedicated City or emergency management position for outreach, compliance, public alerts, and collaboration. WR #7 Fuels reduction Prioritize fuels reduction adjacent to critical infrastructure, evacuation routes, and emergency service areas (e.g. turnarounds) on property owner's parcel(s). WR #8 Trespassing/ human caused fires Limit trespassing and camps in the PIZ. In fenced -off areas or if gates are locked, create access points for emergency responders. WR #9 HOA access for emergency responders Equip gated communities and private gated residences with Knox Boxes for easy access of response officials. Page 1 75 CHAPTER 5 - MONITORING AND EVALUATIONt. Developing an action plan (recommendations in Chapter 4) and an assessment strategy that identifies roles and responsibilities, funding needs, and timetables for completing highest -priority projects is an important step in organizing the implementation of the Temecula Creek CWPP. All stakeholders and signatories to this CWPP desire worthwhile outcomes. It is also known that risk reduction work on the ground, for the most part, is often not attainable in a few months —or even years — and typically requires scheduled maintenance (e.g., annual, semiannual, etc.). The amount of money and effort invested in implementing a plan such as this requires that there be a means to describe, quantitatively and/or qualitatively, whether the goals and objectives expressed in this plan are being accomplished according to expectations. Monitoring and reporting contribute to the long-term evaluation of changes in ecosystems, as well as the knowledge base about how natural resource management decisions affect both the environment and the people who live in it. Furthermore, as the CWPP evolves over time, there may be a need to track changes in policy, requirements, stakeholder changes, and levels of preparedness. These can be significant for any future revisions and/or addendums to the CWPP. It is recommended that project monitoring be a collaborative effort. There are many resources for designing and implementing community based, multi -party monitoring that could support and further inform a basic monitoring program for the CWPP (Egan 2013). Multi -party monitoring involves a diverse group consisting of community members, community -based groups, regional and national interest groups, and public agencies. Using this multi -party approach increases community understanding of the effects of restoration efforts and trust among restoration partners. Multi -party monitoring may be more time- consuming due to the collaborative nature of the work; therefore, a clear and concise monitoring plan must be developed. Table 5.1 identifies monitoring strategies for various aspects of all categories of CWPP recommendations and the effects of their implementation, both quantifiable and non -quantifiable, for assessing the progress of the CWPP and increase sustainability of projects. It must be emphasized that these strategies are 1) not exhaustive and 2) dependent on available funds and personnel to implement them. Page 1 76 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA Table 5.1. Recommended Monitoring Strategies Project tracking system Online web app to track City in conjunction Interactive tool will be hazardous fuels projects spatially, with partnering land easily updated and identify integrating wildfire risk layer to management areas that require show progress toward wildfire agencies where the additional efforts hazard and risk reduction. The treatments occur web app would include attribute tables that outline project details. Photographic record Establish field GPS location; photo Development Team Relatively low cost; (documents pre- and post- points of cardinal directions; keep member or repeatable; used for fuels reduction work, photos protected in archival partnering academia programs and tracking changes in open space and location and connect them to a objectives. Best to vegetation, treatment type, online tool, such as a project photograph pre -work, etc.) tracking system. immediately after work or change, and on a regular basis (e.g. annually) Field and GIS record of GPS/GIS app to record treatment Development Team Evaluate costs, potential treatment type (acres) and type, acres, and location and member fire behavior fuel models subsequent fuel model changes. Details can feed into Project tracking system. Fire behavior modeling Modeling platform (with geospatial City, in conjunction Can track changes over component) to show potential fire with the time from completed behavior from current conditions. Development Team treatments, new disturbances, and dynamic environmental conditions. Can be conducted during CWPP update Number of home ignition GPS Property owner Structure protection zones/defensible space treated to reduce structural ignitability Number of Meetings, media interviews, Development Team Evaluate culture change residents/citizens articles member objective participating in any CWPP projects and events Number of homeowner Visits, phone City or Agency Evaluate objective contacts (brochures, flyers, representative posters, etc.) Number of jobs created Contracts and grants Development Team Evaluate local job growth member Education outreach: Workshops, classes, field trips, City or Development Evaluate objectives number, kinds of signage Team member involvement Emergency management: Collaboration Agency Evaluate mutual aid changes in agency representative response capacity Codes and policy changes Qualitative Development Team CWPP changes affecting CWPP Number of stakeholders Added or dropped Development Team CWPP changes Page 1 77 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA Task/ToolStrategy Wildfire acres burned, Wildfire records (can use existing Development Team Compare with 5- or 10-year human injuries/fatalities, databases and resources) or agency average infrastructure loss, representative environmental damage, suppression, and rehabilitation costs FUELS TREATMENT MONITORING It is important to evaluate whether fuels treatments have accomplished their defined objectives and whether any unexpected outcomes have occurred. The strategies outlined in this section consider several variables: • Do the priorities identified for treatment reflect the goals stated in the plan? Monitoring protocols can help address this question. • Can there be ecological consequences associated with fuels work? Items to consider include soil movement and/or invasive species encroachment post -treatment. Relatively cost-effective monitoring may help reduce long-term costs and consequences. • Vegetation will grow back. Thus, fuel break maintenance and fuels treatments require periodic assessment to allow managers to determine the schedule for and type of maintenance treatments. • Monitoring for all types of fuels treatment is recommended. For example, in addition to monitoring mechanical treatments, it is important to carry out comprehensive monitoring of burned areas to establish the success of pre -fire fuels reduction treatments on fire behavior, as well as monitoring for ecological impacts, repercussions of burning on wildlife, and effects on soil chemistry and physics. Adaptive management is a term that refers to adjusting future management based on the effects of past management — monitoring informs adaptive management. Economic and legal questions may also be addressed through monitoring and can provide valuable educational opportunities for students, agencies, and the public alike. The monitoring of each fuels reduction project would be site -specific and treatment -specific, and thus decisions regarding the timeline for monitoring and the type of monitoring to be used would be determined based on the project. The most important part of choosing a fuels project monitoring program is selecting a method appropriate to the people, place, type of project, and resources available. Several levels of monitoring activities meet different objectives, have different levels of time intensity, and are appropriate for different groups of people. They include the following: Minimum —Level 1: Pre- and Post -project Photographs Appropriate for many individual property owners who conduct fuels reduction projects on their properties and agencies with limited funding and resources. This is also a good option for small- scale work that may change frequently and needs regular monitoring documentation. Moderate —Level 2: Multiple Permanent Photo Points Permanent photo locations are established using rebar or wood posts, GPS-recorded locations, and photographs taken on a regular basis. Ideally, this process would continue on a regular, recurring cycle (e.g. pre-treatment, immediate post -treatment, 1-year post treatment, 5-year post - Page 1 78 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA treatment). This approach is typically most appropriate for agencies conducting regular fuels work across different areas but limited in resources. High —Level 3: Basic Vegetation Plots A series of plots can allow monitors to evaluate vegetation characteristics such as species composition, percentage of cover, and frequency. Monitors then can record site characteristics such as slope, aspect, and elevation. Parameters would be assessed pre- and post -treatment. The monitoring agency should establish plot protocols based on the types of vegetation present and the level of detail needed to analyze the management objectives. This method is appropriate for fuels specialists or foresters and technicians monitoring fuels treatments in chapparal and forest ecosystems. This requires the establishment of a monitoring program and training of personnel. Intense—Level4: Basic Vegetation Plus Dead and Downed Fuels Inventory The protocol for this level would include the vegetation plots described above and more details regarding fuel loading. Crown height or canopy closure might be included for live fuels. Dead and downed fuels could be assessed using other methods, such as Brown's transects (Brown 1974), an appropriate photo series (Ottmar et al. 2000), or fire monitoring (Fire Effects Monitoring and Inventory System [FIREMON]) plots. This method is appropriate for fuels specialists or foresters and technicians monitoring fuels treatments in chapparal and forest ecosystems. This requires the establishment of a monitoring program and training of personnel (most resources needed). The Fire Monitoring Handbook from the U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service is one great resource for this level of monitoring. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CWPP The Temecula Creek CWPP makes recommendations for prioritized fuels reduction treatments, measures to reduce structural ignitability, and methods for carrying out public education and outreach. Implementation of projects must be tailored to the specific project and will be unique to the location depending on available resources and regulations. As previously mentioned, on -the -ground implementation of the recommendations identified in this CWPP will require the use of the action plan (recommendation matrices in Chapter 4) and monitoring and evaluating (Chapter 5), allowing for an assessment of the progress and success of the CWPP after completing each project. Regular monitoring and evaluation of the plan will help update identified roles and responsibilities of the individuals and agencies involved (Development Team and beyond), as well as help identify funding needs and establish timetables for completing the highest -priority projects. Through this planning effort, as we learn more about the risks to communities, protection strategies should not remain static. Ultimately, the recommended fuels management plans, materials, and design are intended to help increase community resilience, but an important (yet often overlooked) issue is those standards are often relaxed over time, institution memory wains, new property owners may be unaware of the rigorous requirements, and the ongoing maintenance of fuels and infrastructure degrades to the point that defensible space is no longer available. The goal of the CWPP is to establish a plan for regular and rigorous outreach/education in these communities and create a plan to provide to ensure sustainable maintenance and management of the project site and establish a program that will monitor the area and respond to any changes that increase risk. Lastly, the goal is to also include a mechanism to ensure that the best available science, practices, and protocols are used, and adopted as our understanding of fuels management improves (SAF 2004). Page 1 79 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA CWPP EVALUATION CWPPs are intended to reduce the risk from wildfire for a community and surrounding environment. However, over time, communities change and expand, vegetation grows back, and forests and wildlands evolve. As such, the risk of wildfire to communities is constantly changing. The plans and methods to reduce risk must be dynamic to keep pace with the changing environment. An evaluation of the CWPP will gather information and identify whether the plans and strategies are on course to meet the desired outcomes or whether modifications are needed to meet expectations. It is recommended that the CWPP be evaluated on an annual basis, which should be completed by convening the existing Development Team so that all entities contribute to the evaluation. The CWPP document and planning goals and objective should be updated annually, based on findings from the evaluation. Four general steps can be used to evaluate the CWPP: 1. Identify objectives: What are the goals identified in the plan? How are they reached? Is the plan performing as intended? a. Structural ignitability b. Fuel treatments c. Public education and outreach d. Multi -agency collaboration e. Emergency response 2. Assess the changing environment: How have population characteristics and the wildfire environment changed? a. Population change i. Increase or decrease ii. Demographics b. Population settlement patterns i. Distribution ii. Expansion into the WUI c. Vegetation i. Fuel quantity and type ii. Drought and disease impacts 3. Review action items: Are actions consistent with the plan's objectives? a. Check for status, i.e., completed/started/not started b. Identify completed work and accomplishments c. Identify challenges and limitations d. Identify next steps 4. Assess results: What are the outcomes of the action items? a. Multi -agency collaboration i. Who was involved in the development of the CWPP? Page 1 80 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA ii. Have partners involved in the development process remained involved in the implementation? iii. How has the planning process promoted implementation of the CWPP? iv. Have CWPP partnerships and collaboration had a beneficial impact on the community? b. Risk assessment i. How is the risk assessment utilized to make decisions about fuel treatment priorities? ii. Have there been new wildfire -related regulations? iii. Are at -risk communities involved in mitigating wildfire risk? c. Hazardous fuels i. How many acres have been treated? ii. How many projects are cross -boundary? iii. How many residents have participated in creating defensible space? d. Structural ignitability i. Have there been updates to fire codes and ordinances? ii. How many structures have been lost to wildfire? iii. Has the CWPP increased public awareness of structural ignitability and reduction strategies? e. Public education and outreach i. Has public awareness of wildfire and mitigation strategies increased? ii. Have residents been involved in wildfire mitigation activities? iii. Has there been public involvement? iv. Have vulnerable populations been involved? f. Emergency response i. Has the CWPP been integrated into relevant plans (e.g., hazard mitigation or emergency operations)? ii. Is the CWPP congruent with other hazard mitigation planning efforts? iii. Has the availability and capacity of local fire departments changed since the CWPP was developed? TIMELINE FOR UPDATING THE CWPP The HFRA allows for maximum flexibility in the CWPP planning process, permitting the Development Team to determine the time frame for updating the CWPP. The Development Team members are encouraged to meet on an annual basis to review the project list, discuss project successes, and strategize regarding project implementation funding. It is suggested that the evaluation framework above be used annually to make plan updates, and a more formal revision be made on the fifth anniversary of signing and every 5 years following. Page 1 81 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA REFERENCES Abrahamson, I. 2014. Arctostaphylos manzanita. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/shrub/arcman/all.html. Accessed September 2023. Anderson, M.K. 2006. The use of fire by Native Americans in California. Fire in California's Ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA, pp.417-430. Bell, C.E., J.M. Ditomaso, and M.L. Brooks. 2009. Invasive Plants and Wildfires in Southern California. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 8397. Available at: https://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/pdf/8397.pdf. Accessed January 2024. Bendix, J., and M. Commons. 2017. Distribution and frequency of wildfire in California riparian ecosystems. Environmental Research Letters 12(7). Brown, J.K. 1974. Handbook for Inventorying Downed Woody Material. Gen. Tech. Rep. No. GTR-INT- 16. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Butler, B.W., and J.D. Cohen. 1996. An Analytical Evaluation of Firefighter Safety Zones. 12th Fire and Forest Meteorology Conference, Lorne, Australia, 1996. California Climate Investments (CCI). 2023. Wildfire Prevention Grants Program. Available at: https://www.caclimateinvestments.ca.gov/fire-prevention-grants?rq=grants. Accessed December 2023. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021 a. CDFW Initiates Massive Wildfire Protection Effort At Wildlife Areas, Ecological Reserves Statewide. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/News/cdfw-initiates-massive-wildfire-protection-effort-at-wildlife-areas- ecological-reserves-statewide. Accessed December 2023. 2021 b. Science: Wildfire Impacts. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Science-Institute/Wildfire- Impacts. Accessed February 2023. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2018a. Strategic Fire Plan for California. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5590/2018-strategic-fire-plan-approved- 08_22_18.pdf. Accessed February 2023. 2018b. California's Forest and Rangelands 2017 Assessment. Available at: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/4babn5pw/assessment2Ol7.pdf. Accessed February 2023. 2020. Riverside County Unit Strategic Fire Plan. Available at: https://bof.fire.ca.gov/media/vkOkfggi/rpc-3-l-v-city-of-beaumont-riverside-county-strategic-fire- plan-supplemental-_ada.pdf. Accessed December 2023. 2022. Fire Perimeters. Available at: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/frap-projects/fire-perimeters/. Accessed February 2023. 2023a. Statistics. Available at: https://www.fire.ca.gov/our-impact/statistics. Accessed September 2023. Page 1 82 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA 2023b. Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). Priority Landscapes. Available at https://calfire- forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=f767d3f842fd47f4b35d8557f10387a 7. Accessed December 2023. 2023c. 2022 Incident Archive. Available at: https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2022/. Accessed March 2023. 2023d. Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ). Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildfire- preparedness/fire-hazard-severity-zones/#fhszfaq. Accessed February 2023. 2023e. Defensible Space. Available at https://www.fire.ca.gov/dspace. Accessed December 2023. California Department of Housing and Community Development. 2018. California's Housing Future: Challenges and Opportunities. Available at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans- reports/docs/sha_final_combined.pdf. Accessed February 2023. California Forest Management Task Force. 2021. California's Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan. Available at: https://wildfiretaskforce.org/wp- content/uploads/2022/04/californiawildfireandforestresilienceactionplan.pdf. Accessed February 2023. California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (CA GOPR), California Department of Fire and Forestry (CAL FIRE), and Community Wildfire Planning Center. 2022. Wildland-Urban Interface Planning Guide. Available at: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20220817- Complete_WUI_Planning_Guide.pdf. Accessed February 2023. Carlson, A.R., D.P. Helmers, T.J. Hawbaker, M.H. Mockrin, V.C. Radeloff. 2022. Wildland-urban interface maps for the conterminous U.S. based on 125 million building locations. Ecological Applications 32(5):e2597. Casualty Actuarial Society. 2023. Mitigation That Matters: A Wildfire Case Study. Available at:https:Har.casact.org/mitigation-that-matters-a-wildfire-case-study/. Accessed February 2023. City of Temecula. 2005. General Plan. Available at: https://temeculaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/283/Introduction-PDF?bidId=. Accessed August 2023. 2022a. Proposal to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Prevention Grants Program. Project 20-FP-RRU-0343. 2022b. Urban Forest Management Plan. Available at: https://temeculatrees.org/wp- content/uploads/2022/12/Temecula-UFMP_90-draft_optimized_.pdf. August 2023. 2022c. Office of Emergency Management (OEM). Available at https://temeculaca.gov/434/Office- of-Emergency-Management. Accessed December 2023. 2023a. Municipal Code. Available at: https://temeculaca.gov/260/Municipal-Code. Accessed August 2023. 2023b. MSHCP. Available at: https://temeculaca.gov/1052/MSHCP. Accessed September 2023. Page 1 83 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA 2023c. Temecula Emergency Alert Notifications. Available at: https://temeculaca.gov/170/Temecula-Alert. Accessed November 2023. 2023d. Temecula Fire Department. Available at: https://temeculaca.gov/230/Fire/ Accessed July 2023. City of Temecula Office of Emergency Management (Temecula OEM). 2023a. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2023- 2027. Available at https://temeculaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/l5186/City-of- Temecula-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-2022-FINAL?bidld=. Accessed September 2023. 2023b. Emergency Operations Plan. Available at: https://temeculaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/14769/2023-City-of-Temecula-Emergency- Operations-Plan-APPROVED?bidld=. Accessed August 2023. Clark, C., P. Stine, J. Battles, T. Moody, P. Manley, M. Goulden, L. Bistritz, J. Stewart. 2023. Southern California Regional Resource Kit (SoCal RRK) Metric Dictionary. 81 p. Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2023. Wildfire Statistics. Available at: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF10244.pdf. Accessed June 2023. Ditomaso, J.M., M.L. Brooks, E.B. Allen, R. Minnich, P.M. Rice, and G.B. Kyser. 2006. Control of invasive weeds with prescribed burning. Weed Technology 20:535-548. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4495715. Accessed January 2024. Egan, D. 2013. Monitoring- Organizing a Landscape -Scale Forest Restoration Multi -Party Monitoring Program. 38pp. Available at: https://openknowledge.nau.edu/id/eprint/2501 /1/Dubay_C_etal_2013_HandbookBreakingBarriers 3.pdf. Accessed February 2023. Evans, A., S. Auerbach, L.W. Miller, R. Wood, K. Nystrom, J. Loevner, A. Argon, M. Piccarello, E. Krasilovsky. 2015. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Wildfire Mitigation Activities in the Wildland Urban Interface. Forest Guild, October 2015. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2022. Social Vulnerability. Available at: https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/social-vulnerability. Accessed February 2023. Fire Research and Management Exchange System. 2021. Applied Wildland Fire Behavior Research and Development. Available at: https://www.frames.gov/applied-fire-behavior/home. Accessed February 2023. Forests and Rangelands. 2006. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Strategy Implementation Plan. Available at: https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/documents/resources/plan/10- yearstrategyfinal_dec2006.pdf. Accessed December 2023. 2014. The National Strategy: The Final Phase in the Development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. Available at: https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/documents/strategy/strategy/CSPhaseI I I NationalStrategyA pr2014.pdf. Accessed December 2023. 2021. The National Strategy. Available at: https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/thestrategy.shtm1. Accessed February 2023. Page 1 84 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA Fryer, J.L. 2015. Fire regimes of montane riparian communities of California and southwestern Oregon. In: Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Available at www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/fire_regimes/CA_montane_riparian/all.html. Accessed September 2023 Hantson S., N. Andela, M.L. Goulden, and J.T. Randerson. 2022. Human -ignited fires result in more extreme fire behavior and ecosystem impacts. Nature Communications 13:2717 ICF. 2022. Trespass Survey for the Temecula Creek Wildlife Crossing Project. Interagency Fuel Treatment Decision Support System (IFTDSS). 2023. About Map Values - Highly Valued Resources or Assets (HVRAs). Available at: https://iftdss.firenet.gov/firenetHelp/help/pageHelp/content/30- tasks/qwra/mapvalues/hvraabout.htm. Accessed December 2023. Keeley, J.E. 2006. South Coast bioregion. In: Sugihara, Neil G.; van Wagtendonk, Jan W.; Shaffer, Kevin E.; Fites-Kaufman, Joann; Thode, Andrea E., eds. Fire in California's ecosystems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 350-390. Keeley, J.E., and A.D. Syphard. 2016. Climate change and future fire regimes: examples from California. Geosciences 6(3). Kramer, H.A., M.H. Mockrin, P.M. Alexandre, S.I. Stewart, and V.C. Radeloff. 2018. Where wildfires destroy buildings in the US relative to the wildland-urban interface and national fire outreach programs. International Journal of Wildland Fire 27(5). Lambert, A.M., C.M. D'antonio, and T.L. Dudley. 2010. Invasive species and fire in California ecosystems. Fremontia 38(2):29-36. Li, S., and T. Banerjee. 2021. Spatial and temporal pattern of wildfires in California from 2000 to 2019. Scientific Reports 11(1). Maranghides, A., E.D. Link, S. Hawks, J. McDougald, S.L. Quarles, D.J. Gorham, and S. Nazare. 2022. WUI Structure/Parcel/Community Fire Hazard Mitigation Methodology. National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST Technical Note 2205. Maranghides, A., and W. Mell. 2013. Framework for Addressing the National Wildland Urban Interface Fire Problem — Determining Fire and Ember Exposure Zones using a WUI Hazard Scale. National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST Technical Note 1748. Martin, B. 2022. Final Report Temecula Creek Wildlife Corridor Baseline Wildlife Tracking Study. Wildlife Tracking Company. National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). 2021. Suppression Costs. Available at: https://www.nifc.gov/fire- information/statistics/suppression-costs. Accessed February 2023. 2023. Wildfires and Acres. Available at: https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/wildfires. Accessed September 2023. National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). 2009. NWCG Data Standard Fire Size Class Code. Available at https://www.nwcg.gov/sites/default/files/data-standards/pdf/values.pdf. Accessed December 2023. 2023. NWCG Glossary of Wildland Fire, PMS 205. Available at https://datainventory.doi.gov/explorer/tbl/glossary.editor. Accessed December 2023 Page 1 85 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA Ottmar, R., R. Vihnanek, and J. Regelbrugge. 2000. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna. Vol. 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Pechanga Band of Indians (Pechanga Band). 2023a. Monitoring Program. Available at: https://www.pechanga-nsn.gov/index.php/culture/cultural-center/monitor-program. Accessed July 2023. 2023b. Pechanga Fire Department. Available at: https://www.pechanga-nsn.gov/index.php/tribal- government/services/pechanga-fire-department. Accessed December 2023. Pettit, N.E., and R.J. Naiman. 2007. Fire in the riparian zone: characteristics and ecological consequences. Ecosystems 10:673-687. PRISM Climate Group. 2023. Time Series Values for Individual locations. Available at https:Hprism.oregonstate.edu/explorer/ (Latitude 33.5028, Longitude-117.1194). Accessed December 2023. Ready. 2021. Community Emergency Response Team. Available at: https://www.ready.gov/cert. Accessed February 2023. Resource Protection Committee (RPC). 2022. Zone 0: Guidance, Interpretation, and Regulations Enhanced Defensible Space as Directed by AB 3047. Available at: https:Hbof.fire.ca.gov/media/54flflkr/wkshp-3-valachovic-presentation_ada.pdf. Accessed August 2023. Riverside County Fire Department. 2021. 2021 Annual Report. Available at https://www.rvcfire.org/pdf/annualreport/2021 %20ANNUAL%20REPORT%20STATS.pdf. Accessed July 2022. San Diego State University (SDSU). 2023a. About the SDSU Field Station Program. Available at https:Hfsp.sdsu.edu/about-us/. Accessed September 2023. 2023b. Conservations at the Field Stations. Available at: https://fsp.sdsu.edu/conservation/. Accessed September 2023. Scott, J.H., and R.E. Burgan. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel's Surface Fire Spread Model. Available at: https://www.resolutionmineeis.us/sites/default/files/references/scott-burgan-2005.pdf. Accessed February 2023. Society of American Foresters (SAF). 2004. Preparing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan: A Handbook for Wildland Urban Interface Communities. Sponsored by Communities Committee, National Association of Counties, National Association of State Foresters, Society of American Foresters, and Western Governors' Association. Available at: https://gacc.nifc.gov/gbcc/dispatch/wy-tdc/documents/information/education- prevention/cwpphandbook. pdf. Accessed December 2023 State of California. 2022. Wildfire Prevention Grants Program. Available at: https://www.caclimateinvestments.ca.gov/fire-prevention-grants. Accessed: February 2023 Southern California Regional Resources Kit (SoCal RRK). 2023. Southern California Regional Resources Kit: Data Availability (V 2.0). Available at: https:Hrrk.sdsc.edu/socal.html#fire_comm. Accessed December 2023. Page 1 86 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA Steel, Z.L., H.D. Safford, and J.H. Viers. 2015. The fire frequency -severity relationship and the legacy of fire suppression in California forests. Ecosphere 6(1):8 Suzuki, S., and S.L. Manzello. 2021. Ignition vulnerabilities of combustibles around houses to firebrand showers: further comparison of experiments. Sustainability 13(4). Tekalign, W., and Y. Kebede. 2016. Impacts of wildfire and prescribed fire on wildlife and habitats: A Review. Journal of Natural Sciences Research. 6(23). Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234656777.pdf Accessed January 2024. The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2023. TNC Knew the Value of the Santa Rosa Plateau. Available at https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/places-we-protect/california-santa-rosa- plateau/. Accessed September 2023. U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. Quick Facts: Temecula City, California. Available at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/temeculacitycalifornia/PST045222. Accessed December 2023. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2005. Terminology and Definitions Associated with Revegetation. Available at: https://www. nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_PLANTMATERIALS/publications/wapmctn6333.pdf. Accessed December 2023. 2022. Introduced, Invasive, and Noxious Plants. Available at: https:Hplantsorig.sc.egov.usda.gov/java/noxiousDriver. Accessed December 2023. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2001. Urban Wildland Interface Communities within Vicinity of Federal Lands that are at High Risk from Wildfire. Federal Register 66(3):751-777 U.S. Fire Administration (USFA). 2021 a. What is the WUI? Available at: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/wui/what-is-the-wui.html. Accessed December 2023. 2021 b. Fire -Adapted Communities. Available at: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/wui/communities/. Accessed December 2023. U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2012. Information from LANDFIRE on fire regimes of California oak woodlands. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at: www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/fire_regimes/CA_oak_woodlands/all.html. Accessed March 2023. 2020. Operational Risk Management Guide. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/master_revised_orm_guide_02262020. pdf. Accessed December 2023. n.d.(a). Prescribed Fire. Available at: https://www.fs. usda.gov/detail/sierra/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5442511 #:—:text=Prescribed %20fires%20can%20be%20ignited%20when%20weather%20and,conditions%20that%20will%20 minimize%20smoke%20in%20sensitive%20areas. Accessed December 2023. n.d.(b). What is the Wildland Urban Interface? Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_053107.pdf. Accessed December 2023. Page 1 87 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2018. Fourth National Climate Assessment Chapter 15: Tribes And Indigenous Peoples. Available at: https://nca20l8.globalchange.gov/chapter/15/. Accessed December 2023. U.S. Geological Survey. 2021. What is an invasive species and why are they a problem? Available at: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-invasive-species-and-why-are-they-a-problem?qt- news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products. Accessed December 2023. Verzoni, A. 2023. Invisible No More. NFPA Journal. Available at https://www.nfpa.org/news-blogs-and- articles/nfpa-journal/2023/03/03/homeless. Accessed January 2024. Visit Temecula Valley. 2023. Outdoor Recreation. Available at: https://www.visittemecuIavaIley.com/things-to-do/outdoor-recreation/. Accessed August 2023. Wayman, R.B., and H.D. Safford. 2021. Recent bark beetle outbreaks influence wildfire severity in mixed - conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Ecological Applications 31(3): e02287. 10.1002/eap.2287 Westerling, A.L. 2016. Increasing western US forest wildfire activity: sensitivity to changes in the timing of spring. Available at: http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/pdffiles/16RSTB_Westerling.pdf. Accessed February 2023. Westerling, A.L., B.P. Bryant, H.K. Preisler, T.P. Holmes, H.G. Hidalgo, T. Das, and S.R Shrestha. 2011. Climate change and growth scenarios for California wildfire. Climatic Change 109(1):445-463. Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase in western U.S. Forest wildfire activity. Science 313(5789):940-943. Western Regional Strategy Committee (WRSC). 2013. Western Regional Action Plan. Available at: https://www.forestsand rangelands.gov/documents/strategy/rsc/west/WestRAP_Final20130416. pd f.pdf. Accessed December 2023. Wooten, G. 2021. Fire and fuels management: Fire and fuels management: Definitions, ambiguous terminology and references. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/management/upload/fire-wildfire-definitions-2.pdf. Accessed February 2023. Page 1 88 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA GLOSSARY Aspect: Cardinal direction toward which a slope faces in relation to the sun (National Wildfire Coordinating Group [NWCG] 2023). Active Crown Fire: Where surface and crown fire energy are linked, meaning that the surface fire intensity is sufficient to ignite tree crowns, and fire spread and intensity in the tree crowns encourages surface fire spread and intensity (NWCG 2023). Passive crown fire occurs where surface fire intensity is sufficient to ignite individual or groups of tree crowns but it does not readily spread in the crowns. Available Fuel: That portion of the total fuel that would actually burn under various environmental conditions. This may be surface fuel or canopy fuel (NWCG 2023). Backfire or Burn Out: Fire intentionally set along the inner edge of a fireline to consume the fuel in the path of a wildfire or change the direction of force of the fire's column (NWCG 2023). Biomass: Organic material. Also refers to the weight of organic material (e. g. biomass roots, branches, needles, and leaves) within a given ecosystem (Wooten 2021). Burn Severity: Burn severity relates to soil heating, large fuel and duff consumption, consumption of the litter and organic layer beneath trees and isolated shrubs, and mortality of buried plant parts (NWCG 2023). Canopy: The layer that contains the crowns of the tallest vegetation, typically above 20 feet and thus trees (NWCG 2023). Chain: Unit of measure in land survey, equal to 66 feet (20 m) (80 chains equal 1 mile). Commonly used to report fire perimeters and other fireline distances (NWCG 2023). Climate Adaptation: Adaptation is an adjustment in natural or human systems to a new or changing environment. Adaptation to climate change refers to adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities (California Governor's Office of Planning and Research [CA GOPR] et al. 2022). Climate Change: A change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods (CA GOPR et al. 2022). Community Assessment: An analysis designed to identify factors that increase the potential and/or severity of undesirable fire outcomes in wildland-urban interface (WUI) communities (SWCA). Communities at Risk (CARs): Defined by the HFRA as "Wild land -Urban Interface Communities within the vicinity of federal lands that are at high risk from wildfire." • CAL FIRE expanded on this definition for California including all communities (regardless of distance from federal lands) for which a significant threat to human life or property exists as a result of a wildland fire event. California uses the following three factors to determine at risk communities: 1) high fuel hazard, 2) probability of a fire, and 3) proximity of intermingled wildland fuels and urban environments that are near fire threats (CA GOPR et al. 2022). Community Emergency Response Team (CERT): The CERT program educates volunteers about disaster preparedness for the hazards that may impact their area and trains them in basic disaster response skills, such as fire safety, light search and rescue, team organization, and disaster medical operations. CERT offers a consistent, nationwide approach to volunteer training and organization that Page 1 89 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA professional responders can rely on during disaster situations, allowing them to focus on more complex tasks (Ready 2021). Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP): A planning document that seeks to reduce the threat to life and property from wildfire by identifying and mitigating wildfire hazards to communities and infrastructure located in the WUI. Developed from the HFRA, a CWPP addresses issues such as wildfire response, hazard mitigation, community preparedness, or structure protection (Western Regional Strategy Committee [WRSC] 2013). Contained: The status of a wildfire suppression action signifying that a control line has been completed around the fire, and any associated spot fires, which can reasonably be expected to stop the fire's spread (NWCG 2023). Control Line: An inclusive term for all constructed or natural barriers and treated fire edges used to control a fire (NWCG 2023). Controlled: The completion of control line around a fire, any associated spot fires, and any interior unburned islands; burning out any unburned area adjacent to the fire side of the control lines; and cooling down all hot spots that are immediate threats to the control line, until the lines can reasonably be expected to hold under the foreseeable conditions (NWCG 2023). Cover Type: The type of vegetation (or lack of it) growing on an area, based on cover type minimum and maximum percent cover of the dominant species, species group or non -living land cover (such as water, rock, etc.). The cover type defines both a qualitative aspect (the dominant cover type) as well as a quantitative aspect (the abundance of the predominant features of that cover type) (Wooten 2021). Creeping Fire: Fire with a low flame and slow rate of spread (NWCG 2023). Dead Fuel Moisture: The moisture content of dead (not living) fuels. Categorized into different size classes by timelag: 1 hour, 10 hour, 100 hour, and 1,000 hour (SWCA). Defensible Space: An area around a structure where fuels and vegetation are modified, cleared, or reduced to slow the spread of wildfire toward or from a structure. The design and distance of the defensible space is based on fuels, topography, and the design/materials used in the construction of the structure (SWCA). • In California, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 4291, "defensible space" refers to a 100-foot perimeter around a structure in which vegetation (fuels) must be maintained in order to reduce the likelihood of ignition. This space may extend beyond property lines, or 100 feet as required by State law as well as local ordinances, rules, and regulations (CA GOPR et al. 2022). Duff: The layer of decomposing organic materials lying below the litter layer of freshly fallen twigs, needles, and leaves and immediately above the mineral soil (NWCG 2023). Evacuation: The temporary movement of people and their possessions from locations threatened by wildfire (SWCA). Federal Responsibility Area (FRA): A term specific to California, designating areas where the federal government is responsible for fire response efforts. These areas include lands under federal ownership (CA GOPR et al. 2022). Fire -Adapted Community: A fire -adapted community collaborates to identify its wildfire risk and works collectively on actionable steps to reduce its risk of loss. This work protects property and increases the safety of firefighters and residents (U.S. Fire Administration [USFA] 2021 a). Page 1 90 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA Fire Behavior: The manner in which fuel ignites, flame develops, and fire spread and exhibits other related phenomena as determined by the interaction of fuels, weather, and topography (Fire Research and Management Exchange System 2021) Fire Environment: The surrounding conditions, influences, and modifying forces of topography, fuel, and weather that determine fire behavior (NWCG 2023). Fire Frequency: A general term referring to the recurrence of fire in a given area over time (NWCG 2023). Fire Hazard: Fire hazard is the potential fire behavior in an area, given the type(s) of fuel present — including both the natural and built environment — and their combustibility (CA GOPR et al. 2022). It is the fuel complex, defined by volume, type condition, arrangement, and location, that determines the degree of ease of ignition and of resistance to control (NWCG 2023). Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ): FHSZs are defined based on vegetation, topography, and weather (temperature, humidity and wind), and represents the likelihood of an area burning over a 30- to 50-year time period without considering modifications such as fuel reduction efforts. In California, CAL FIRE maintains FHSZ data for the entire state. There are three classes of fire hazard severity ratings within FHSZs: moderate, high, and very high (CA GOPR et al. 2022). Fire History: The chronological record of the occurrence of fire in an ecosystem or at a specific site. The fire history of an area may inform planners and residents about the level of wildfire hazard in that area (SWCA). Fireline Intensity: The rate of heat release per unit time per unit length of fire front. The primary unit is Btu per second per foot (Btu/second/foot) of fire front. Combined with residence time, can loosely determine burn/fire severity (NWCG 2023). Fire Prevention: Activities such as public education, community outreach, planning, building code enforcement, engineering (construction standards), and reduction of fuel hazards that is intended to reduce the incidence of unwanted human -caused wildfires and the risks they pose to life, property or resources (CA GOPR et al. 2022). Fire Regime: Description of the patterns of fire occurrences, frequency, size, severity, and sometimes vegetation and fire effects as well, in a given area or ecosystem (NWCG 2023). Fire Regime Condition Class: Depiction of the degree of departure from historical fire regimes, possibly resulting in alternations of key ecosystem components. These classes categorize and describe vegetation composition and structure conditions that currently exist inside the Fire Regime Groups. The risk of loss of key ecosystem components from wildfires increases from Condition Class 1 (lowest risk) to Condition Class 3 (highest risk) (NWCG 2023). Fire Regime Group: A classification of fire regimes into a discrete number of categories based on frequency and severity. The national, coarse -scale classification of fire regime groups commonly used includes five groups: I - frequent (0-35 years), low severity; II - frequent (0-35 years), stand replacement severity; III - 35-100+ years, mixed severity; IV - 35-100+ years, stand replacement severity; and V - 200+ years, stand replacement severity (NWCG 2023). Fire Return Interval: Number of years between two successive fires in a designated area (NWCG 2023) Page 1 91 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA Fire Risk: "Risk" takes into account the intensity and likelihood of a fire event to occur as well as the chance, whether high or low, that a hazard such as a wildfire will cause harm. Fire risk can be determined by identifying the susceptibility of a value or asset to the potential direct or indirect impacts of wildfire hazard events (CA GOPR et al. 2022). Flame Length: The distance between the flame tip and the midpoint of the flame depth at the base of the flame (generally the ground surface), an indicator of fire intensity (NWCG 2023). Fuel Break: A natural or manmade change in fuel characteristics which affects fire behavior so that fires burning into them can be more readily controlled. (NWCG 2023). Fuel Characteristics: Factors that make up fuels such as compactness, loading, horizontal continuity, vertical arrangement, chemical content, size and shape, and moisture content (NWCG 2023). Fuel Continuity: The degree or extent of continuous or uninterrupted distribution of fuel particles in a fuel bed thus affecting a fire's ability to sustain combustion and spread. This applies to aerial fuels as well as surface fuels (NWCG 2023). Fuel Depth: The average distance from the bottom of the litter layer to the top of the layer of fuel, usually the surface fuel (NWCG 2023). Fuel Loading: The amount of fuel present expressed quantitatively in terms of weight of fuel per unit area, such as tons per acre. This may be available fuel (consumable fuel) or total fuel and is usually dry weight (NWCG 2023). Fuel Model: Simulated fuel complex for which all fuel descriptors required for the solution of a mathematical rate of spread model have been specified (NWCG 2023). Fuel Modification/Treatment: Manipulation or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition and/or to lessen potential damage and resistance to control (e.g., lopping, chipping, crushing, piling and burning; NWCG 2023). Treatments may be manual by hand, mechanical with heavy equipment, chemical application, or through prescribed fire or prescribed herbivory (SWCA). Hazard: A "hazard" can be defined generally as an event that could cause harm or damage to human health, safety, or property (CA GOPR et al. 2022). Healthy Forests Restoration Act: The HFRA is provides funding for wildfire mitigation and the development of Community Wildlife Protection Plans (CWPPs), which facilitate the collaboration between federal agencies and communities in order to develop hazardous fuels reduction projects and place priority on treatment areas. Highly Valued Resources and Assets (HVRAs): Landscape features that are influenced positively and/or negatively by fire. Resources are naturally occurring, while Assets are human made (IFTDSS 2023). Incident: An occurrence either human -caused or natural phenomenon, that requires action or support by emergency service personnel to prevent or minimize loss of life or damage to property and/or natural resources. A wildfire is an example of one kind of incident (NWCG 2023). Invasive Species: An introduced, nonnative organism (disease, parasite, plant, or animal) that begins to spread or expand its range from the site of its original introduction and that has the potential to cause harm to the environment, the economy, or to human health (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2022; U.S. Geological Survey 2021). Page 1 92 f]] — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA Ladder Fuels: Fuels which provide vertical continuity between strata, thereby allowing fire to carry from surface fuels into the crowns of trees or shrubs with relative ease. They help initiate and assure the continuation of crowning (NWCG 2023) Litter: The top layer of forest floor, composed of loose debris of dead sticks, branches, twigs, and recently fallen leaves or needles; little decomposition (NWCG 2023). Live Fuel Moisture Content: Ratio of the amount of water to the amount of dry plant material in living plants (NWCG 2023). Live fuel moisture varies by plant and species type and seasonally. Local Responsibility Area (LRA): A term specific to California, designating areas where the local government is responsible for wildfire protection. The Local Responsibility Area (LRA) includes incorporated cities, cultivated agricultural lands, and portions of the desert. Local responsibility area fire protection is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by CAL FIRE under contract to local government (CA GOPR et al. 2022). Mutual Aid: Assistance in firefighting or investigation by fire agencies, without regard for jurisdictional boundaries (NWCG 2023). Native Revegetation: The process of replanting and rebuilding the soil of disturbed land (e.g., burned) with native plant species (USDA 2005). Native Species: A species that evolved naturally in the habitat, ecosystem, or region as determined by climate, soil, and biotic factors (USDA 2005). National Cohesive Strategy: The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy is a strategic push to work collaboratively among all stakeholders and across all landscapes, using best science, to make meaningful progress toward three goals: • Resilient Landscapes Fire -Adapted Communities • Safe and Effective Risk -Based Wildfire Response Vision: To safely and effectively extinguish fire when needed; use fire where allowable; manage our natural resources; and as a nation, to live with wildland fire (Forests and Rangelands 2021). The National Fire Plan: The National Fire Plan aims to foster collaboration among government agencies to respond effectively to severe wildfires and ensure adequate firefighting resources. These reports emphasized collaborative strategies for ecosystem restoration, hazard fuel reduction, community risk mitigation, economic benefits, and fire prevention and suppression (Forests and Rangelands 2006). Annual progress and lessons learned reports are available for community fire prevention. Prescribed Burning: Any fire ignited by management actions under specific, predetermined conditions to meet specific objectives related to hazardous fuels or habitat improvement. Usually, a written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements must be met, prior to ignition (U.S. Forest Service [USFS] n.d.(a)). Rate of Spread: The relative activity of a fire in extending its horizontal dimensions. It is expressed as rate of increase of the total perimeter of the fire, as rate of forward spread of the fire front, or as rate of increase in area, depending on the intended use of the information. Usually, it is expressed in chains or acres per hour for a specific period in the fire's history (NWCG 2023). Page 1 93 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA Resilience: Resilience is the capacity of any entity — an individual, a community, an organization, or a natural system — to prepare for disruptions, to recover from shocks and stresses, and to adapt and grow from a disruptive experience (CA GOPR et al. 2022). Resilient Landscape: Landscapes or ecosystems that resist damage and recover quickly from disturbances (such as wildland fires) and human activities (Forests and Rangelands 2014). Slope Percent: The ratio between the amount of vertical rise of a slope and horizontal distance as expressed in a percent. One hundred feet of rise to 100 feet of horizontal distance equals 100 percent (NWCG 2023). State Responsibility Area (SRA): A term specific to California, designating areas where the state has financial responsibility for wildland fire protection. Incorporated cities and lands under federal ownership are not included in the SRA. Lands under federal ownership are in the federal responsibility area (CA GOPR et al. 2022). Surface Fire: Fire that burns debris on the surface, which includes dead branches, leaves, and low vegetation (NWCG 2023). Vulnerable Community: Vulnerable communities experience heightened risk and increased sensitivity to natural hazard and climate change impacts and have less capacity and fewer resources to cope with, adapt to, or recover from the impacts of natural hazards and increasingly severe hazard events because of climate change. These disproportionate effects are caused by physical (built and environmental), social, political, and/ or economic factor(s), which are exacerbated by climate impacts. These factors include, but are not limited to, race, class, sexual orientation and identification, national origin, and income inequality (CA GOPR et al. 2022). Wildfire: A "wildfire" can be generally defined as any unplanned fire in a "wildland" area or in the WUI (CA GOPR et al. 2022). Wildland Fuels (fuels): Fuel is the material that is burning. It can be any kind of combustible material, especially petroleum -based products, and wildland fuels. For wildland fire, it is usually live, or dead plant material, but can also include artificial materials such as houses, sheds, fences, pipelines, and trash piles. In terms of vegetation, there are six wildland fuel types (fuel type: An identifiable association of fuel elements of distinctive species, form, size, arrangement, or other characteristics that will cause a predictable rate of spread or resistance to control under specified weather conditions). The six wildland fuel types are (NWCG 2023): • Grass • Shrub • Grass -Shrub • Timber Litter • Timber-Understory • Slash-Blowdown Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI): The WUI is the zone of transition between unoccupied land and human development. It is the line, area or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels (USFA 2021 b). In the absence of a CWPP, Section 101 (16) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act defines the WUI as " (1) an area extending'/2 mile from the boundary of an at -risk community; (11) an area within 1 '/2 miles of the boundary of an at -risk Page 1 94 Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan I SWCA community, including any land that (1) has a sustained steep slope that creates the potential for wildfire behavior endangering the at -risk community; (2) has a geographic feature that aids in creating an effective fire break, such as a road or ridge top; or (3) is in condition class 3, as documented by the Secretary in the project -specific environmental analysis; (III) an area that is adjacent to an evacuation route for an at -risk community that the Secretary determines, in cooperation with the at -risk community, requires hazardous fuels reduction to provide safer evacuation from the at -risk community." A CWPP offers the opportunity to establish a localized definition and boundary for the WUI (USFS n.d.(b)). Page 1 95 APPENDIX A Natural Resources A. Natural Resources ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND PERMITTING Before implementation of fuels reduction treatments, certain local, state, and federal statutes and regulations require environmental review and permitting; the specific environmental documents and permits needed for the project are dependent on factors such as the proposed treatment actions and location of the actions. Environmental compliance typically includes California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and related documents. Permitting involves coordinating with federal, state, and/or local regulatory agencies to ensure project approval and clearance. Table A.1 below lists anticipated permits needed for fuels reduction treatments in the Temecula Creek site. Appendix C details the process for potential pathways for compliance with CEQA regulations. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis Report Because part of the project is located within the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Criteria Area, an MSHCP Consistency Analysis report was completed in accordance with meeting the goals and objectives of the Reserve System and to demonstrate consistency with the MSHCP Implementation Structure. The full report is included as Attachment A.1. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Because focused surveys were not conducted and project activity specifics (treatment type and location) are undetermined, steps remain for project compliance with the MSHCP Implementation Structure. A technical memorandum was completed to outline additional steps necessary before implementation of proposed project activities. The full MSHCP technical memorandum is included as Attachment A.2. Aquatic Resources Assessment A preliminary assessment of aquatic resources was conducted for the project site. A field survey was conducted where the review area was walked and mapped to identify the general extent of the stream along its approximate ordinary high-water mark and to test for potential wetlands. The work conducted also helps inform overall project planning. A full jurisdictional delineation was not completed. The full aquatic resources technical memorandum is included as Attachment A.3. A-1 A. Natural Resources Table A.1. Permitting Matrix Permit Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) NWP 18 (minor discharges)/NWP 33 (temporary access) Preconstruction Notification (PCN) Regional General Permit (RGP) and/or Programmatic -level permit (may be required if the City anticipates expanded and regularly conducted fuels reduction activities across a specified geographic area) CWA Section 401 Individual Permit Responsible Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) or Regional Water Quality Control Board Permit Trigger Required if there will be impacts to waters of the United States, including impacts to wetlands with connectivity to waters of the United States, or impacts to waters below the ordinary high-water mark. Required if there will be impacts to waters of the United States. Associated with CWA Section 404 permitting. Notes Additional studies that may be required include wetland delineation, biological, and cultural resources studies (see Endangered Species Act [ESA] Section 7 and National Historic Preservation Act [NHPA] Section 106 Consultation below), and compensatory mitigation may be required (if certain temporary and permanent impacts from actions are more than 0.10 acre in size). Additional studies that may be required: wetland delineation, alternatives analysis (depending on extent of impacts to wetlands), and compensatory mitigation A-2 Timeline Approximately 6 to 9 months: Field surveys and permit preparation (2 months) Permit issuance (4 months) USACE aims to issue NWP decisions within 60 days Complex projects can require 9 to 12 months to be issued (see ESA Section 7 below) Different timelines and documentation are required depending on whether informal or formal consultation is required.. Cost TBD Approximately 5 months: (which TBD includes a 30-day advance pre -filing meeting with the agency before submitting the application) Both the Water Quality Control application and USACE notification/application are submitted concurrently to the Water Board (state and regional) and USACE to coordinate timing of issuance Field surveys and permit preparation (2 months) Permit issuance (3 months) Statutory timeline is 6 weeks from submittal (45 days for authorization). A. Natural Resources Permit Responsible Permit Trigger Agency Regular 5-year CDFW standard Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report Required if there may be impacts to stream bed/bank or riparian area (definition for jurisdictional waters for CDFW is different and broader than that for USACE Section 404 permitting). Required if there will be potential substantial effects to regulated streambeds including riparian vegetation through use of heavy equipment and/or vegetation trimming or removal. Regional DBESP is needed if there will be Conservation impacts to MSHCP sensitive Authority resources. N otes Additional studies that may be required: wetland delineation, biological resources technical report, CEQA compliance, and compensatory mitigation. Additional items that may be needed: California Endangered Species Act (CESA) permit (if take of listed species may occur), consultation by lead federal agency with USFWS (for federal listed species). If the project's primary purpose is improving fish and wildlife habitat, the project would qualify for CDFW's Small Habitat Restoration Project LSAA option or 401 General Order Consistency Analysis: focused surveys are needed. See the MSHCP technical memorandum for specific species for this project. Given the recurring nature of maintenance fuels treatment, the proposed project will likely impact MSHCP sensitive resources and require a DBESP. A Joint Process Review (JPR) is required. A-3 Timeline Approximately 5 to 8 months: CDFW will review the request and aim to determine whether the request is complete within 30 calendar days. CDFW may request more information from applicant if needed. Once all information is provided, CDFW will proceed in preparing either a draft agreement or letter indicating no agreement is needed. Due to current low staff numbers at CDFW across California, review times for LSA and CESA permits may be extended. Approximately 4 to 6 months: Dependent on initiation and completion of sensitive species surveys and species survey windows. Cost TBD TBD A. Natural Resources Permit Responsible Permit Trigger Agency Notes Timeline Cost ESA Section 7 USFWS and/or Required if impacts may potentially If impacts to federally listed species Approximately 9 to 15 months TBD Consultation National Oceanic affect federally listed species. are unlikely, informal consultation (formal consultation) and Atmospheric Associated with CWA Section 404 occurs. Field surveys and biological Administration permitting. If impacts to federally listed species assessment preparation (3 months) National Marine Fisheries Service are likely, formal consultation occurs Receiving a formal biological opinion (NOAA Fisheries) and preparation of a biological (6 months to 1 year from when assessment(s) is required. consultation has been initiated, depending on data availability and level of impact to listed species) The typical timeline for issuance of a biological opinion is no less than 135 days after acceptance of the biological assessment as complete. Different timeline and documentation are required depending on whether there will be "No Effect" or "May Affect but not likely to Adversely Affect' determination. California Incidental CDFW Recommended if there is potential for Biological report preparation and Up to 21 months TBD Take Permit take of state -listed species protected permit application required to apply Field surveys and reporting/application Section 2080 of the under the CESA that cannot be for take permit. preparation (3 months) California Fish and avoided through project design and avoidance measures. Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit Game Code (up to 18 months following permit submittal when compensatory mitigation is required due to the additional documentation required to demonstrate compliance with the CDFW fully mitigated standard) Because the CDFW is also required to review CEQA documents for consistency, permits cannot be issued until a CEQA Notice of Determination (NOD) is filed. CEQA Lead agency would Requires public agencies to review Approximately 1 month (notice of TBD likely be the City of activities that may affect the quality of exemption) Temecula if formal the environment so that consideration Approximately 5 to 6 months CEQA review is is given to preventing damage to the needed environment. (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration [IS/MND], inclusive of 30 days to prepare the Administrative Draft IS/MND, 30-day public comment period, and public hearing) A-4 A. Natural Resources Permit Responsible Permit Trigger Agency Notes Timeline Cost NHPA Section 106 State Historic Required if there may be potential Approximately 6 to 8 months: TBD Consultation Preservation Officer effects on historic properties. Field surveys and permit preparation Additional information (SHPO) Associated with CWA Section 404 (2 months) on cultural resources permitting. Issuance of permit (4 to 6 months) can be found in Consultation results in memorandum Appendix B. of agreement (MOA) and historic Obtaining an MOA and agency properties treatment plan (HPTP), concurrence on the HPTP is a roughly which outlines agreed -upon measures 120-day process that includes a that the agency will take to avoid, minimum 30-day circulation of the minimize, or mitigate the adverse HPTP to stakeholders and a 30-day effects. The consulting parties may review period by the SHPO. agree that no such measures are possible but that the adverse effects must be accepted in the public interest. Note: Permits and processes listed may be more streamlined if the proposed fuels reduction treatment activities are limited to only nonnative/invasive vegetation removal for the purpose of habitat restoration. TBD = to be determined A-5 ATTACHMENT A.1 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis Report Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan JANUARY 2024 PREPARED FOR City of Temecula PREPARED BY SWCA Environmental Consultants WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA - TEMECULA CREEK COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN Prepared for City of Temecula Department of Development 4100 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Attn: Mark Collins Prepared by Lee BenVau, M.S., Project Restoration Ecologist Principal Investigators Lee BenVau, M.S., Project Restoration Ecologist Christina Torres, B.S., Assistant Project Biologist SWCA Environmental Consultants 320 North Halstead Street, Suite 120 Pasadena, California 91107 (626) 240-0587 www.swca.com SWCA Project No. 74976 January 2024 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan ABSTRACT/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The approximately 177-acre City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan project area (project area) occurs within the following Criteria Cells: 7356, 7357, 7358, 7359, 7444, 7445, and 7446. Approximately 1.18 acres of the project area occurs outside of any Criteria Cell but is included in this report because it comprises less than 1% of the project area. The project area supports 103.60 acres of wetland and riparian habitat, 11.33 acres of riverine habitat, 46.24 acres of upland habitat, and 15.49 acres of developed and disturbed land. Chaparral sand -verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita), white rabbit -tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum), and least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) were incidentally observed on -site during habitat assessment and vegetation mapping surveys. Focused surveys are required for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), riparian birds including least Bell's vireo, fairy shrimp, and plant species listed in Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Section 6.1.2. These plant species that have potential to occur on -site include: smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), slender -horned spine flower (Dodecahema leptoceras), Southern California black walnut (Juglans californica), ocellated Humboldt lily (Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum), mud nama (Nama stenocarpa), Fish's milkwort (Polygala cornuta var. fishiae), and Coulter's matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri). Impacts to sensitive biological resources have not been determined because focused surveys for the above species were not authorized to proceed at this time. Once these surveys have been conducted, impacts can be quantified, and appropriate mitigation can be determined, as necessary. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan This page intentionally left blank. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan CONTENTS 1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Description and Area........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Covered Roads.............................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Covered Public Access Activities................................................................................................. 4 1.4 General Setting............................................................................................................................. 4 2 Reserve Assembly Analysis.................................................................................................................. 7 3 Vegetation Mapping and Species Compendia................................................................................... 7 3.1 Wetland/Riparian Vegetation Communities and Riverine Habitats ........................................... 13 3.2 Upland Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Categories ................................................... 16 4 Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/ Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (Section 6.1.2)......................................................................................................................................19 4.1 Riparian/Riverine Areas............................................................................................................. 19 4.1.1 Methods............................................................................................................................ 19 4.1.2 Existing Conditions and Results....................................................................................... 21 4.1.3 Impacts.............................................................................................................................. 26 4.1.4 Mitigation..........................................................................................................................26 4.2 Vernal Pools............................................................................................................................... 26 4.2.1 Methods............................................................................................................................ 27 4.2.2 Existing Conditions and Results....................................................................................... 27 4.2.3 Impacts.............................................................................................................................. 27 4.2.4 Mitigation..........................................................................................................................27 4.3 Fairy Shrimp............................................................................................................................... 27 4.3.1 Methods............................................................................................................................ 27 4.3.2 Existing Conditions and Results....................................................................................... 27 4.3.3 Impacts.............................................................................................................................. 28 4.3.4 Mitigation..........................................................................................................................28 4.4 Riparian Birds............................................................................................................................. 28 4.4.1 Methods............................................................................................................................ 28 4.4.2 Existing Conditions and Results....................................................................................... 28 4.4.3 Impacts.............................................................................................................................. 28 4.4.4 Mitigation..........................................................................................................................28 4.5 Other Section 6.1.2 Species........................................................................................................ 29 4.5.1 Methods............................................................................................................................ 29 4.5.2 Existing Conditions and Results....................................................................................... 29 4.5.3 Impacts.............................................................................................................................. 29 4.5.4 Mitigation..........................................................................................................................29 5 Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (Section 6.1.3)......................................................... 29 6 Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (Section 6.3.2)............................................................... 30 6.1 Criteria Area Plant Species......................................................................................................... 30 6.2 Amphibians.................................................................................................................................30 6.3 Burrowing Owl........................................................................................................................... 30 6.3.1 Methods............................................................................................................................ 30 6.3.2 Existing Conditions and Results....................................................................................... 30 6.3.3 Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 30 6.3.4 Mitigation..........................................................................................................................30 iii Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan 6.4 Mammals.................................................................................................................................... 31 7 Information on Other Species........................................................................................................... 31 7.1 Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly................................................................................................. 31 7.2 Coastal California Gnatcatcher................................................................................................... 31 7.3 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly...................................................................................................... 31 7.4 Species Not Adequately Conserved............................................................................................ 31 8 Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface (Section 6.1.4)......................................32 8.1 Drainage......................................................................................................................................32 8.2 Toxics......................................................................................................................................... 32 8.3 Lighting...................................................................................................................................... 33 8.4 Noise...........................................................................................................................................33 8.5 Invasives..................................................................................................................................... 33 8.6 Barriers....................................................................................................................................... 33 8.7 Grading/Land Development....................................................................................................... 34 9 Construction Guidelines (Section 7.5.3)........................................................................................... 34 10 Best Management Practices (MSHCP Volume 1, Appendix C)..................................................... 34 11 Literature Cited.................................................................................................................................. 36 Exhibits Exhibit A. Site Photographs Exhibit B. Plants Observed Exhibit C. Wildlife Observed Exhibit D. Special -status Plant Species with Potential to Occur Exhibit E. Special -status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur Figures Figure1. Project region................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure2. Project site..................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority MSHCP Information Map layers.......................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4. Easements, protected areas, and habitat projects........................................................................... 6 Figure 5. Special -status species within 3 miles............................................................................................. 8 Figure 6. Vegetation communities and land cover...................................................................................... 11 Figure 7. Riparian, riverine, and ephemeral ponded habitat....................................................................... 20 Tables Table 1. Summary of Site Surveys.................................................................. Table 2. On -Site Vegetation Communities and Land Covers ......................... Table 3. Project Compliance with BMPs (MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C) . iv Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Consistency Analysis is to summarize the biological data for the proposed City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) and to demonstrate the project's compliance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program (MSHCP). 1.1 Project Description and Area The purpose of the 2024 City of Temecula — Temecula Creek CWPP is to develop a specialized and comprehensive strategy to address wildfire risks within and around the 177-acre CWPP area (project area). Included within this CWPP are strategies and a step-by-step environmental compliance process for implementing fuels -reduction measures in a biologically and culturally sensitive riparian area near urban development. The CWPP also aims to create increased public awareness, enhancing residents' understanding of the natural and human -caused risks of wildland fires that threaten lives, safety, and the local economy, and identify other wildfire prevention and mitigation measures that enhance fuels reduction. By addressing critical fire prevention needs while considering environmental, cultural, and wildlife factors, the 2024 City of Temecula — Temecula Creek CWPP will serve as a model for similar high fire -risk areas in the city of Temecula. Fuels reduction would focus on removing non-native species with some removal of native vegetation where there is especially high risk of wildfire. No development or earth -moving is proposed and the CWPP is being designed to maximize avoidance of sensitive resources to the greatest extent practicable. Potential management techniques include the following fuels treatment methods: manual removal, mechanical removal, prescribed burning, targeted grazing, and replanting with native species as needed. The approximately 177-acre project area is located on Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 922-210-060, 922-220-030, 961-440-005, 961-440-007, 961-440-008, 961-440-009, 961-440-012, 961-450-001, 961-450-011, 961-450-015, 961-450-063, and 961-450-064 in the city of Temecula, Riverside County, California (Figures 1 and 2). Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula - Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan L� o,orona � a �d � m ct� 'U C Riverside Temecula ���b29 orange County r° Pa c°°ntv Munieta pProject Location ds N 6 Rd Potco�a �ay1eY oceansio[)20 OQ p a u b a Escondido 79 3 ; ro n C s�6 Wolf \, CC Valley T �J^ journey at Pechanga Pechanga A Reservation Gavilan r s� Mountain,_ Project Area Riverside county. LA a Ow Lc NAD 1983 IJTM Zone 11N County Boundary 33A747°N 117.1278°W 6OMMMII==== "ilometers N A Base PRap: EsrrArcGlS 0nline. 1 M,000 e acc ssed k--her 2023 Upd,t.d 11.8i202374976 7�� ProJecl No. 74976 SW Layout 74976_Re9ional W Apr:74976_Temecula_NR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Figure 1. Project region. 2 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan 0 Project Area Parcel Boundary d APNs in Project Area Figure 2. Project site. 3 I j Riverside County. CA o 40u NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N eel 33A747°N 117.1278°W oMeteis 6 Too zao 3o0 N Base Map: ESRAroGrS Online. 1 :15,000 accessed November 2023 Prcjed No. 74976 J W H Layout: 74976 Locticn a Ap.: 74976_TB..-Ia_NR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan 1.2 Covered Roads Pechanga Parkway bisects the central portion of the project area and Interstate 15 bisects the western portion of the project area. Two "collector" covered roads are shown in the eastern portion of the site connecting Via Rio Temecula Road to Temecula Parkway and Temecula Parkway to Pechanga Parkway (Figure 3). The CWPP does not propose to construct or modify any proposed or existing covered roads. 1.3 Covered Public Access Activities While there is an adopted planned regional trail mapped on -site, the CWPP does not include the construction of, or improvements to, covered public access activities such as trails, facilities, or passive recreational activities. 1.4 General Setting The project area for the CWPP encompasses approximately 177 acres in the city of Temecula in southwestern Riverside County, California (see Figure 1). Directly abutting the project area is residential and commercial development to the north, south, and east, a golf course to the south, and undeveloped land to the west and southwest (see Figure 2). The Project Area is situated along sections of Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, and Pechanga Creek from approximately the terminus of Temecula Parkway at the northwestern end of the project area to the Saint Thomas of Canterbury Episcopal Church at the east end of the project area. Additionally, the project area contains several conservation easements and is in proximity to other protected areas (Figure 4). Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Project Area Expressway Urban Arterial Major Secondary Collector Burrowing Owl Survey Area T 4 ` ,rJ444 EF Habitat Management Unit Conservation Easements (CE) MSHCP Conserved Public Quasi -Public Lands Criteria Cells Adopted Planned Regional Trail 0 MSHCP Boundary Riverside County.. CA 6 WU 1200, NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N Feel 334747'N 117.1278°W �Metere 0 150 300 nN /V Base Map: EmArcGrs online. 1 :15,000 accessed November2023 l3P,.j.d 1 V9f2023 ^ y �� A Prated No, 74978 AJ W H Layout 74Wfi MSHCP APT%: 7406_Te—cula_KR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Figure 3. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority MSHCP Information Map layers. 5 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan LW. t VOW"' Conservation Easement; Western Riverside County Regional \ f? Conservation Authority •' - "c Prci-c r Conservation Easements Habltat Projects C -d Q C ropleted Protected Areas CRAM ® Na Pubrc Access Q Assessment Sites ® Open Access - Consesrvat on Easement; Western je County R�egi�nal erv� aYi`onlAuthorrt�, j; L, P: r ; 1 —111, Q P ojecl Aiea Geoddlag's Willow -Red Willow Riparian Woodland Upland Vegetation Corrcnunitles Ron 6 o ieo: ?.ierlie a e,v' G.a>s Grasslands: '50-meter and Rorese S.A. goedd(ngii- Sa(cr laev(gata California buckwheat 5cnm; EADoom g 8rvnus wows - Mixed Herbs semi-nalu al Buffer Association lasclmlatum Assooatlon Assocketton Wetland(Rlparlan Vegetation Communities Hardstem and Galitdirls Bulrush Marshes. CMdonlca Sa ebrush - Black Sae Saub: Ad.— g g Upland Mustards or 51ar-ThiMle Fields: Hirsehreidia Schoerroplectus (acutes. caJAe',—) - Typha ca(I(omrca- Salvia mel!lrera-i4acc11aNs incarra Semi -natural Association A��oyro vVllow Tnnkets�, Sallx les(olepls Association angu5711d1a. (a t(/ol19)ASSoGIatlon s amlrwides Assoaalion Wiitl Oats and Annual Brame Grasslands, sromu5 Canail Marshesi rypna angust�Yolra-7ypna (a tifelia Mulefat Thickets, 8accnarrs sallci WM- 5ambucus Lae OOR Woodland and Forest. QuelCus dra(y s-Avenaspp.5emi.naluralAss l,2tion - TyphademMgensrs Association nrgfe Association aoBs1 gnlol(a Associalim Vern Riverine Habitats Premonl Cottonwood Forest and Woodland, Muletat Tnlckets�, eaccnads saunrolra Association Co ote erusn Scrub; EacchaNs assxiatlon Populus rremonNV - quercus agriro(a A4socialiat Ffze, Cottonwood Forest and Woodland', Nodding Begganicks-Western Goldemop-Marsh Y plluiaris Euca tus-Tree of Heaven-&ack Lor.ust G*Dues; �R Gpen Water Unvegelaled Stteamned Papu(us fiemonm-Sa&x gaoddingn Associaion Seedbou MUd11BIs:Artemisie dou eslene AssonaHon � Eucaryptns tgloau(us. cama(diNens(sl Seml-natural Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland, 5andbar WRA.Thickets: Sagxexigua Association Associalion Land Cover Categari � Popu(us rremontii l Eaceharls sallcHbNa As,-cRiJn - T,omarlsk Tnlckels; 7amarlx sPRSeml.natural Pampas Grass Palcl—Conrad—iji,bata. senrranal Assocearbn 13eveloped Association Disturbed Figure 4. Easements, protected areas, and habitat projects. 0 Riverside County. CA 0 (i 1,200 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N Feel 33A747'N 117.1278'W Meters 0 150 300 N Base Map. Esrr ArcG15 Online. acc ssedAl—Arber2023 1:15,000 e updated: 1119(2023 Project No. 74976 (� Layout J /Iyi 74976_Veg_P rate ctedA reas �� JY► Apr%: 741J76 T ..enl3 NR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan 2 RESERVE ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS A Reserve Assembly analysis is not required for Joint Project Review covering Public Projects. The City of Temecula (City) is the project proponent of the CWPP and a permittee of the MSHCP, making this a Public Project (Permittee-sponsored). Therefore, a Reserve Assembly analysis is not required. 3 VEGETATION MAPPING AND SPECIES COMPENDIA SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) biologists reviewed published literature and online databases to identify previously recorded special -status biological resources that occur or could occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Species occurrences from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rare Find 5 (CDFW 2023a) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2023a) were queried for project -relevant data within a 3-mile radius around the project area (Figure 5). Records of birds from the immediate vicinity of the project area were identified from eBird, an online birdwatching checklist (eBird 2023). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS's) online mapper for critical habitat was reviewed to determine whether any critical habitat for Endangered Species Act (ESA) —listed threatened or endangered species is present within or immediately adjacent to the project area (USFWS 2023). The project area is not located within critical habitat for any species. Records from iNaturalist (2023) were also evaluated for species not adequately covered by other databases. Potential jurisdictional water features were identified via a desktop analysis that used Google Earth (2023) and Esri ArcGIS satellite imagery. 7 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan E.,n d'se=_ — n„ \\ i E. I I . i I ( I, a T.• fall _ �CCc us V BrfiEllCdllU3 occidenta6s ;$IT Pht .I- k vmotic"a ` PIUER5;r1� Art D?F-GG QPioject Alea Dodecahema lepfoceras (slender Emys marmwata (western pond Riverside County. CA a 3-mile Buffer horned spineflower) turtle) NAD 1983 State Plane Miles eters Animals Euphydtyas editha quino (quino California VI FIPS O406 Feet o0 1 2 GNDDB Occurences (Federal and State checkerspot butterfly) 33,4747°N 117.1278°W Listed Species; Nov. 2023) Bombus crotchb (Crotch bumble bee) PoIII californica californica Plants Buteo swainsoni (Swainson's hawk) (coastal California gnatcatcher) N Ambrosia pum8a (San Diego - Coccyzus amehcanus occidentalis ` Stieptocephaius woottoni (Riverside talry shrimp) n ambrosia) (western yellow -billed cuckoo) Berberis nevinu (Nevin's barberry) Dipodomys stephensi (Stephens' kangaroo rat) J' Vireo beilii puslilus (least Bell's vireo) _ Base Map: EsrrArcGl9 online. 1:100,000 accessed November2023 12023 Updated: 1.. r�� Prate iNo. 74978 74976 SW AJW ,ayaut 74976_CNDDB_ssspeciss Arm: 74976_Tem—la_NR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Figure 5. Special -status species within 3 miles. n. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Relevant resources reviewed included, but were not limited to, the following: • CDFW CNDDB RAREFIND 5 (CDFW 2023a) • CDFW Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFW 2023b) and Special Animals List (CDFW 2023c) • CDFW California's Wildlife (CDFW 2023d) • CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2023a) • The Consortium of California Herbaria (2023) • Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2023) • Calflora (2023) • Online database of bird distribution and abundance (eBird 2023) • Critical Habitat Mapper and File Data (USFWS 2023) • Aerial imagery (Google Earth 2023) • Naturalist (2023) • A Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of California (Naffs 2023) • NatureServe Explorer (NatureServe 2023) Additionally, existing data from previous investigations conducted within the project area were reviewed and included the following: • Final Report Temecula Creek Wildlife Corridor Baseline Wildlife Tracking Study (Martin 2022a) • Pechanga Creek and Applegate Baseline Tracking Surveys (Martin 2022b) • Temecula-Pechanga Creek Camera Monitoring Report: March 1, 2021-April 4, 2022 (Vickers 2022) • Special -Status Plant Survey for the Temecula Creek Wildlife Corridor Project (Johnston 2022a) • Vegetation and Invasive Plant Species Survey for the Temecula Creek Wildlife Crossing Project (Johnston 2022b) Temecula Creek Wildlife Corridor Project- Baseline Conditions, Opportunities, and Constraints Report (ICF 2023) • Interstate 15 Wildlife Crossings: Design Considerations for Focal Wildlife Species (Smith et al. 2023) Spatial information from these previous studies was used as preliminary mapping data and relevant information from previous reports was reviewed and incorporated into this study, where appropriate. Habitat designations and vegetation communities in this report follow A Manual of California Vegetation Online (CNPS 2023b). Plant taxonomy and nomenclature follow Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2023) for scientific names and most common names, CNDDB (CDFW 2023a) for special -status plant common names and the scientific names for taxa that Jepson eFlora does not recognize, and Calflora (2023) for common names not included in Jepson eFlora. Wildlife taxonomy and nomenclature in this report follow Crother (2008) for reptiles and amphibians, American Ornithological Society (2023) for birds, and Wilson and Reeder (2005) for mammals. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Field surveys were conducted within the project area to document current conditions and biological resources. Field notes were maintained throughout each survey. On -site habitats were mapped to the association level (CNPS 2023b). Habitat mapping included the entirety of the project area plus an approximately 500-foot (150-meter) buffer extending outward from the project area boundaries. Buffer areas overlapping adjoining properties were observed from the project area or public roadways. In addition to habitat mapping, plant and animal species observed were documented. Plant species that could not be identified in the field were collected for later identification. Wildlife species were identified visually, by their vocalizations, or by burrows, nests, scat, tracks, or other sign. Any observed special -status species were noted and their locations were mapped. The potential for special -status species was evaluated based on factors such as presence/absence of suitable prey and vegetation, microhabitats such as rock outcrops, soil, topography, water availability, elevation, proximity to development and other anthropogenic effects, and the overall size of available habitat, as applicable. Habitat mapping and the locations of special -status species were documented via ArcGIS application on tablets connected to GPS units with submeter accuracy. Survey limitations for habitat mapping include underrepresentation of late blooming annual species due to time of year and nocturnal species due to time of day. No protocol or focused surveys were conducted. A summary of surveys conducted is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of Site Surveys Date Time Temperature (°F) Sky Wind (mph) Survey Type Surveyors 03/28/23 0800-1630 55-65 Dry, 50-100% 0-5 Habitat Assessment Lee BenVau and cloud cover and Vegetation Christina Torres Mapping 04/25/23 0800-1500 59-63 Dry, 25-75% 0-5 Habitat Assessment Lee BenVau and cloud cover and Vegetation Christina Torres Mapping Note: °F = degrees Fahrenheit; mph = miles per hour Photographs of the project area are provided in Exhibit A. Eleven wetland/riparian vegetation communities, two riverine habitats, nine upland vegetation communities, and two land cover categories were mapped within the project area (Figure 6). 10 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan _, -ea l*S i -- Suffer W.I e,d:R'pa rian Vegetation CommunEtles �+uye Willow TTlckels; SaA'x lsalolep.&Assaciation y.a,raq mia�nee; rrpha anRaafamr - rrMa lafi(ohB - rrpha dor„mgeaga Femoral Caaenwootl F—I and Wooanr Populue f—fa-0— eg ror A ntlm, 9catltl L"A ouood F., -1 and Waodmr,d; Populu5 trelxnfd-S,#. al- F--lf:.R.nwoad Fors and Wanda, nd; PaAW. tre—fd+Ba et, L,e k'bhs AS s,a,-,.n WIlow Red W,egw Rpd.an Waldla,a and Par., Sabh b tltlrcq" 6a0t/aevgata Aseogat On chat' 1-rydM1. ng ftVb, btifalal Assoagt gstacuYus d.WR � F1 t R r jay IA. 1. T,lckef�9amhasls ®IbrWla-Sembucas npra Psscc� M I fat Th'cke[s_9 h layf'olia PssoaaTon � tl tld g B ggedicks W @ Gddenlop h} rsh Seedba" I•.lutlllats: Artemiwe tlougbgene Assoaatien Santlbar Willow Thic4els; Sefix exgue0.ssociation - Tn,,arsk Thickets: 7i,mevxspp_5erm-natural Asseoiotien Upland Vegetation Communities Gal+fornaf3t dcuh 5 b; Enogo Ta Lf mP.ssoc aan Cnlifona Sogebru h BI kSageS - b AR secehlamim SSMe me Me, Be,rhens samfhmNes Assoc ation � Coast Live rink Woetlla,d antl Forest puemus egnTo6a Association C yot 6- I SorutrB cJie -s µLis As -otion E yyppl - Trna l H 131n,.h L -1 f vea; Euay,t a l9Podulu$ CB BkUre 9ia1 tin 1 IA�mci - h Figure 6. Vegetation communities and land cover. 0 .,a"r' ,'c z, •r3.,a. ssor: avian Riverside County, CA 6 (5oo 1.200 Ras r ee ,rnasmnd�. emmae.pdene hRxed NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N Feel �Moters All e„ d ,at 1, 1, star -mime Fada Saab-nawral 33A747"N 117.1278'W o 150 Soo Aesooiolian raid A,-,1&o,na aass:a,d., L—awdrua �., A— var Rlin H bt is R PI tSp ciec(paN 'nts) / �tF. ._ � Ab vV'osaVar. auk ,,81n and sand ve+bena) 5trea„Ue] Land Caver Gategcrlas Psaudognaphelium reUCocephalum [WII?fa r:,bhN Deca282 Base Map: EsrrtArdGlS online. 1:15,000 Dst,i .,I Pseudognephel rabbi) accessed November2023 kuroceph I I hire to racmf zs.2(polmon) Updated: 11/92023 S y C l� u rorobeffa' sNkls (Least Pr,j.at N o.74976 `JW Bells nreof Layout 74976_Vegelation_ssP ///"►,, Apm: 74976_Te—ula_NR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 11 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Table 2 includes the acreage of each vegetation community and land cover category within the project area. Table 2. On -Site Vegetation Communities and Land Covers Vegetation Community / Land Cover Acres Wetland/Riparian Vegetation Communities Arroyo Willow Thickets (Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance); Salix lasiolepis Association 1.42 Cattail Marshes (Typha [angustifolia, domingensis, latifolia] Herbaceous Alliance); Typha angustifolia — Typha latifolia — Typha domingensis Association 0.67 Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland (Populus fremontii — Fraxinus velutina — Salix gooddingii Forest & Woodland Alliance); Populus fremontii — Quercus agrifolia Association 4.16 Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland; Populus fremontii — Salix gooddingii Association 21.25 Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland; Populus fremontii / Baccharis salicifolia Association 1.46 Goodding's Willow — Red Willow Riparian Woodland and Forest (Salix gooddingii — Salix laevigata Forest & Woodland Alliance); Salix gooddingii — Salix laevigata Association 30.45 Hardstem and California Bulrush Marshes (Schoenoplectus [acutus, californicus] Herbaceous Alliance); Schoenoplectus (acutus, californicus) — Typha (angustifolia, latifolia) Association 1.48 Mulefat Thickets (Baccharis salicifolia Shrubland Alliance); Baccharis salicifolia Association 11.21 Mulefat Thickets; Baccharis salicifolia — Sambucus nigra Association 17.40 Sandbar Willow Thickets (Salix exigua Shrubland Alliance); Salix exigua Association 12.47 Tamarisk Thickets (Tamarix spp. Shrubland Semi -Natural Alliance); Tamarix spp. Semi -natural Association 1.63 Wetland/Riparian Vegetation Communities Subtotal 103.60 Riverine Habitats Open Water 1.77 Unvegetated Streambed 9.56 Riparian Habitats Subtotal 11.33 Wetland/Riparian Vegetation Communities and Riverine Habitats Subtotal 114.93 Upland Vegetation Communities MEN California Buckwheat Scrub (Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance); Eriogonum fasciculatum Association 4.40 California Sagebrush — Black Sage Scrub (Artemisia californica — Salvia mellifera Shrubland Alliance); Artemisia californica — Salvia mellifera — Baccharis sarothroides Association 0.24 Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest (Quercus agrifolia Forest & Woodland Alliance); Quercus agrifolia Association 2.22 Coyote Brush Scrub (Baccharis pilularis Shrubland Alliance); Baccharis pilularis Association 3.35 Eucalyptus — Tree of Heaven — Black Locust Groves (Eucalyptus spp. — Ailanthus altissima — Robinia pseudoacacia Woodland Semi -Natural Alliance); Eucalyptus (globulus, camaldulensis) Semi -natural Association 2.46 Pampas Grass Patches (Cortaderia fiubata, selloana] Herbaceous Semi -Natural Alliance); Cortaderia Uubata, selloana) Association 0.31 Red Brome or Mediterranean Grass Grasslands (Bromus rubens — Schismus [arabicus, barbatus] Herbaceous Semi -Natural Alliance); Bromus rubens — mixed herbs Semi -natural Association 0.58 Upland Mustards or Star -thistle Fields (Brassica nigra — Centaurea [solstitialis, melitensis] Herbaceous Semi -Natural Alliance); Hirschfeldia incana Semi -natural Association 2.36 Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grasslands (Avena spp. — Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi -Natural Alliance); Bromus diandrus — Avena spp. Semi -natural Association 30.32 Upland Vegetation Communities Subtotal 46.24 12 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Vegetation Community / Land Cover Acres Land Cover Categories Developed 7.29 Disturbed 8.20 Land Cover Categories Subtotal 15.49 TOTAL 176.67* Includes 1.18 acres that are outside any Criteria Cell, consisting of 0.01 acre of Cattail Marshes, 0.77 acre of Sandbar Willow Thickets, 0.38 acre of Goodding's Willow— Red Willow Riparian Woodland and Forest, and 0.02 acre of developed land. 3.1 Wetland/Riparian Vegetation Communities and Riverine Habitats Wetland/Riparian Vegetation Communities Arrovo Willow Thickets (Salix lasiolenis Shrubland Alliance): Salix lasiolenis Association Arroyo Willow Thickets are typically dominated or co -dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) alongside other species such as coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), mule fat (B. salicifolia), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and other willows (Salix spp.). This habitat typically occurs in riparian areas that experience seasonal or intermittent flooding (CNPS 2023b). On -site Arroyo Willow Thickets are dominated by arroyo willow and include other native species such as mule fat, common scouring rush (Equisetum hyemale ssp. affine) and branching phacelia (Phacelia ramosissima) as well as non-native species such as giant reed (Arundo donax) and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). Cattail Marshes (TWha [angustifolia, domingensis, latifolia) Herbaceous Alliance), TMha angustifolia — Typha latifolia — Tyha domingensis Association Cattail Marshes are typically dominated or co -dominated by Typha angustifolia, T. domingensis, and/or T. latifolia along with sedges (Cyperus spp.), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), spike -sedges (Eleocharis spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), and bulrushes (Schoenoplectus spp.). These marshes typically occur in areas with clayey or silty soils that are semi -permanently flooded with fresh or brackish water (CNPS 2023b). On -site Cattail Marshes are dominated by broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia) and include other native species tolerant of saturated soils or standing water such as mosquito fern (Azolla filiculoides) and willow herb (Epilobium ciliatum ssp. ciliatum). Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland (Populus fremontii — Fraxinus velutina — Salix gooddingii Forest & Woodland Alliance); pulus fremontii — Quercus agrifolia Association Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland is dominated or co -dominated by Fremont cottonwood along with ash (Fraxinus spp.), walnuts (Juglans spp.), western sycamore, coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and willows. The canopy can range from continuous to open, the shrub layer is intermittent to open, while the herbaceous layer is variable. This habitat is typically found in floodplains, along low -gradient rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, alluvial fans, and valleys with subsurface water supply throughout the year (CNPS 2023b). 13 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan On -site Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland; Populus fremontii — Quercus agrifolia Association, is a disturbed habitat that includes Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii subsp. fremontii) and coast live oak in the canopy, a minimal shrub layer, and a well -developed herbaceous layer consisting largely of non-native species such as ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), and English plantain (Plantago lanceolata). Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland; Populus fremontii — Salix gooddingii Association On -site Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland; Populus fremontii — Salix gooddingii Association, provides much of the cover in the central region of the site along Temecula Creek and is dominated by dense stands of Fremont cottonwood and Goodding's black willow (Salix gooddingii) in the canopy with a shrub layer consisting of mule fat, Hinds' willow (Salix exigua var. hindsiana), and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). Other species observed include western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), California burclover (Medicago polymorpha), and hoary nettle (Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea). Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland; Populus fremontii /Baccharis salicifolia Association On -site Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland; Populus fremontii /Baccharis salicifolia Association is similar to Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland; Populus fremontii — Salix gooddingii Association but is more open, allowing for a denser shrub layer dominated by mule fat to develop under the canopy of Fremont cottonwood and willows. Goodding's Willow — Red Willow Riparian Woodland and Forest (Salix gooddingii — Salix laeviata Forest & Woodland Alliance); Salix o� oddinizii — Salix laevigata Association Goodding's Willow — Red Willow Riparian Woodland and Forest is dominated or co -dominated by Goodding's black willow and/or red willow (Salix laevigata) along with boxelder (Acer negundo), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), western sycamore, Fremont cottonwood, oaks (Quercus spp.), and willows. The canopy can range from open to continuous, the shrub layer ranges from sparse to continuous, and the herbaceous layer is variable. This habitat typically occurs along large rivers, canyons, stream floodplains, lake edges, and seeps (CNPS 2023b). Goodding's Willow — Red Willow Riparian Woodland and Forest is dominated by Goodding's black willow and red willow in the canopy, mule fat, California blackberry, and Hinds' willow in the shrub layer, and a diverse assemblage of species in the herb layer including mugwort (Artemisia sp.), ripgut grass, shepherd's purse (Capsella bursa pastoris), San Diego sedge (Carex spissa), and tall cyperus (Cyperus eragrostis). Hardstem and California Bulrush Marshes (Schoenoplectus [acutus, californicusl Herbaceous Alliance Schoenoplectus (acutus, californicus)TY�ha (angustifolia, latifolia) Association Hardstem and California Bulrush Marshes are typically dominated or co -dominated by hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus) and/or California bulrush (S. californicus) along with mosquito fern (Azolla filiculoides), alkali bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus), western goldenrod (Euthamia occidentalis), and cattails. This habitat may be brackish or freshwater and typically occurs along streams, rivers, and estuaries as well as around ponds, lakes, and roadside ditches. The soils where this habitat occurs are often high in organic content and poorly aerated (CNPS 2023b). On -site Hardstem and California Bulrush Marshes are similar to Cattail Marshes but are instead dominated by California bulrush and include broad-leaved cattail to a lesser extent. 14 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Mulefat Thickets (Baccharis salicifolia Shrubland Alliance): Baccharis salicifolia Association Mulefat Thickets are typically dominated by mule fat and can occur with other shrubs such as California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coyote brush, laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), arrow weed (Pluchea sericea), willows, and elderberries (Sambucus spp.). Scattered trees may also be present and the herbaceous layer is typically sparse. This habitat is often found in canyon bottoms, floodplains, irrigation ditches, lake margins, and stream channels. The soils in these areas often consist of mixed alluvium (CNPS 2023b). On -site Mulefat Thickets; Baccharis salicifolia Association are nearly monotypic stands of mule fat in the shrub layer with few trees. The herb layer varies from bare sand where this habitat occurs within the streambed of Temecula Creek to including a variety of herbs where this habitat occurs in higher elevation areas such as streamside terraces. Species observed in this habitat include annual bur -sage (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), tarragon (Artemisia drancunculus), Pomona milk vetch (Astragalus pomonensis), Davidson's wild buckwheat (Eriogonum davidsonii), and alkali heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum var. oculatum). Two chaparral sand -verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita) individuals were incidentally observed in this habitat. Mulefat Thickets: Baccharis salicifolia — Sambucus nigra Association On -site Mulefat Thickets; Baccharis salicifolia — Sambucus nigra Association include some mule -fat individuals but are strongly dominated by widely -spaced blue elderberry (Sambucus Mexicana, formerly S. nigra ssp. caerulea). The canopy layer is sparse to nonexistent, but the herb layer is nearly continuous where it is not shaded by blue elderberry. The herb layer consists primarily of non-native grasses such as red brome (Bromus rubens), rattail sixweeks grass (Festuca myuros), and wall barley (Hordeum murinum), as well as other non-native herbs such as poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), short -pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and sourclover (Melilotus indicus). Sandbar Willow Thickets (Salix exigua Shrubland Alliance); Salix exigua Association Sandbar Willow Thickets are dominated by sandbar willow and include other species such as Baccharis species, California brickellia (Brickellia californica), California wild rose (Rosa californica), blackberries (Rubus spp.), and willows. This habitat typically occurs in temporarily flooded floodplains, bars and banks along rivers and streams, and near seeps (CNPS 2023b). On -site Sandbar Willow Thickets are nearly monotypic stands of Hinds' willow with a few scattered arroyo willow individuals in the canopy. Other species observed in this habitat mugwort, mule fat, Mexican rush, and blue elderberry. Tamarisk Thickets (Tamarix spp. Shrubland Semi -Natural Alliance); Tamarix spp. Semi -natural Association Tamarisk Thickets are dominated by tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima) or other Tamarix species and may include scattered emergent trees such as Fremont cottonwood or willows. This habitat typically occurs along watercourses including rivers, washes, lake margins, and ditches (CNPS 2023b). On -site Tamarisk Thickets are dominated by tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) and occur along the interface of the golf course and riparian habitats. Other species observed in this habitat include mugwort, mule fat, Italian stone pine (Pinus pinea), and Hinds' willow. 15 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Riverine Habitats Open Water Open Water within the project area includes portions of Temecula Creek where vegetation was minimal and standing or flowing water was present. Unvegetated Streambed Unvegetated Streambed within the project area includes portions of Temecula Creek that were characterized by bare sandy substrate in the bottom of the channel with minimal vegetation. 3.2 Upland Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Categories Upland Vegetation Communities California Buckwheat Scrub (Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance)-, Eriogonum fasciculatum Association California Buckwheat Scrub is dominated or co -dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and/or chaparral yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei) along with California sagebrush, coyote brush, sticky monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus), Encelia species, Menzie's goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), and sages (Salvia spp.). This habitat is often found on upland slopes, along channels and washes, and on alluvial fans. Soils in these areas are typically coarse, well - drained, and moderately acidic to slightly saline (CNPS 2023b). California Buckwheat Scrub within the project area is dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and occurs in relatively disturbed and isolated patches in the western part of the project area. Despite the disturbed condition, there are small areas that support a diverse range of native annual species that were only documented in this habitat such as common goldfields (Lasthenia gracilis), California plantain (Plantago erecta), and baby blue eyes (Nemophila menziesii var. menziesii). California Sagebrush — Black Sage Scrub (Artemisia californica — Salvia mellifera Shrubland Alliance Artemisia californica — Salvia mellifera - Baccharis sarothroides Association California Sagebrush — Black Sage Scrub is dominated or co -dominated by California sagebrush and black sage (Salvia mellifera) along with chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), sticky monkeyflower, California sunflower (Encelia californica), California buckwheat, chaparral yucca, deerweed, laurel sumac, Rhus species, and white sage (Salvia apiana). This habitat typically occurs on steep east to southwest -facing slopes with loose, unconsolidated sediments (CNPS 2023b). On -site California Sagebrush — Black Sage Scrub is limited to a heavily disturbed portion of the project area adjacent to development and is dominated solely by broom baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides). Other species observed include Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus ssp. pycnocephalus), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), and short -pod mustard. 16 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest (Quercus a�,Yrifolia Forest & Woodland Alliance); Quercus agrrifolia Association Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest is dominated by coast live oak and typically occurs with species such as California black walnut (Juglans californica) and other oaks (Quercus sp.) on canyon bottoms, slopes, and flats with deep sandy or loamy soils with high organic matter (CNPS 2023b). On -site Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest is dominated by coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and largely occurs on slopes along the interface of riparian and upland habitat. Other observed species include bur -chervil (Anthriscus caucaulis), mugwort, mule fat, ripgut grass, rooreh (Claytonia perfoliata), calabazilla (Cucurbita foetidissima), common eucrypta (Eucrypta chrysanthemifolia var. chrysanthemifolia), goose grass (Galium aparine), wild -cucumber (Marah macrocarpa), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), common chickweed (Stellaria media), and greater periwinkle (Vinca major). Coyote Brush Scrub (Baccharis pilularis Shrubland Alliance); Baccharis pilularis Association Coyote Brush Scrub is dominated by coyote brush, California coffee berry (Frangula californica), and/or coast silk tassel (Garrya elliptica). Associated species include coastal sagebrush, orange bush monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus), California buckwheat, and deerweed. This habitat typically occurs along coastal bluffs, in proximity to rivers and streams, and gaps in forests. Soils may range from sandy to clayey (CNPS 2023b). On -site Coyote Brush Scrub is dominated by dense coyote brush and includes scattered tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus), mule fat, and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora). Eucalyptus — Tree of Heaven — Black Locust Groves (Eucalyptus sip. — Ailanthus altissima — Robinia pseudoacacia Woodland Semi -Natural Alliance);Eucalyptus (globulus, camaldulensis) Semi -natural Association Eucalyptus — Tree of Heaven — Black Locust Groves are dominated by Acacia species, tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Eucalyptus spp., or black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). This habitat is often the result of trees being planted as groves or for windbreaks and may become naturalized near streams and lakes (CNPS 2023b). On -site Eucalyptus — Tree of Heaven — Black Locust Groves are dominated by red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) with a sparse understory that ranges from non-native grasses and upland herbs such as slender wild oat (Avena barbata) and Crete weed (Hedypnois rhagadioloides) where it occurs in upland areas and riparian species such as mugwort and mule fat where it occurs along riparian areas. Pampas Grass Patches (Cortaderia [iubata. selloana7 Herbaceous Semi -Natural Alliance); Cortaderia (iubata, selloana) Association Pampas Grass Patches are dominated by purple pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata) or pampas grass (C. selloana) and often occur in disturbed areas, grasslands, and wetlands (CNPS 2023b). On -site Pampas Grass Patches consist of a stand of pampas grass in an area that is otherwise vegetated by Hardstem and California Bulrush Marshes and Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland. Species other than pampas grass were sparse in this habitat and include Hinds', Goodding's black, and red willows. 17 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Red Brome or Mediterranean Grass Grasslands (Bromus rubens — Schismus [arabicus, barbatusj Herbaceous Semi -Natural Alliance); Bromus rubens — mixed herbs Semi -natural Association Red Brome or Mediterranean Grass Grasslands are typically dominated by red brome, Mediterranean grass (Schismus arabicus), and/or old han schismus (Schismus barbatus). Shrubs may be present at low cover (CNPS 2023b). On -site Red Brome or Mediterranean Grass Grasslands occur on disturbed terraces along Temecula Creek and are dominated by red brome and old han schismus. Other species observed include annual bur -sage (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), California suncup (Camissoniopsis bistorta), and common sand aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia). Upland Mustards or Star -thistle Fields (Brassica nigra — Centaurea [solstitialis, melitensisl Herbaceous Semi -Natural Alliance); Hirschfeldia incana Semi -natural Association Upland Mustards or Star -thistle Fields are dominated by ruderal forbs such as mustards (Brassica spp. and Hirschfeldia incana), star -thistle (Centaurea spp.), and/or wild radish (Raphanus sativus). Trees and shrubs may be present at low cover (CNPS 2023b). On -site Upland Mustards or Star -thistle Fields are dominated by short -pod mustard and include an array of other non-native species such as black mustard, Italian thistle, redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), bristly ox-tongue, and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grasslands (Avena spp. — Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi -Natural Alliance Bromus diandrus —Avena spp. Semi -natural Association Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grasslands are typically dominated by oats (Avena spp.), bromes (Bromus spp.), and/or foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum) with other non-native herbs such as Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata) also providing cover. Trees and shrubs may be present at low cover (CNPS 2023b). On -site Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grasslands are dominated by ripgut grass. Other non-native species observed include slender wild oat, black mustard, soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), red brome, artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus), rattail sixweeks grass, and wall barley. Native species observed include common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia), California croton (Croton californicus), blue dicks (Dipterostemon capitatus ssp. capitatus), coastal gilia (Gilia digenesis), and Menzies' goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii). Land Cover Categories Developed On -site Developed land consists of paved roads, a portion of the golf course, and part of a parking lot. Disturbed On -site Disturbed land consists of dirt access roads supporting minimal vegetation. 18 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan 4 PROTECTION OF SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH RIPARIAN/ RIVERINE AREAS AND VERNAL POOLS (SECTION 6.1.2) The project area was assessed for riparian, riverine, and vernal pool habitat as well as the potential for species listed in MSHCP Section 6.1.2 to occur on -site. 4.1 Riparian/Riverine Areas According to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, "Riparian/Riverine Areas are lands which contain Habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year" (Dudek 2003:6-21). 4.1.1 Methods Riparian and riverine resources were defined in accordance with the above description and were evaluated in the field during habitat assessment and vegetation mapping surveys (Figure 7). Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP (Dudek 2003) was used to guide the assessment of the functions and values of the riparian and riverine areas on -site. Hydrology, biological resources, and other environmental factors were evaluated as part of this assessment. A preliminary assessment of aquatic resources was conducted and is provided under separate cover (SWCA 2023). 19 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan , T q +"'",y "es.k,;. f � 1 _ i Ali ! �'► f \� i 14� � " 1 i' s � .. 1� �• � ,: "bq„�`+�.� 1 �' t 4 t , - � .'d� [ �r� ��� Q Project Area 150-Nletei Buffet Riparian Habitat Riverine Habitat Q Ephemeral Ponded Habitat (P) NV g � r Rlvelslde County. CA NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N 33A747'N 117.1278'W Figure 7. Riparian, riverine, and ephemeral ponded habitat. 20 Base Map: EslrArcGl5 Online. accessed November 2023 Updated: 11/812023 Prajecl No. 74976 Layout 74916_Rip.,!- Apn: 74976_Te—ula_NR a aoo 1,2ao Feet �Po1@lele 0 150 Sao N 1:15,000 S.•CA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan 4.1.2 Existing Conditions and Results Riparian resources on -site (see Section 3.1) consist of vegetation communities dependent upon a nearby fresh water source, i.e., Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, or Pechanga Creek, whereas riverine resources consist of unvegetated areas, i.e., sections of unvegetated streambed and open water. Given that the surveys were conducted in a high rainfall year, riparian and riverine resources were readily observable in the field and areas of standing or flowing water were not uncommon. Hydrology Pechanga Creek drains into Temecula Creek and Temecula and Murrieta Creeks drain into the Santa Margarita River, which flows directly to the Pacific Ocean. Flows are obstructed only by the footings of bridges crossing over the creeks and the riparian vegetation that has grown along the banks. The creeks are largely characterized by broad sandy beds with limited rocky areas. Given the permeability of the substrate within the channel, open water is limited to the main stream channel where flows occur, plus limited areas beyond the channel where soils have a higher clay component and water ponds in small depressions. In a review of historical aerial photographs, Murrieta Creek had water visible in Google Earth imagery dated August 2021, while Temecula Creek and Pechanga Creek did not have visible water during the dry season. Excess nutrients in the form of fertilizers and other pollutants from the surrounding developed areas likely enter the system during storm events. However, the mature stands of riparian vegetation and limited development within the project area typifies a relatively healthy system that is expected to perform typical riparian and wetland ecosystem services such as nutrient retention and transformation, and toxicant trapping, as well as physical services such as flood attenuation, and sediment trapping and transport. Biology Aquatic Resources Riparian resources include the vegetation communities described in Section 3.1. Riverine resources include unvegetated areas of streambed as well as open water. Soils The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) was queried to view on -site soil mapping and summaries of the Official Soil Series Descriptions (OSSD) are provided below (MRCS 2023). Over 50% of the CWPP area is mapped as Riverwash (RsC). This soil series does not have an OSSD. Generally, Riverwash consists of recent deposits of silt, sand, and gravel along major streams and tributaries. The remaining 50% of the project area consists of the following soils. Arlington and Greenfield series Arlington soils have brown, neutral, very fine sandy loam A horizons, reddish brown, mildly alkaline, loam 132t horizons, underlain by weakly cemented duripans. The Arlington soils occur in coastal and intermediate valleys of Southern California on alluvial fans and terraces at elevations of about 400 to 2,000 feet. These soils are well -drained with slow to medium runoff and slow permeability. 21 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan The Greenfield series consists of deep, well -drained soils that formed in moderately coarse and coarse textured alluvium derived from granitic and mixed rock sources. Greenfield soils occur in interior and coastal valleys of Central and Southern California and are on alluvial fans and terraces and have slopes of 0 to 30 percent. These soils are well -drained with slow to medium runoff and moderately rapid permeability. On -site soils of this series consist of: • Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded (AtD2) • Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (GyA) • Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (GyC2) Escondido series Escondido soils have dark brown slightly acid very fine sandy loam A horizons and neutral very fine sandy loam B2 horizons over hard metamorphic bedrock at depths of about 29 inches. Escondido soils occur mainly in Southern California, in San Diego and western Riverside Counties, and occur on gently rolling to hilly topography in foothills at elevations of 400 to 2,800 feet. These soils are well -drained with medium runoff and moderate permeability. On -site soils of this series consist of Escondido fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded (EcE2). Fallbrook series The Fallbrook series consists of deep, well drained soils that formed in material weathered from granitic rocks. Fallbrook soils are on rolling hills and have slopes of 5 to 75 percent. Fallbrook soils occur on foothills on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley and foothills in the west part of Southern California at elevations of 200 to 3,000 feet or as high as 3,500 feet on south facing slopes. They formed in material weathered from granite and closely related granitic rocks and rock outcrops are common in some areas. These soils are well -drained with medium to very rapid runoff and moderately slow permeability. On -site soils of this series consist of Fallbrook rocky sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (FcF2). Garretson series Garretson soils have brown and yellowish brown, slightly acid, gravelly very fine sandy loam and gravelly loam A horizons and yellowish brown, brown and grayish brown, slightly acid and neutral, gravelly loam C horizons. Garretson soils occur in valleys in the western part of Central and Southern California and are on nearly level to strongly sloping fans and floodplains at elevations of 50 to 3,000 feet. They formed in medium textured alluvium, dominantly from sedimentary formations. These soils are well -drained with slow to medium runoff and moderate permeability. On -site soils of this series consist of Garretson very fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (GaC). Gorgonio series Gorgonio soils have dark grayish brown and brown, gravelly loamy fine sand, slightly and medium acid A horizons and brown, somewhat stratified; medium acid, gravelly loamy sand C horizons. Gorgonio soils occur near the mountains in southern and central coast areas of California and are nearly level to moderately sloping on alluvial fans at elevations of 20 to 3,000 feet. They formed in coarse textured 22 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan alluvium derived from granite, granodiorite, schist, and related rocks. These soils are somewhat excessively drained with slow or medium runoff and rapid permeability. On -site soils of this series consist of Gorgonio loamy sand, deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes (G1C). Grangeville series The Grangeville series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in moderate coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granitic rock sources. Grangeville soils are on alluvial fans and floodplains and have slopes ranging from 0 to 2 percent. Grangeville soils occur on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley and intermountain valleys in the western part of Southern California on alluvial fans and floodplains at elevations of 0 to 1,800 feet. The soils formed in moderately coarse textured alluvium dominantly derived from granitic rock sources. Some areas are saline or saline-sodic. These soils are somewhat poorly drained, but have altered drainage from dams, water table pumping, artificial drains, and filling and leveling of nearby sloughs. Runoff is negligible to very low with moderate to moderately rapid permeability. Most areas of Grangeville soils were occasionally flooded prior to implementation of flood control structures. The water table is at a depth of 24 to 48 inches unless drained. If drained, the water table is typically at depths of 48 to over 60 inches. On -site soils of this series consist o£ • Grangeville sandy loam, drained, saline -alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes (GpB) • Grangeville sandy loam, sandy substratum, drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes (GrB) • Grangeville fine sandy loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes (GtA) • Grangeville very fine sandy loam, saline -alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes (GuB) • Grangeville fine sandy loam, saline -alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes (GvB) Hanford series The Hanford series consists of very deep, well -drained soils that formed in moderately coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granite. Hanford soils are on stream bottoms, floodplains, and alluvial fans and have slopes of 0 to 15 percent. These soils are widely distributed in the San Joaquin Valley and in the valleys of Central and Southern California on stream bottoms, floodplains, and alluvial fans at elevations of 150 to 3,500 feet. Runoff is negligible to low and permeability is moderately rapid. On -site soils of this series consist of: • Hanford coarse sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (HcA) • Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (HcC) Ramona and Buren series Ramona soils have brown, slightly and medium acid, sandy loam and fine sandy loam A horizons, reddish brown and yellowish red, slightly acid, sandy clay loam B2t horizons, and strong brown, neutral, fine sandy loam C horizons. Ramona soils occur in the interior valleys of central and the western part of southern California on nearly level to moderately steep terraces and fans at elevations of 250 to 3,500 feet. These soils are well -drained with slow to rapid runoff and moderately slow permeability. 23 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan The Buren series consists of well drained slow to moderately slowly permeable soils. These soils are limited to the intermediate valleys of southern California on gently to strongly sloping alluvial fans and terraces at elevations of about 700 to 3,000 feet. They formed in alluvium derived mostly from basic igneous rocks and partly from other crystalline rocks. Onsite soils of these series consist of. • Ramona and Buren sandy loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded (RmE3) • Ramona and Buren loams, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded (RnD2) Rockland Rockland (RtF) does not have an OSSD (the Rockland series occurs in Minnesota and Wisconsin), but generally occurs at an elevation of 650 to 4,000 feet and is composed of residuum derived from mixed sources. Rough broken land Rough broken land (RuF) does not have an OSSD, but the soil survey for San Diego (United States Department of Agriculture 1973) describes this designation as well -drained to excessively drained, steep and very steep land dissected by many narrow V-shaped valleys and sharp divides. Areas of exposed raw sediments are common, and there are a few areas of very shallow soils. Runoff is rapid to very rapid and erosion is very high. Tujunga series The Tujunga series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in alluvium from granitic sources. Tujunga soils occur in Central California coastal valleys and Southern California coastal plain on alluvial fans and floodplains, including urban areas from 0 to 1,968 feet. On -site soils of this series consist of Tujunga loamy sand, channeled, 0 to 8 percent slopes (TvC). Plant Habitat Riparian habitat on -site has the potential to support two narrow endemic plant species: San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) and slender -horned spine flower (Dodecahema leptoceras). On -site riparian habitat and adjacent upland habitats are suitable for both species and contain suitable sandy and sandy loam soils. Additionally, a 2019 CNDDB occurrence documents San Diego ambrosia approximately 0.35-mile northwest of the site and a 2005 CNDDB occurrence documents slender -horned spine flower approximately 3 miles southeast of the site. A list of flora observed on -site is included in Exhibit B and provides the habitats they were observed in. Hydrophytic plant species are those species that have an indicator status of facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2020). Herbaceous species include both annual and perennial herbs while woody riparian species include shrubs and trees. In total, 20 herbaceous hydrophytic plant species and 10 woody riparian plant species were observed on -site during habitat assessment and vegetation mapping surveys. 24 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Herbaceous wetland plant communities observed on -site consist of Cattail Marshes and Hardstem and California Bulrush Marshes. Woody riparian plant communities present on -site consist of Arroyo Willow Thickets, Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland, Goodding's Willow — Red Willow Riparian Woodland and Forest, Mulefat Thickets, Sandbar Willow Thickets, and Tamarisk Thickets. Given the extent of riparian and riverine resources on -site, all upland vegetation communities documented on -site serve as a buffer to these resources. Murrieta Creek is bordered predominantly by California Buckwheat Scrub and Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grasslands. The section of Pechanga Creek that occurs on -site has a minimal upland buffer consisting of Eucalyptus — Tree of Heaven — Black Locust Groves or is directly adjacent to development. Temecula Creek has little to no upland buffer in its western extent on -site but has Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grasslands bordering it to the north in the eastern portion of the site. Non-native and invasive species observed within and adjacent to riparian/riverine resources include annual herbs such as Italian thistle, tocalote, and short -pod mustard; non-native grasses such as ripgut grass, red brome, and smilo grass (Stipa miliacea var. miliacea); perennial herbs such as bur -chervil (Anthriscus caucalis), poison hemlock, fennel, and curly dock (Rumex crispus); and large perennial and non-native tree species such as giant reed, pampas grass, blue and red gum, tamarisk, and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta). Wildlife Habitat Exhibit C contains a list of wildlife species detected on -site. Sensitive riparian bird species have potential to occur on -site and are discussed further in Section 4.4. Multiple least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) individuals were incidentally detected during habitat assessment and vegetation surveys. There is suitable habitat for western yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) on -site, but there is only one CNDDB record from 1950 along the Santa Margarita River and no other records in southwestern Riverside County, so the species is not expected to occur. Habitat is also suitable for southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), but there are no records of this species in southwestern Riverside County. Bird species included in MSHCP Section 6.1.2 were evaluated for potential to occur and the following species were incidentally observed: Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperi) and double -crested cormorant (Nannopterum auritum). Other bird species associated with riparian resources included red -shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), red -winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), and yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata). There were woodland or forest bird species observed within the site that may not be riparian -obligate species and are rare or atypical for semi -arid Riverside County landscapes, which consisted of Nuttall's woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), and acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus). Amphibians detected on -site consisted of California toad (Anaxyrus boreas halophilus) and Baja California treefrog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca hypochondriaca). Sensitive amphibians with potential to occur on -site consist only of western spadefoot (Spec hammondii). Western spadefoot could potentially use ephemeral depressional habitat on -site for breeding and there is a 2003 CNDDB record documented approximately 0.75 mile south of the site. No turtles were detected on -site. However, western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) has high potential to occur on -site due to presence of suitable aquatic resources and the species was previously documented on -site in a 2015 CNDDB record. Other riparian/riverine wildlife detected on -site consist of racoon (Procyon lotor), identified by tracks. 25 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Other Environmental Factors Public use of the project area largely consists of unhoused people using the property. Surrounding land use includes areas of development that may result in runoff containing toxics entering the riparian/riverine habitats during storm events. Vegetation management activities are visible in Google Earth images dated August 5, 2021. Non-native grassland was mowed in a narrow strip south of the development along Samantha Lane. No agricultural activity occurs on or adjacent to the CWPP area. 4.1.3 Impacts Impacts to riparian/riverine areas will be determined once a project description of sufficient detail to quantify impacts is available. Fuels management treatments within sensitive riparian/riverine areas would require some form of ongoing maintenance treatments (e.g., vegetation removal) and would therefore be considered permanently impacted. Similarly, any area(s) called out as avoidance should not also encompass areas where fuels modification would be implemented. 4.1.4 Mitigation In accordance with the MSHCP, a project must demonstrate 90% avoidance (permanent and temporary) of portions of the property that provide long-term conservation value for MSHCP resources (i.e., narrow endemic plants, small mammals, burrowing owl). Otherwise, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report would be required to propose mitigation that demonstrates equivalent or superior function and value. Any impacts to riparian/riverine or vernal pool resources requires mitigation through a DBESP in consultation with the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). Additionally, implementing Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines (as outlined in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP) and construction minimization measures (as outlined in Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP) during project construction may minimize indirect impacts on biological resources. Mitigation will be determined once impacts are quantified. 4.2 Vernal Pools According to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP: Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. Obligate hydrophytes and facultative wetlands plant species are normally dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season, while upland species (annuals) may be dominant during the drier portion of the growing season. The determination that an area exhibits vernal pool characteristics, and the definition of the watershed supporting vernal pool hydrology, must be made on a case -by -case basis. Such determinations should consider the length of the time the area exhibits upland and wetland characteristics and the manner in which the area fits into the overall ecological system as a wetland. Evidence concerning the persistence of an area's wetness can be obtained from its history, vegetation, soils, and drainage characteristics, uses to which it has been subjected, and weather and hydrologic records. (Dudek 2003:6-22) Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan 4.2.1 Methods A search of depressional areas containing water or with evidence of having recently contained water was conducted during general vegetation mapping and habitat assessment surveys. Areas lower in elevation that surrounding areas as well as areas with clay soil evidenced by features such as soil cracks were investigated for signs of species associated with vernal pools. 4.2.2 Existing Conditions and Results Two ephemeral depressional habitats were observed on -site that have potential to function as vernal pools. The western feature contained larvae of California toad and Baja California treefrog while the eastern feature contained scant remaining water but contained saturated soils and a visible area of rotted vegetation where water had been present. A review of historical aerial photographs showed that prior inundation was not documented for either feature and that the eastern feature may have been excavated in association with the development to the north visible in a 1967 aerial image (NETRONLINE 2023). No plant species typically associated with vernal pools were observed during the habitat assessment and vegetation mapping surveys. These features do not demonstrate characteristics of high -quality vernal pool habitat, but could nevertheless still function as marginal habitat. 4.2.3 Impacts Impacts to riparian/riverine areas will be determined once a project description of sufficient detail to quantify impacts is available. 4.2.4 Mitigation Any impact to riparian/riverine or vernal pool resources requires mitigation through a DBESP in consultation with the RCA. Additionally, implementing Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines (as outlined in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP) and construction minimization measures (as outlined in Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP) during project construction may minimize indirect impacts on biological resources. Mitigation will be determined once impacts are quantified. 4.3 Fairy Shrimp Fairy shrimp are crustaceans that inhabit ephemeral aquatic features such as vernal pools and several species are state and/or federally listed. In accordance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, "For Riverside, vernal pool and Santa Rosa fairy shrimp, mapping of stock ponds, ephemeral pools and other features shall also be undertaken as determined appropriate by a qualified biologist" (Dudek 2003:6-22). 4.3.1 Methods The literature review returned one 2003 CNDDB record approximately 0.75 mile south of the CWPP area for Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), but no records of vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) occur within 5 miles of the project. A focused survey for fairy shrimp was not conducted. 4.3.2 Existing Conditions and Results Two depressions containing standing water were observed during habitat assessment and vegetation mapping surveys (see Figure 7). Literature review and the presence of depressional habitat that could 27 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan function as suitable habitat for fairy shrimp indicate vernal pool fairy shrimp and Riverside fairy shrimp have suitable habitat on -site. Given that suitable habitat occurs on -site and the project does not propose to avoid suitable habitat, focused surveys pursuant to USFWS Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (USFWS 2017) are required for vernal pool fairy shrimp and Riverside fairy shrimp in accordance with MSHCP Section 6.1.2. The results of these surveys will be provided in this section when available. 4.3.3 Impacts Impacts to fairy shrimp will be determined after focused surveys are completed and a project description of sufficient detail to quantify impacts is available. 4.3.4 Mitigation Mitigation for impacts to fairy shrimp will be determined after focused surveys are completed and impacts are determined. 4.4 Riparian Birds Riparian birds consist of the following species listed in MSHCP Section 6.1.2: western yellow -billed cuckoo, southwestern willow flycatcher, American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and least Bell's vireo. 4.4.1 Methods Literature review and the assessment of on -site riparian habitat in the field indicate the following riparian bird species have potential to occur on -site: western yellow -billed cuckoo, southwestern willow flycatcher, bald eagle, and least Bell's vireo. Focused surveys for riparian birds were not conducted. Given that suitable habitat occurs on -site and the project does not propose to avoid suitable habitat focused surveys are required for least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow - billed cuckoo in accordance with MSHCP Section 6.1.2. The results of these surveys will be provided in this section when available. 4.4.2 Existing Conditions and Results Multiple least Bell's vireo individuals were detected incidentally during the habitat assessment and vegetation mapping surveys. The results of protocol surveys for least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher will be provided in this section once complete and will include the number of individuals detected on -site and the extent of their territories. 4.4.3 Impacts Impacts to least Bell's vireo will be determined after protocol surveys are completed and a project description of sufficient detail to quantify impacts is available. 4.4.4 Mitigation Mitigation for impacts to least Bell's vireo will be determined after protocol surveys are completed and impacts are determined. O Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan 4.5 Other Section 6.1.2 Species Exhibit D includes special -status plant species and Exhibit E includes special -status wildlife species that were evaluated for potential to occur on -site, which includes all 11 wildlife species and all 23 plant species listed in MSHCP Section 6.1.2. 4.5.1 Methods As part of the literature review, all species listed in MSHCP Section 6.1.2 were evaluated for potential to occur on -site irrespective of the absence of documented records in the vicinity of the project. Habitat assessment surveys evaluated on -site habitats on the suitability for each species. No focused surveys were conducted. 4.5.2 Existing Conditions and Results Of the MSHCP Section 6.1.2 plant species, the following have potential to occur on -site: smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), slender -horned spine flower, Southern California black walnut, ocellated Humboldt lily, mud nama (Nama stenocarpa), Fish's milkwort (Polygala cornuta var. fishiae), and Coulter's matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri). Rare plant surveys would be required to determine presence/absence of these species on -site and the number and distribution of individuals on -site. No wildlife species other than the riparian birds and fairy shrimp noted above are expected to occur on -site. 4.5.3 Impacts Impacts to other Section 6.1.2 species, specifically those plant species noted above, cannot be determined without the results of focused rare plant surveys and a project description of sufficient detail to quantify impacts. 4.5.4 Mitigation Mitigation for impacts to other Section 6.1.2 species will be determined after rare plant surveys are completed and impacts are determined. 5 PROTECTION OF NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES (SECTION 6.1.3) No part of the project area occurs within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area. Therefore, focused surveys for narrow endemic plant species are not required. 017 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan 6 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS AND PROCEDURES (SECTION 6.3.2) 6.1 Criteria Area Plant Species No part of the project area occurs within a mapped survey area for Criteria Area plant species. Therefore, focused surveys for Criteria Area plant species are not required. 6.2 Amphibians No part of the project area occurs within a mapped survey area for amphibian species. Therefore, focused surveys for amphibians are not required. 6.3 Burrowing Owl All portions of the project area fall within the mapped survey area for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) except for those portions of the survey area within Criteria Cells 7356 and 7357, and the 1.18-acre section of the CWPP area that does not occur within any Criteria Cell. Therefore, focused surveys for burrowing owls are required. 6.3.1 Methods The habitat assessment and vegetation mapping surveys included a habitat assessment for burrowing owl in accordance with the survey instructions (WRC RCA 2006). Burrowing owls use habitats with low - growing vegetation such as grassland and sparse shrubland, as well as agricultural use areas and golf courses that contain fossorial mammal burrows. Anthropogenic structures such as earthen berms, culverts, and debris piles are also utilized. The desktop assessment identified the presence of suitable grassland habitat on -site and was confirmed to occur during the surveys, and an approximately 500-foot (150- meter) buffer zone around the project boundary was visually inspected with binoculars. Focused burrow or burrowing owl surveys have not been conducted. 6.3.2 Existing Conditions and Results The project area supports suitable burrowing owl habitat consisting of non-native grassland, grassy areas between sparse shrub cover, and earthen berms along the interface with development. A focused burrow survey is required to determine if the project area supports burrows or burrow surrogates that could be used by burrowing owl and if they are present, a focused burrowing owl survey would be required to determine if any of those burrows or burrow surrogates are being used by burrowing owl. 6.3.3 Impacts Impacts to burrowing owl will be determined after focused surveys are completed and a project description of sufficient detail to quantify impacts is available. 6.3.4 Mitigation Mitigation for impacts to burrowing owls will be determined after focused surveys are completed and impacts are determined. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan 6.4 Mammals No part of the project area occurs within a mapped survey area for mammal species. Therefore, focused surveys for mammals are not required. 7 INFORMATION ON OTHER SPECIES 7.1 Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly No part of the project area occurs within an area mapped with Delhi soils. Therefore, focused surveys for Delhi Sands flower -loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) are not required. 7.2 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Potentially suitable coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) habitat is limited to California Buckwheat Scrub (Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance) within the CWPP area. No coastal California gnatcatchers were detected during the habitat mapping and assessment survey. Protocol surveys are not required and were not conducted. However, as a precaution, all habitat clearing and grubbing should be timed to avoid the active breeding season for coastal California gnatcatcher (March 1 to August 15) to the extent feasible. 7.3 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Potentially suitable Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) habitat consisting of California buckwheat scrub containing California plantain, a larval host plant, was documented during the habitat assessment and vegetation mapping surveys. The site occurs within the Recommended Quino Survey Area and portions of the site consist of Quino Survey Areas, i.e., any area within the Recommended Quino Survey Area that does not qualify as an Excluded Area (USFWS 2014). Excluded areas consist of orchards, developed areas or small in -fill parcels dominated by non-native vegetation, active agricultural fields without remnant inclusions of native vegetation or that are entirely without fallowed or unplowed areas, and closed -canopy woody vegetation such as forests, riparian areas, shrublands, and chaparral. Given that the CWPP area contains Quino Survey Areas, protocol surveys are required to determine presence/absence of Quino checkerspot butterfly. 7.4 Species Not Adequately Conserved Exhibit D covers special -status plant species and Exhibit E covers special -status wildlife species that were evaluated for potential to occur on -site, which includes species not adequately conserved. Species not adequately conserved with potential to occur on -site consist of ocellated Humboldt lily and Lincoln's sparrow (Melospiza lincolinii). Focused surveys for rare plants and riparian birds would be sufficient to determine if these species occur on -site. 31 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan 8 GUIDELINES PERTAINING TO THE URBAN/WILDLANDS INTERFACE (SECTION 6.1.4) MSHCP Section 6.1.4 states, "The guidelines presented in this section are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating Development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area, where applicable" and clarifies that addressing potential edge effects along the Urban/Wildlands Interface are intended to "be implemented in conjunction with review of individual public and private Development projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area" (Dudek 2003:6-42). However, the goal of the CWPP is to reduce wildfire risk along the Urban/Wildlands Interface and does not propose development. Therefore, this section is not applicable. 8.1 Drainage According to Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP: Proposed Developments in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the MSHCP Conservation Area is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within the MSHCP Conservation Area. This can be accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems. (Dudek 2003:6- 42) The CWPP does not propose any development, but will incorporate all relevant measures, including those required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), to ensure runoff resulting from CWPP activities does not adversely alter the MSHCP Conservation Area. 8.2 Toxics According to Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP: Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts such as manure that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, Habitat or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be implemented. (Dudek 2003:6-43) Chemicals, such as herbicides and fuel for mechanized equipment, that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife, habitat, or water quality will not be discharged into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Standard best management practices (BMPs) to prevent accidental discharge of potentially toxic materials will be implemented such as refueling equipment only in approved staging areas, appropriate use of spill kits, and the requirement that only licensed applicators use herbicide within the survey area. 32 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan 8.3 Lighting According to Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, "Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased" (Dudek 2003:6-43). CWPP activities will occur in daylight hours and no temporary or permanent lighting is proposed. 8.4 Noise According to Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP: Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. (Dudek 2003:6-43) CWPP activities would result in increased noise impacts if mechanized equipment is used to remove large invasive species (e.g., chainsaws to remove invasive trees). Instead, quieter methods of control such as "drill and kill" methods will be used to the extent practicable and noisy activities will occur outside of the avian breeding season (March 1 through August 31). 8.5 Invasives According to Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP: When approving landscape plans for Development that is proposed adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, Permittees shall consider the invasive, non-native plant species listed in Table 6-2 and shall require revisions to landscape plans (subject to the limitations of their jurisdiction) to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of Development that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Conservation Areas, species considered in the planting plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conservation Area and their relative sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography and other features. (Dudek 2003:6-43) The CWPP does not propose any landscaping and will prioritize invasive species when vegetation removal is necessary. Barriers to invasive plant and seed dispersal are not necessary given the proposed invasive species removal activities. 8.6 Barriers According to Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP: Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass or dumping in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Such barriers 33 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and/or other appropriate mechanisms. (Dudek 2003:6-46) There is existing fencing along much of the outer extent of the project area, but there are gaps that allow for unauthorized access. There is currently a proposed plan for new/additional fencing to deter unauthorized trespassing throughout the outer extent of the project area. Additional fencing would also encourage wildlife to stay within the creek channels where they are not at risk of being struck by vehicles. 8.7 Grading/Land Development According to Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, "Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area" (Dudek 2003:6-46). The CWPP does not propose grading or land development; thus, no new manufactured slopes will extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area. 9 CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES (SECTION 7.5.3) These guidelines are applicable to covered facilities within Criteria Area and Public/Quasi-Public Lands. The CWPP is not a covered facility and does not propose any modifications to a covered facility; therefore, this section is not applicable to the CWPP. 10 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (MSHCP VOLUME I, APPENDIX C) The following BMPs are applicable to all projects. Table 3 includes the text of each BMP from MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C, and describes how the CWPP will comply with each BMP. Table 3. Project Compliance with BMPs (MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C) Best Management Practice* Project Compliance 1. A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to Acknowledged, and project will comply. conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) [ESA] and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. 2. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented Acknowledged, and project will comply. in accordance with RWQCB [Regional Water Quality Control Board] requirements. 3. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent Acknowledged, and project will comply. feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. 4. The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits Acknowledged, and project will comply. of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work. 34 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Best Management Practice* Project Compliance 5. Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and Acknowledged, and project will comply. personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern. 6. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in Acknowledged, and project will comply. sensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7. 7. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using Acknowledged, and project will comply. sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments offsite. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream. 8. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites Acknowledged, and project will comply. with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, FWS [USFWS], and CDFG [CDFW], RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas. 9. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose Acknowledged, and project will comply. soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. 10. The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the Acknowledged, and project will comply. duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint. 11. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the Acknowledged, and project will comply. maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre- existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species. 12. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should Acknowledged, and project will comply. be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible. 13. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall Acknowledged, and project will comply. be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s). 14. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, Acknowledged, and project will comply. equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas. 15. The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of Acknowledged, and project will comply. approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions including these BMPs. * Source: Dudek (2003:Appendix C). 35 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula - Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan 11 LITERATURE CITED American Ornithological Society. 2023. Check -list of North American Birds (online). American Ornithological Society. Available at: https://checklist.americanomithology.org/taxa. Accessed November 2023. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023a. California Natural Diversity Database RAREFIND 5 database. Sacramento: CDFW. Available at: www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/ CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed November 2023. 2023b. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List: April 2023. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Data Base. Available at: https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/list.html. Accessed November 2023. 2023c. Special Animals List: April 2023. California State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Data Base. Available at: https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/list.html. Accessed November 2023. 2023d. California's Wildlife. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and- Range. Accessed November 2023. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2023a. CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. Available at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed November 2023. 2023b. A Manual of California Vegetation Online. Available at: https://vegetation.cnps.org/. Accessed November 2023. Calflora. 2023. Calflora: A non-profit database providing information on wild California plants. Berkeley, California. Available at: http://www.calflora.org/. Accessed November 2023. Consortium of California Herbaria. 2023. The Consortium of California Herbaria. Berkeley: University of California. Available at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/. Accessed November 2023. Crother, B.I. 2008. Scientific and Standard English names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding. 6th ed. Herpetological Circular No. 37. Edited by J.J. Moriarty. Shoreview, Minnesota: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. eBird. 2023. Available at: https:Hebird.org/home. Accessed November 2023. Google Earth. 2023. Temecula, California. Available at: https://www.google.com/earth/. Accessed November 2023. ICF. 2023. Temecula Creek Wildlife Corridor Project- Baseline Conditions, Opportunities, and Constraints Report. Irvine, CA: The Nature Conservancy. Naturalist. 2023. Available at: https://www.inaturalist.org. Accessed November 2023. Jepson Flora Project. 2023. Jepson eFlora. Berkeley: University of California. Available at: https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/. Accessed November 2023. CT Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Johnston, S. 2022a. Special -Status Plant Survey for the Temecula Creek Wildlife Corridor Project. Irvine, California: ICF. 2022b. Vegetation and Invasive Plant Species Survey for the Temecula Creek Wildlife Crossing Project. Irvine, California: ICF. Martin, B. 2022a. Final Report Temecula Creek Wildlife Corridor Baseline Wildlife Tracking Study. San Diego, California: Wildlife Tracking Company. 2022b. Pechanga Creek and Applegate Baseline Tracking Surveys. San Diego, California: Wildlife Tracking Company. Nafis, G. 2023. A Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of California. Available at: http://www.califomiaherps.com. Accessed November 2023. Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2023. Official Soil Series Descriptions (OSDs). Available at: https:Hsoilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname.aspx. Accessed November 2023. NatureServe Explorer (NatureServe). 2023. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Arlington, Virginia: NatureServe. Available at: https:Hexplorer.natureserve.org/Search. Accessed November 2023. NETRONLINE. 2023. Historic Aerials. Available at: https://www.historicaerial photographs.com/viewer. Accessed November 2023 Smith, T., C. Brehme, J. Carpenter, N. Frost, M. Jennings, B. Kus, S. Quinnell, S. Strahm, T.W. Vickers. 2023. Interstate 15 Wildlife Crossings: Design Considerations for Focal Wildlife Species. Sacramento, CA: The Nature Conservancy. SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2023. Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Resources at the Temecula Fire Project. Pasadena, California: SWCA Environmental Consultants. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2020. NWPL — National Wetland Plant List. Available at: https://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/v34/home/home.html. Accessed November 2023 United States Department of Agriculture. 1973. Soil Survey San Diego Area, California. Available at: https:Harchive.org/details/Usda-sandiegoCAI 973/mode/2up. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Guidelines. Carlsbad, CA. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/survey-guidelines-for-quino-checkerspot-butterfly.pdf 2017. Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods. Revised November 13, 2017. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/survey-guidelines-for-large- branchiopods.pdf. Accessed November 2023. 2023. USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. Available at: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html. Accessed November 2023. Vickers, T. 2022. Temecula-Pechanga Creek Camera Monitoring Report: March 1, 2021-April 4, 2022. Davis, California: School of Veterinary Medicine, Wildlife Health Center, University of California. 37 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder (eds.). 2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 3rd ed. Online version. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. Available at: http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/. Accessed November 2023. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (WRC RCA). 2006. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. Available at: https://www.wrc-rca.org/species/survey_protocols/ burrowing_owl_survey_instructions.pdf. Accessed November 2023. EXHIBIT A Site Photographs Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Photograph 1. West -facing representative view of Open Water and Cattail Marshes. Photograph taken along the eastern edge of the project area. Photograph 2. West -facing representative view of unvegetated streambed. Photograph taken in the eastern portion of the project area. Photograph 3. North -facing representative view of Photograph 4. North -facing representative view ephemeral ponded habitat. Photograph taken in the of Mulefat Thickets, Baccharis salicifolia — eastern portion of the project area. Sambucus nigra Association and Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grasslands mosaic. Photograph taken in the eastern -central portion of the project area. 4 Photograph 5. West -facing representative view of Sandbar Willow Thickets. Photograph taken in the eastern -central portion of the project area. KI Photograph 6. West -facing representative view of Coyote Brush Scrub. Photograph taken within a previously restored area in the eastern -central portion of the project area. A-1 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Photograph 7. North -facing representative view of Upland Mustards or Star -thistle Fields. Photograph taken in the central region of the project area along the golf course. Photograph 8. West -facing representative view of Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland, Populus fremontii — Quercus agrifolia Association. Photograph in the central region of the project area. Photograph 9. South -facing representative view of Photograph 10. South -facing representative view Goodding's Willow — Red Willow Riparian Woodland of California Buckwheat Scrub. Photograph taken and Forest. Photograph taken in the central portion in western portion of the project area. of the project area. Photograph 11. Southeast -facing representative Photograph 12. West -facing representative view view of Eucalyptus — Tree of Heaven — Black Locust of Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grasslands. Groves. Photograph taken in western portion of the Photograph taken in western portion of the project project area. area. A-2 Plants Observed Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Scientific Name Common Family Habit Non- Special- Indicator* Habitat Name native? status? Abronia villosa var. chaparral sand- Nyctaginaceae Annual herb — Yes — MT-BS aurita verbena Acacia redolens vanilla -scented Fabaceae Shrub Yes — — CaBS wattle Acmispon glaber deerweed Fabaceae Subshrub — — — CaBS Agave americana American Agavaceae Perennial Yes — UPL CaBS century plant herb, Shrub Ambrosia acanthicarpa annual bur- Asteraceae Annual herb — — — MT-BS, RBMGG sage Ambrosia psilostachya western Asteraceae Perennial — — FACU DEV, FCFW-SG, ragweed herb RBMGG Amsinckia intermedia common Boraginaceae Annual herb — — — MT-SN, SWT, fiddleneck UMSTF, WOABG Anemopsis californica yerba mansa Saururaceae Perennial — — OBL FCFW-SG herb Anthriscus caucalis bur -chervil Apiaceae Annual herb Yes — — CLOWF Artemisia californica California Asteraceae Shrub — — — CaBS, GWRW sagebrush Artemisia douglasiana mugwort Asteraceae Perennial — — FAC CLOWF, EUC, herb FCFW-QA, FCFW- SG, GWRW, SWT, TT, UMSTF Artemisia dracunculus tarragon Asteraceae Perennial — — FACU COBS, MT-BS herb Arundo donax giant reed Poaceae Perennial Yes — FACW AWT herb Astragalus common dwarf Fabaceae Annual herb — — — CaBS didymocarpus var. milkvetch didymocarpus Astragalus Pomona milk Fabaceae Perennial — — — MT-BS pomonensis vetch herb Avena barbata slender wild oat Poaceae Annual herb Yes — — EUC, WOABG Azolla filiculoides mosquito fern Azollaceae Fern — — OBL CM, HCBM Baccharis pilularis coyote brush Asteraceae Shrub — — — CoBS, MT-BS Baccharis salicifolia mule fat Asteraceae Shrub — — FAC AWT, CoBS, ssp. salicifolia CLOWF, CM, EUC, FCFW-BS, FCFW- SG, GWRW, MT-BS, MT-SN, SWT, TT, WOABG Baccharis sarothroides broom Asteraceae Shrub — — FACU CSBSS baccharis Brassica nigra black mustard Brassicaceae Annual herb Yes — — UMSTF, WOABG Bromus diandrus ripgut grass Poaceae Annual herb Yes — — CLOWF, EUC, FCFW-QA,FCFW- SG, GWRW, RBMGG, SWT, WOABG Bromus hordeaceus soft chess Poaceae Annual herb Yes — FACU WOABG B-1 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Scientific Name Common Family Habit Non- Special- Indicator* Habitat Name native? status? Bromus rubens red brome Poaceae Annual herb Yes — UPL GWRW, MT-BS, MT- SN, RBMGG, SWT, WOABG Calandrinia menziesii red maids Montiaceae Annual herb — — FACU CaBS, UMSTF Camissoniopsis California sun Onagraceae Annual herb — — — CaBS, MT-BS, bistorta cup RBMGG Capsella bursa- shepherd's Brassicaceae Annual herb Yes — FACU GWRW pastoris purse Carduus Italian thistle Asteraceae Annual herb Yes — — CSBSS, MT-SN, pycnocephalus ssp. SWT, UMSTF, pycnocephalus WOABG Carex spissa San Diego Cyperaceae Perennial — — FAC GWRW sedge herb Centaurea melitensis tocalote, Asteraceae Annual herb Yes — — CSBSS, GWRW, Maltese star- MT-BS, WOABG thistle Claytonia perfoliata rooreh Montiaceae Annual herb — — FAC CLOWF, FCFW-BS, GWRW, UMSTF Conium maculatum poison hemlock Apiaceae Perennial Yes — FACW MT-SN herb Corethrogyne common sand Asteraceae Perennial — — — CaBS, MT-BS, filaginifolia aster herb RBMGG Cortaderia selloana pampas grass Poaceae Perennial Yes — FACU GWRW, PGP herb Crassula connata pygmy -weed Crassulaceae Annual herb — — FAC CSBSS, MT-BS, UMSTF Croton californicus California Euphorbiaceae Perennial — — — MT-BS, RBMGG, croton herb WOABG Cryptantha intermedia common Boraginaceae Annual herb — — — CaBS, WOABG cryptantha Cucurbita foetidissima buffalo gourd, Cucurbitaceae Perennial — — — CLOWF calabazilla herb Cynara cardunculus artichoke thistle Asteraceae Perennial Yes — — WOABG herb Cyperus eragrostis tall cyperus Cyperaceae Perennial — — FACW GWRW, FCFW-QA herb Dipterostemon blue dicks Themidaceae Perennial — — FACU CaBS, WOABG capitatus ssp. herb capitatus Dudleya lanceolata lance -leaved Crassulaceae Perennial — — — CaBS dudleya herb Epilobium ciliatum ssp. willow herb Onagraceae Perennial — — FACW CM, WOABG ciliatum herb Equisetum hyemale common Equisetaceae Perennial — — FACW AWT ssp. affine scouring rush herb Erigeron canadensis horseweed Asteraceae Annual herb — — FACU MT-BS, RBMGG Eriogonum davidsonii Davidson's wild Polygonaceae Annual herb — — — MT-BS buckwheat B-2 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Scientific Name Common Family Habit Non- Special- Indicator* Habitat Name native? status? Eriogonum leafy California Polygonaceae Shrub — — — MT-BS, SWT fasciculatum var. buckwheat foliolosum Erodium cicutarium redstem filaree Geraniaceae Annual herb Yes — — EUC, MT-SN, UMSTF, RBMGG, WOABG Eucalyptus red gum Myrtaceae Tree Yes — FAC EUC camaldulensis Eucalyptus globulus blue gum Myrtaceae Tree Yes — — EUC Eucrypta common Hydrophyllaceae Annual herb — — — CLOWF chrysanthemifolia var. eucrypta chrysanthemifolia Euphorbia maculata spotted spurge Euphorbiaceae Annual herb Yes — UPL CaBS, COBS, DIS, RBMGG Festuca myuros rattail sixweeks Poaceae Annual herb Yes — FACU FCFW-SG, MT-SN, grass WOABG Foeniculum vulgare fennel Apiaceae Perennial Yes — — AWT, FCFW-BS herb Galium aparine goose grass Rubiaceae Annual herb — — FACU CLOWF, CM, UMSTF Gilia diegensis coastal gilia Polemoniaceae Annual herb — — — WOABG Hedypnois Crete weed Asteraceae Annual herb Yes — — EUC rhagadioloides Heliotropium alkali heliotrope Heliotropiaceae Perennial — — FACU MT-BS curassavicum var. herb oculatum Helminthotheca bristly ox- Asteraceae Annual herb Yes — FAC FCFW-QA, UMSTF echioides tongue Hesperoyucca whipplei chaparral Agavaceae Shrub — — — CaBS yucca Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon Rosaceae Shrub — — — CaBS Heterotheca telegraph weed Asteraceae Annual — — — CaBS, CoBS, MT- grandiflora herb, BS, RBMGG, Perennial WOABG herb Hirschfeldia incana short -pod Brassicaceae Annual Yes — — CSBSS, GWRW, mustard herb, MT-BS, MT-SN, Perennial UMSTF, WOABG herb Hordeum murinum wall barley Poaceae Annual herb Yes — FACU MT-SN, WOABG Hypochaeris glabra smooth cat's- Asteraceae Annual herb Yes — — CLOWF, DEV, ear WOABG Isocoma menziesii Menzies' Asteraceae Shrub — — FAC WOABG goldenbush Juncus mexicanus Mexican rush Juncaceae Perennial — — FACW FCFW-BS, HCBM, herb SWT Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce Asteraceae Annual herb Yes — FACU DEV, UMSTF Lastarriaea coriacea leather- Polygonaceae Annual herb — — — WOABG spineflower B-3 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Scientific Name Common Family Habit Non- Special- Indicator* Habitat Name native? status? Lasthenia gracilis common Asteraceae Annual herb — — — CaBS goldfields Lepidium draba heart -podded Brassicaceae Perennial Yes — — WOABG hoary cress herb Logfia gallica daggerleaf Asteraceae Annual herb Yes — — WOABG cottonrose Lupinus bicolor miniature Fabaceae Annual herb — — — CaBS, MT-BS, lupine WOABG Lupinus succulentus arroyo lupine Fabaceae Annual herb — — — WOABG Lysimachia arvensis scarlet Myrsinaceae Annual herb Yes — FAC UMSTF pimpernel Marah macrocarpa wild -cucumber, Cucurbitaceae Perennial — — — CLOWF chilicothe herb Marrubium vulgare white Lamiaceae Perennial Yes — FACU WOABG horehound herb Matricaria discoidea pineapple weed Asteraceae Annual herb — — FACU DIS Medicago polymorpha California Fabaceae Annual herb Yes — FACU FCFW-SG burclover Melilotus indicus sourclover Fabaceae Annual herb Yes — FACU DEV, MT-SN, WOABG Nasturtium officinale water cress Brassicaceae Perennial — — OBL GWRW herb Nemophila menziesii baby blue eyes Boraginaceae Annual herb — — — CaBS var. menziesii Opuntia littoralis prickly pear Cactaceae Shrub (stem — — — CaBS, CLOWF succulent) Phacelia ramosissima branching Hydrophyllaceae Perennial — — FACU AWT, CLOWF, EUC, phacelia herb GWRW, UMSTF Pinus pinea Italian stone Pinaceae Tree Yes — — CLOWF, TT pine Pistacia chinensis Chinese Anacardiaceae Tree Yes — — FCFW-SG, GWRW pistachio Plantago erecta California Plantaginaceae Annual herb — — — CaBS plantain Plantago lanceolata English Plantaginaceae Perennial Yes — FAC FCFW-QA, SWT plantain herb Platanus racemosa western Platanaceae Tree — — FAC FCFW-SG sycamore Populus fremontii Fremont Salicaceae Tree — — — CLOWF, FCFW-BS, subsp. fremontii cottonwood FCFW-QA, FCFW- SG, GWRW, MT-SN Pseudognaphalium ladies' tobacco Asteraceae Annual — — — MT-BS californicum herb, Perennial herb Pseudognaphalium white rabbit- Asteraceae Perennial — Yes — MT-BS leucocephalum tobacco herb Quercus agrifolia coast live oak Fagaceae Tree — — — AWT, CaBS, CLOWF, FCFW-QA, GWRW B-4 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Scientific Name Common Family Habit Non- Special- Indicator* Habitat Name native? status? Raphanus sativus radish Brassicaceae Annual herb Yes — — DEV, UMSTF, WOABG Rubus ursinus California Rosaceae Shrub — — FAC FCFW-SG, GWRW blackberry Rumex crispus curly dock Polygonaceae Perennial Yes — FAC WOABG herb Salix exigua var. Hinds' willow Salicaceae Shrub — — FACW CM, FCFW-BS, hindsiana GWRW, MT-BS, PGP, SWT, TT Salix gooddingii Goodding's Salicaceae Tree — — FACW FCFW-BS, FCFW- black willow SG, GWRW, PGP, MT-SN Salix laevigata red willow Salicaceae Tree — — FACW FCFW-BS, FCFW- SG, GWRW, PGP Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow Salicaceae Shrub, Tree — — FACW AWT, EUC, FCFW- SG, GWRW, MT-BS, SWT Salsola tragus Russian thistle, Chenopodiaceae Annual herb Yes — FACU DEV, UMSTF tumbleweed Salvia mellifera black sage Lamiaceae Shrub — — — CaBS Sambucus mexicana blue elderberry Acanthaceae Shrub, Tree — — FACU AWT, CaBS, CLOWF, CSBSS, GWRW, SWT, UMSTF Schinus molle Peruvian Anacardiaceae Tree Yes — FACU FCFW-QA pepper tree Schismus barbatus old han Poaceae Annual herb Yes — — CaBS, MT-BS, schismus RBMGG, UMSTF Schoenoplectus California Cyperaceae Perennial — — OBL CM, HCBM californicus bulrush herb Senecio vulgaris common Asteraceae Annual herb Yes — FACU UMSTF, WOABG groundsel Sidalcea sparsifolia southern Malvaceae Perennial — — — WOABG checkerbloom herb Silybum marianum milk thistle Asteraceae Annual herb Yes — — CLOWF Sisymbrium altissimum tumble mustard Brassicaceae Annual Yes — FACU MT-SN, WOABG herb, Perennial herb Sisymbrium irio London rocket Brassicaceae Annual Yes — — EUC herb, Perennial herb Sonchus oleraceus common sow Asteraceae Annual herb Yes — UPL GWRW thistle Stellaria media common Caryophyllaceae Annual herb Yes — FACU CLOWF chickweed Stephanomeria virgata twiggy wreath Asteraceae Annual herb — — — WOABG plant Stipa miliacea var. smilo grass Poaceae Perennial Yes — — CLOWF, EUC, miliacea herb FCFW-BS B-5 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Scientific Name Common Family Habit Non- Special- Indicator* Habitat Name native? status? Stylocline everlasting Asteraceae Annual herb — — — WOABG gnaphaloides neststraw Tamarix sp. tamarisk Tamaricaceae Tree Yes — —, FAC CLOWF, DEV, MT- BS, TT, GWRW Toxicodendron western poison Anacardiaceae Shrub — — FACU GWRW diversilobum oak Trifolium hirtum rose clover Fabaceae Annual herb Yes — — DEV Typha latifolia broad-leaved Typhaceae Perennial — — OBL CM, HCBM, SWT cattail herb Urtica dioica ssp. hoary nettle Urticaceae Perennial — — FAC CoBS, FCFW-SG, holosericea herb SWT, UMSTF Urtica urens dwarf nettle Urticaceae Annual herb Yes — — DEV, UMSTF Vicia villosa hairy vetch Fabaceae Annual herb — — — CaBS, WOABG Vinca major greater Apocynaceae Perennial Yes — FACU CLOWF periwinkle herb Xanthium strumarium cocklebur Asteraceae Annual herb — — FAC FCFW-SG, GWRW, MT-BS Indicators UPL Upland FACU Facultative Upland FAC Facultative FACW Facultative Wetland OBL Obligate *Taxa without an indicator are assumed to be UPL Habitats CoBS Baccharis pilularis Alliance (Coyote brush scrub); Baccharis pilularis Association CaBS Eriogonum fasciculatum Alliance (California buckwheat scrub); Eriogonum fasciculatum Association CLOWF Quercus agrifolia Alliance (Coast live oak woodland and forest); Quercus agrifolia Association CSBS Artemisia californica — Salvia mellifera Alliance (California sagebrush — black sage scrub); Artemisia californica — Salvia mellifera — Baccharis sarothroides Association CM Typha (angustifolia, domingensis, latifolia) Alliance (Cattail marshes); Typha angustifolia — Typha latifolia — Typha domingensis Association DEV Developed DIS Disturbed EUC Eucalyptus spp. — Ailanthus altissima — Robinia pseudoacacia Semi -Natural Alliance (Eucalyptus — tree of heaven — black locust groves); Eucalyptus (globulus, camaldulensis) Semi -natural Association FCFW-BS Populus fremontii — Fraxinus velutina — Salix gooddingii Alliance (Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland); Populus fremontii / Baccharis salicifolia Association* FCFW-QA Populus fremontii — Fraxinus velutina — Salix gooddingii Alliance (Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland); Populus fremontii — Quercus agrifolia Association* FCFW-SG Populus fremontii — Fraxinus velutina — Salix gooddingii Alliance (Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland); Populus fremontii — Salix (laevigata, lasiolepis, lucida ssp. lasiandra) Association* HCBM Hardstem and California bulrush marshes GWRW Salix gooddingii — Salix laevigata Alliance (Goodding's willow — red willow riparian woodland and forest); Salix gooddingii — Salix laevigata Association* MFT-BS Baccharis salicifolia Alliance (Mulefat thickets); Baccharis salicifolia Association MFT-SN Baccharis salicifolia Alliance (Mulefat thickets); Baccharis salicifolia — Sambucus nigra Association PGP Pampas Grass Patches RBMGG Red brome or Mediterranean grass grasslands SWT Salix exigua Alliance (Sandbar willow thickets); Salix exigua Association TT Tamarix spp. Semi -Natural Alliance (Tamarisk thickets); Tamarix spp. Semi -natural Association UMSTF Brassica nigra — Centaurea (solstitialis, melitensis) Semi -Natural Alliance (Upland mustards or star -thistle fields); Hirschfeldia incana Semi -natural Association WOABG Avena spp. — Bromus spp. Semi -Natural Alliance (Wild oats and annual brome grasslands); Bromus diandrus — Mixed herbs Semi -natural Association EXHIBIT C Wildlife Observed Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Scientific Name Common Name INSECTS Nymphalidae Brush -footed Butterflies Danaus plexippus plexippus' monarch AMPHIBIANS Bufonidae True Toads Anaxyrus boreas halophilus California toad Hylidae Treefrogs Pseudacris hypochondriaca hypochondriaca Baja California treefrog REPTILES Colubridae Colubrids Coluber sp. coachwhip Iguanidae Iguanids Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard Viperidae Vipers Crotalus oreganus helleri southern Pacific rattlesnake BIRDS Accipitridae Hawks Accipiter cooperii2 Cooper's hawk Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk Buteo lineatus red -shouldered hawk Aegithalidae Bushtits Psaltriparus minimus bushtit Anatidae Ducks, Geese, and Swans Anas platyrhynchos mallard Branta canadensis Canada goose Ardeidae Herons, Egrets, Bitterns Ardea herodias3 great blue heron Cathartidae New World Vultures Cathartes aura turkey vulture Charadriidae Plovers, Dotterels, and Lapwings Charadrius vociferus killdeer Columbidae Pigeons and Doves Zenaida macroura mourning dove Corvidae Jays and Crows Aphelocoma californica California scrub -jay 1 Candidate for federal listing 2 Western Riverside County MSHCP—covered species 3 Western Riverside County MSHCP—covered species 4 Western Riverside County MSHCP—covered species C-1 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Scientific Name Common Name Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus corax common raven Fringillidae Finches Haemorhous mexicanus house finch Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch Hirundinidae Swallows Petrochelidon pyrrhonota cliff swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis northern rough -winged swallow Icteridae Blackbirds and Allies Agelaius phoeniceus red -winged blackbird Molothrus ater5 brown -headed cowbird Mimidae Mockingbirds and Thrashers Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird Toxostoma redivivum California thrasher Parulidae New World Warblers Geothlypis trichas common yellowthroat Setophaga coronata yellow-rumped warbler Passerellidae Sparrows and Towhees Melospiza melodia song sparrow Pipilo crissalis California towhee Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee Phalacrocoracidae Cormorants and Shags Nannopterum auritums double -crested cormorant Picidae Woodpeckers Dryobates nuttallii Nuttall's woodpecker Colaptes auratus northern flicker Melanerpes formicivorus acorn woodpecker Trochilidae Hummingbirds Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Troglodytidae Wrens Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's wren Troglodytes aedon house wren Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers Sayornis nigricans black phoebe Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's kingbird 5 Non-native species 6 CDFW Watch List, Western Riverside County MSHCP—covered species C-2 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Scientific Name Common Name Vireonidae Vireos Vireo bellii pusillus' least Bell's vireo MAMMALS Leporidae Hares and Rabbits Sylvilagus audubonii desert cottontail Procyonidae Raccoons and Ringtails Procyon lotor raccoon (tracks) Sciuridae Squirrels Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel 7 Federal endangered, state endangered, Western Riverside County MSHCP covered species C-3 EXHIBIT D Special -status Plant Species with Potential to Occur Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Table D-1. Potential Sensitive Species — Flora Species Name Status Habitat Blooming potential for Occurrence Common Name (Federal/State/Local) Preferences/Requirements Period Abronia villosa var. 41 B.1/— Sandy areas within chaparral, (Jan)Mar— Present. Two individuals aurita coastal scrub, and desert dunes. Sep were observed chaparral sand -verbena 60 to 1,570 meters (m). incidentally on -site during the habitat assessment and vegetation mapping surveys and have been recorded on -site in prior surveys. Allium marvinii —/1 B.2/C, NE Chaparral. In openings on clay Apr —May Does not occur. Chaparral Yucaipa onion soils. 850-1,070 m. and clay soils do not occur on -site and site is below elevation range. Allium munzii FE/ST, 1 B.1/C, NE Chaparral, coastal scrub, Mar —May Does not occur. Clay soils Munz's onion cismontane woodland, pinyon and do not occur on -site and juniper woodland, valley and site is below elevation foothill grassland. Heavy clay soils; range. grows in grasslands and openings within shrublands or woodlands. 375-1,040 m. Almutaster pauciflorus —/2B.2/— Meadows and seeps. Alkaline. 60— Jun —Oct Does not occur. A single alkali marsh aster 765 m. 1937 record mapped as a best guess by CNNDB is the only nearby occurrence, which is southwest of the species' known geographic range. Ambrosia pumila FE/113.1/C, NE Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley Apr —Oct High. Suitable coastal San Diego ambrosia and foothill grassland. Sandy loam scrub and grassland or clay soil; sometimes alkaline. habitats, and sandy loam In valleys; persists where soils occur on -site and a disturbance has been superficial. 2019 CNDDB occurrence Sometimes on margins or near is recorded approximately vernal pools. 3-580 m. 0.35 mi NW of the site. Arctostaphylos 41 B.1/C Chaparral. Usually found in gabbro Dec —Mar Does not occur. Chaparral rainbowensis chaparral. 100-870 m. and gabbroic soils do not Rainbow manzanita occur on -site and the species would have been detectable during habitat assessment and vegetation mapping surveys. Astragalus pachypus 41B.1/C Coastal scrub, chaparral, valley Dec —Jun Does not occur. Site is var. jaegeri and foothill grassland, cismontane below elevation range and Jaeger's milk -vetch woodland. Dry ridges and valleys west of species' known and open sandy slopes; often in geographic range. grassland and oak —chaparral. 365- 1,040 m. Atriplex coronata var. FE/1 B.1/C, R/VP Playas, valley and foothill Apr —Aug Does not occur. Site is notatior grassland, vernal pools. Alkaline outside of known San Jacinto Valley areas in the San Jacinto River geographic range. crownscale Valley. 35-460 m. Boechera johnstonii —/1 B.2/C, NE Chaparral, lower montane Feb —Jun Does not occur. Suitable Johnston's rockcress coniferous forest. Often on eroded habitat and clay soils do clay soils. With Adenostoma, not occur on -site and site Quercus wislizenii. 1,365-2,590 m. is below elevation range. D-1 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Species Name Status Habitat Blooming Potential for Occurrence Common Name (Federal/State/Local) Preferences/Requirements Period Brodiaea filifolia FT/SE, 1 B.1/C, R/VP Chaparral (openings), cismontane Mar —Jun Does not occur. Clay soils thread -leaved brodiaea woodland, coastal scrub, playas, do not occur on -site. valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Usually associated with annual grassland and vernal pools; often surrounded by shrubland habitats. Occurs in openings on clay soils. 15-1,030 m. Brodiaea orcuttii 41 B.1/C, R/VP Vernal pools, valley and foothill May —Jul Does not occur. Clay soils Orcutt's brodiaea grassland, closed —cone coniferous do not occur on -site. forest, cismontane woodland, chaparral, meadows and seeps. Mesic, clay habitats; usually in vernal pools and small drainages. 30-1,615 m. Calochortus palmeri var. 41 B.2/C, NE Lower montane coniferous forest, Apr —Jul Does not occur. Site is munzii chaparral, meadows and seeps. below elevation range. San Jacinto mariposa- Seen in open Jeffrey pine forest as lily well as in chaparral. 940-1,815 m. Calochortus plummerae —/4.2/C Coastal scrub, chaparral, valley May —Jul Does not occur. Site is Plummer's mariposa -lily and foothill grassland, cismontane outside of known woodland, lower montane geographic range. coniferous forest. Occurs on rocky and sandy sites, usually of granitic or alluvial material. Can be very common after fire. 60-2,500 m. Centromadia pungens —/1 B.1/C, R/VP Valley and foothill grassland, Apr —Sep High. Suitable grassland, ssp. laevis chenopod scrub, meadows and riparian woodland, and smooth tarplant seeps, playas, riparian woodland. disturbed places occur Alkali meadow, alkali scrub; also in on -site and a 2008 disturbed places. 5-1,170 m. CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.35 mi north of the site along Murrieta Creek. Chorizanthe leptotheca —/4.2/C Chaparral, coastal scrub, lower May —Aug Does not occur. Site is Peninsular spineflower montane coniferous forest. outside of known On granitic soils, in alluvial fans. geographic range. 300-1,900 m. Chorizanthe parryi var. 41 B.1/C Coastal scrub, chaparral, Apr —Jun Does not occur. Site is parryi cismontane woodland, valley and outside of known Parry's spine flower foothill grassland. Dry slopes and geographic range. flats; sometimes at interface of 2 vegetation types, such as chaparral and oak woodland. Dry, sandy soils. 90-1,220 m. Chorizanthe 41 B.2/C Chaparral, coastal scrub, meadows Apr —Jul Does not occur. Clay soils polygonoides var. and seeps, valley and foothill do not occur on -site. longispina grassland, vernal pools. Gabbroic long-spined spine flower clay. 30-1,630 m. Clinopodium chandleri 41 B.2/C, NE, R/VP Chaparral, cismontane woodland, Mar —Jul Does not occur. Gabbroic San Miguel savory coastal scrub, riparian woodland, or metavolcanic valley and foothill grassland. substrates do not occur Rocky, gabbroic or metavolcanic on -site. substrate. 120-975 m. Deinandra mohavensis —/SE, 1 B.3/NAC, R/VP Riparian scrub, coastal scrub, (Jan —May) Does not occur. Suitable Mojave tarplant chaparral. Low sand bars in Jun —Oct habitat occurs on -site but riverbed; mostly in riparian areas or the site is west of the in ephemeral grassy areas. species' known 640-1,645 m. geographic range. W Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Species Name Status Habitat Blooming Potential for Occurrence Common Name (Federal/State/Local) Preferences/Requirements Period Diplacus clevelandii —/4.2/NAC Chaparral, cismontane woodland, Apr —Jul Does not occur. Site is Cleveland's bush lower montane coniferous forest. below elevation range. monkeyflower Disturbed gravelly roadsides and slopes. Gabbro soils. 450-2,000 m. Dodecahema leptoceras FE/SE, 1 B.1/C, NE, Chaparral, cismontane woodland, Apr —Jun High. Suitable riparian slender -horned spine R/VP coastal scrub (alluvial fan sage woodland and terraces flower scrub). Flood deposited terraces along Temecula Creek and washes; associates include occur on -site and there is Encelia, Dalea, Lepidospartum, a 2005 CNDDB etc. Sandy soils. 200-765 m. occurrence 3.3 mi southeast of the site. Dudleya multicaulis —/1 B.2/C, NE Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley Apr —Jul Does not occur. Suitable many -stemmed dudleya and foothill grassland. In heavy, coastal scrub and often clayey soils or grassy slopes. grassland habitats, but 1-910 m. clay soils do not occur on site. Dudleya viscida —/1 B.2/NAC Coastal scrub, coastal bluff scrub, May —Jun Does not occur. Suitable sticky -leaved dudleya chaparral, cismontane woodland. habitat occurs on -site but On north and south —facing cliffs the site is east of the and banks. 20-870 m. species' known geographic range. Eriastrum densifolium FE/SE, 1 B.1/C, R/VP Coastal scrub, chaparral. In sandy Apr —Sep Does not occur. Site is ssp. sanctorum soils on river floodplains or outside of known Santa Ana River terraced fluvial deposits. geographic range. woollystar 180-705 m. Eryngium aristulatum FE/SE, 1 B.1/C, R/VP Vernal pools, coastal scrub, valley Apr —Jun Does not occur. Site does var. parishii and foothill grassland. San Diego not support suitable San Diego button -celery mesa hardpan and claypan vernal habitat and the nearest pools and southern interior basalt occurrences are on the flow vernal pools; usually Santa Rosa Plateau surrounded by scrub. 15-880 m. approximately 7 miles NW. Galium angustifolium —/1 B.3/C, NE Lower montane coniferous forest. Jun —Aug Does not occur. Site is ssp. jacinticum Open mixed forest. 1,190-2,440 m. below elevation range. San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw Galium californicum ssp. —/1 B.2/NAC Chaparral, lower montane May —Jul Does not occur. Site is primum coniferous forest. Grows in shade below elevation range. Alvin Meadow bedstraw of trees and shrubs at the lower edge of the pine belt, in pine forest —chaparral ecotone. Granitic, sandy soils. 1,460-1,830 m. Heuchera hirsutissima 41 B.3/NAC Subalpine coniferous forest, upper (May)Jun— Does not occur. Site is shaggy -haired alumroot montane coniferous forest. Often Jul below elevation range. near large rocks. Granitic substrate. 1,065-3,200 m. Holocarpha virgata ssp. —/4.2/C, R/VP Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley May —Nov Low. Suitable habitat elongate and foothill grassland, cismontane occurs on -site but site is graceful tarplant woodland. 60-1,100 m. slightly east of known geographic range. Hordeum intercedens —/3.2/C, R/VP Valley and foothill grassland, Mar —Jun Does not occur. Suitable vernal barley vernal pools, coastal dunes, habitat occurs on -site but coastal scrub. Vernal pools, dry, documented occurrences saline streambeds, alkaline flats. (Jepson eFlora) indicate 5-1,000 m. the species does not occur in Temecula. D-3 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Species Name Status Habitat Blooming Potential for Occurrence Common Name (Federal/State/Local) Preferences/Requirements Period Hulsea vestita ssp. —/4.2/C Chaparral, lower montane May —Oct Does not occur. Site is callicarpha coniferous forest. Rocky or below elevation range. beautiful hulsea gravelly, granitic sites. 915-3,050 m. Juglans californica —/4.2/C, R/VP Chaparral, coastal scrub, Mar —Aug High. The dense riparian Southern California cismontane woodland, riparian woodland on -site is black walnut woodland. Slopes, canyons, suitable for this species alluvial habitats. 50-900 m. and may not have been detectable during habitat assessment and vegetation mapping surveys, and there is a 2008 CCH occurrence just north of the site along Murrieta Creek. Lasthenia glabrata ssp. 41 B.1/C Usually found on alkaline soils in Feb —Jun Low. Small portions of the coulter/ playas, sinks, and grasslands. site are mapped as Coulter's goldfields 1-1,375 m. containing alkaline soils and grasslands that could support this species, but those areas are also subject to the highest amounts of disturbance and invasion by non- native species. Lepidium virginicum var. —/4.3/— Chaparral, coastal scrub. Dry soils, Jan —Jul High. Suitable habitat robinsonii shrubland. 4-1,435 m. occurs on -site, the taxa is Robinson's pepper- relatively common, and grass the taxa is not recognized by The Jepson Herbarium. Lilium humboldt/i ssp. —/4.2/NAC, R/VP Chaparral, coastal scrub, Mar —Jul Moderate. On -site scrub ocellatum cismontane woodland, lower (Aug) and riparian woodland ocellated Humboldt lily montane coniferous forest, riparian may be suitable but there forest. Yellow —pine forest or are no documented CCH openings, oak canyons. occurrences within 4 miles 30-1,800 m. of the site. Lilium parryi 41 B.2/NAC, R/VP Lower montane coniferous forest, Jul —Aug Does not occur. Site is lemon lily meadows and seeps, riparian below elevation range. forest, upper montane coniferous forest. Wet, mountainous terrain; generally in forested areas; on shady edges of streams, in open boggy meadows and seeps. 625-2,930 m. Limnanthes alba ssp. —/SE, 1 B.2/C, R/VP Lower montane coniferous forest, Apr —Jun Does not occur. Site is parishii meadows and seeps, vernal pools. below elevation range. Parish's meadowfoam Vernally moist areas and temporary seeps of highland meadows and plateaus; often bordering lakes and streams. 605-1,805 m. Microseris douglasii ssp. —/4.2/C Cismontane woodland, valley and Mar —May Does not occur. Clay soils platycarpha foothill grassland, coastal scrub, do not occur onsite. small -flowered vernal pools. Alkaline clay in river microseris bottoms. 15-1,070 m. D-4 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Species Name Status Habitat Blooming Potential for Occurrence Common Name (Federal/State/Local) Preferences/Requirements Period Mielichhoferia shevockii 41 B.2/— Cismontane woodland. Moss on Not Does not occur. Site is Shevock's copper moss metamorphic rocks containing Applicable below elevation range. heavy metals; mesic sites. On rocks along roads, in same habitat as Mielichhoferia elongata. 365-1,110 m. Muhlenbergia californica —/4.3/NAC Coastal scrub, chaparral, lower Jun —Sep Does not occur. Site is California muhly montane coniferous forest, outside of known meadows and seeps. Usually geographic range. found near streams or seeps. 100-2,000 m. Nama stenocarpa —/2B.2/C, R/VP Marshes and swamps. Lake Jan —Jul Low. On -site creek banks mud nama shores, riverbanks, intermittently may be suitable for this wet areas. 15-815 m. species but the nearest occurrence is a 2019 CCH occurrence from the shore of Depot Lake at Seal beach Naval Weapons Station (Fallbrook Annex). Navarretia fossalis FT/1 B.1/C, NE, R/VP Vernal pools, chenopod scrub, Apr —Jun Does not occur. spreading navarretia marshes and swamps, playas. Marginally suitable habitat San Diego hardpan and San Diego occurs on -site and claypan vernal pools; in swales records indicate this and vernal pools, often surrounded species does not occur in by other habitat types. 15-850 m. Temecula. Navarretia prostrata 41 B.2/C, R/VP Coastal scrub, valley and foothill Apr —Jul Does not occur. prostrate vernal pool grassland, vernal pools, meadows Marginally suitable habitat navarretia and seeps. Alkaline soils in occurs on -site and grassland, or in vernal pools. records indicate this Mesic, alkaline sites. 3-1,235 m. species does not occur in Temecula. Orcuttia californica FE/SE, 1 B.1/C, NE, Vernal pools. 10-660 m. Apr —Aug Does not occur. California Orcutt grass R/VP Marginally suitable habitat occurs on -site and records indicate this species does not occur in Temecula. Phacelia stellaris —/l B.1/C, NE, R/VP Coastal scrub, coastal dunes. Mar —Jun Does not occur. Site is Brand's star phacelia Open areas. 3-370 m. outside of known geographic range. Polygala cornuta var. —/4.3/C, R/VP Cismontane woodland, riparian May —Aug Low. Suitable riparian fishiae woodland, chaparral. Scree slopes, woodland occurs on -site Fish's milkwort brushy ridges, and along creeks; but the site is slightly often with oaks. 100-1,000 m. outside the eastern margin of the species' known geographic range. Potentilla rimicola —/2B.3/NAC Subalpine coniferous forest, upper Jul —Sep Does not occur. Site is cliff cinquefoil montane coniferous forest. Granite below elevation range. crevices; rocky sites. 2,405-3,050 m. Pseudognaphalium —/2B.2/— Riparian woodland, cismontane (Jul)Aug— Present. Species leucocephalum woodland, coastal scrub, Nov(Dec) previously documented white rabbit -tobacco chaparral. Sandy, gravelly sites. on -site and approximately 35-515 m. 1,500 individuals were incidentally observed during surveys. MR Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Species Name Status Habitat Blooming Potential for Occurrence Common Name (Federal/State/Local) Preferences/Requirements Period Quercus engelmannii —/4.2/C, R/VP Cismontane woodland, chaparral, Mar —Jun Does not occur. Would Engelmann oak riparian woodland, valley and have been detectable foothill grassland. 50-1,300 m. during habitat assessment and vegetation mapping surveys and was not observed. Romneya coulter/ —/4.2/C, R/VP Coastal scrub, chaparral. Mar— Low. Suitable habitat Coulter's matilija poppy In washes and on slopes; also after Jul(Aug) occurs on -site but site is burns. 20-1,200 m. southeast of most documented occurrences. Sibaropsis hammittii 41 B.2/C, NE Valley and foothill grassland, Mar —Apr Does not occur. Site is Hammitt's clay -cress chaparral. Mesic microsites in open below elevation range. areas on clay soils in Stipa grassland. Often surrounded by Adenostoma chaparral. 715-1,040 m. Sidotheca —/4.3/NAC Lower montane coniferous forest. Jul— Does not occur. Site is caryophylloides Sandy sites. 1,115-2,600 m. Sep(Oct) below elevation range. chickweed oxytheca Tetracoccus dioicus 41 B.2/— Chaparral, coastal scrub. Stony, Apr —May Does not occur. Gabbroic Parry's tetracoccus decomposed gabbro soil. soil does not occur on- 135-705 m. site. Trichocoronis wrightii —/2B.1/C, NE Marshes and swamps, riparian May —Sep Does not occur. var. wrightii forest, meadows and seeps, vernal Southernmost Wright's trichocoronis pools. Mud flats of vernal lakes, documented occurrence is drying riverbeds, alkali meadows. near Lake Perris, 5-435 m. approximately 24.5 miles north of the site. CRPR: California Rare Plant Rank Western Riverside County MSHCP Special Status 1 B: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. C — Covered 213: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. NE — Narrow Endemic 3: Plants about which more information is needed NAC — Not Adequately Covered 4: Plants of limited distribution. R/VP — Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pools Threat Rank 0.1: Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) 0.2: Moderately threatened in California (20%-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat) 0.3: Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) EXHIBIT E Special -status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Table E-1. Potential Sensitive Species — Fauna Species Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Local) Habitat Preferences/Requirements Potential for Occurrence INVERTEBRATE Bombus crotchii —/SCE/— Coastal California east to the Sierra- Low. On -site Eriogonum fasciculatum Crotch bumble bee Cascade crest and south into Mexico. is a suitable nectar source but the Food plant genera include only record within 5 miles is a Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, CNDDB occurrence from 1949 Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and overlapping a portion of the site. Eriogonum. Branchinecta lynchi FT/—/C, R/VP Endemic to the grasslands of the Low. Two on -site depressions vernal pool fairy shrimp Central Valley, Central Coast containing water were observed that mountains, and South Coast could be potentially suitable for this mountains, in astatic rain -filled pools. species but there are no records Inhabit small, clear -water sandstone- within 5 miles of the site. depression pools and grassed swale, earth slump, or basalt -flow depression pools. Danaus plexippus FC/—/— plexippus; pop. 1 Monarch butterfly - California overwintering population In Southern California, monarch butterfly adults are present year- round and are reliant on milkweeds (Asclepias spp.) as host plants for caterpillars, and adults require a diverse range of flowers for nectar as fuel during breeding. Adults form overwintering aggregations in large mature trees groves, often non-native gum (Eucalyptus spp.) trees as well as native Monterey and Sargent cypress (Hesperocyparis [Cupressus] macrocarpa; H. sargentii), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) and, less commonly, other native trees including western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). The majority of overwintering sites are at low elevations (<200-300 feet), within about 1.5 miles of the ocean. Present. Monarch butterfly adults were observed on site during the survey, although milkweed was not noted in the project area. Overwintering groves tree species are present in project area, including coast live oak and western sycamore. However, the project area does not overlap with any known mapped overwintering groves for monarch and is not in close proximity to the ocean (the site is approximately 30 miles east of the Pacific Ocean). As such, the Project site is unlikely to support overwintering aggregations of monarch butterflies. Euphydryas editha quino FEWC Sunny openings within chaparral and Moderate. Small patches of Plantago Quino checkerspot coastal sage shrublands in parts of erecta were noted in on -site butterfly Riverside and San Diego Counties. buckwheat scrub during the habitat Hills and mesas near the coast. Need assessment and vegetation mapping high densities of food plants Plantago surveys. Protocol surveys are erecta, P. insularis, and Orthocarpus required to determine purpurescens. presence/absence. Streptocephalus FE/—/C, R/VP Endemic to Western Riverside, Moderate. Two on -site depressions woottoni Orange, and San Diego counties in containing water were observed that Riverside fairy shrimp areas of tectonic swales/earth slump could be potentially suitable for this basins in grassland and coastal sage species and there is a 2003 CNDDB scrub. Inhabit seasonally astatic pools record approximately 0.75 mi S of the filled by winter/spring rains. Hatch in site. warm water later in the season. FISH Catostomus santaanae FTWC, R/VP Endemic to Los Angeles Basin south Does not occur. Site is outside of Santa Ana sucker coastal streams. Habitat generalists, known geographic range. but prefer sand -rubble -boulder bottoms, cool, clear water, and algae. E-1 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Species Name Status Habitat Preferences/Requirements Potential for Occurrence Common Name (Federal/State/Local) Gila orcuttii —/SSC/C Native to streams from Malibu Creek Moderate. Documented on -site from arroyo chub to San Luis Rey River basin. a 1998 CNDDB occurrence. Introduced into streams in Santa Clara, Ventura, Santa Ynez, Mojave and San Diego river basins. Slow water stream sections with mud or sand bottoms. Feeds heavily on aquatic vegetation and associated invertebrates. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES Anaxyrus californicus FE/SSC/C, R/VP Semi -arid regions near washes or Does not occur. Suitable habitat arroyo toad intermittent streams, including valley- occurs on -site but this species is not foothill and desert riparian, desert documented in Temecula or Murrieta wash, etc. Rivers with sandy banks, Creeks. willows, cottonwoods, and sycamores; loose, gravelly areas of streams in drier parts of range. Arizona elegans —/SSC/— Patchily distributed from the eastern High. Suitable habitat and soils occur occidentalis portion of San Francisco Bay, on -site. California glossy snake southern San Joaquin Valley, and the Coast, Transverse, and Peninsular ranges, south to Baja California. Generalist reported from a range of scrub and grassland habitats, often with loose or sandy soils. Aspidoscelis hyperythra —/—/C Inhabits low -elevation coastal scrub, High. Suitable habitat occurs on -site orange -throated whiptail chaparral, and valley -foothill and species is relatively common. hardwood habitats. Prefers washes and other sandy areas with patches of brush and rocks. Perennial plants necessary for its major food: termites. Aspidoscelis tigris —/SSC/— Found in deserts and semi -arid areas High. Suitable habitat occurs on -site. stejnegerl with sparse vegetation and open coastal whiptail areas. Also found in woodland and riparian areas. Ground may be firm soil, sandy, or rocky. Charina umbratical—/ST/NAC Found in a variety of montane forest Does not occur. Site is outside of southern rubber boa habitats. Previously considered known geographic range. morphologically intermediate, recent (2022) genomic analysis clarifies individuals from Mount Pinos, Tehachapi Mountains, and southern Sierra Nevada are southern rubber boa. Found in vicinity of streams or wet meadows; requires loose, moist soil for burrowing; seeks cover in rotting logs, rock outcrops, and under surface litter. Crotalus ruber —/SSC/— Chaparral, woodland, grassland, and High. Suitable habitat occurs on -site red -diamond rattlesnake desert areas from coastal San Diego and multiple occurrences are County to the eastern slopes of the documented near the site. mountains. Occurs in rocky areas and dense vegetation. Needs rodent burrows, cracks in rocks or surface cover objects. E-2 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Species Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Local) Habitat Preferences/Requirements Potential for Occurrence Emys marmorata —/SSC/C A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, High. Documented on -site in a 2015 western pond turtle marshes, rivers, streams and CNDDB occurrence. irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation, below 6,000 feet elevation. Needs basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg -laying. Lampropeltis —/—/NAC Coniferous forest, oak -pine Does not occur. Suitable habitat multifasciata woodlands, riparian woodland, occurs on -site but the nearest (Lampropeltis zonata chaparral, coastal sage scrub. Prefers occurrence is a 2016 iNaturalist parvirubra, L. z. pulchra) wooded areas near water with rock record near Skinner Reservoir, coast mountain outcrops or rotting logs with areas to approximately 7.75 miles NE of the kingsnake bask. Often under surface objects or site. (San Bernardino in rock crevices. mountain kingsnake, San Diego mountain kingsnake) Phrynosoma blainvillii —/SSC/— Frequents a wide variety of habitats, High. Documented adjacent to the coast horned lizard most common in lowlands along site in a 1992 CNDDB occurrence. sandy washes with scattered low bushes. Open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for burial, and abundant supply of ants and other insects. Rana draytonii FT/SSC/C, R/VP Lowlands and foothills in or near Does not occur. Temecula and California red -legged permanent sources of deep water Murrieta Creeks do not have frog with dense, shrubby or emergent sufficient year-round water to support riparian vegetation. Requires 11— this species. 20 weeks of permanent water for larval development. Must have access to estivation habitat. Rana mucosa FE/SE/C, R/VP Disjunct populations known from Does not occur. Temecula and southern mountain southern Sierras (northern DPS) and Murrieta Creeks do not have yellow -legged frog San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and sufficient year-round water to support San Jacinto Mtns (southern DPS). this species and site is at the low end Found at 1,000 to 12,000 feet in lakes of the elevation range. and creeks that stem from springs and snowmelt. May overwinter under frozen lakes. Often encountered within a few feet of water. Tadpoles may require 2-4 years to complete their aquatic development. Sceloporus graciosus —/—/NAC Prefers open areas with scattered low Does not occur. Suitable habitat does vandenburgianus bushes within chaparral and conifer not occur on -site. southern sagebrush forest habitats, primarily in lizard mountainous regions. Sceloporus orcuttii —/—/C Inhabits a variety of scrub and High. Suitably rocky habitat occurs granite spiny lizard woodland habitats containing large on -site and species is relatively boulders and granite cliffs. common. Spea hammondii —/SSC/C Occurs primarily in grassland Moderate. Two on -site depressions western spadefoot habitats, but can be found in valley- containing water were observed that foothill hardwood woodlands. Vernal could be potentially suitable for this pools are essential for breeding and species and there is a 2003 CNDDB egg -laying. record approximately 0.75 mi S of the site. E-3 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Species Name Status Common Name (Federal/State/Local) Habitat Preferences/Requirements Potential for Occurrence Thamnophis hammondii —/SSC/— Coastal California from vicinity of Low. Suitable habitat occurs on -site two -striped gartersnake Salinas to northwest Baja California. but the nearest occurrence is a 1999 From sea to about 7,000 feet CNDDB record in the Santa Margarita elevation. Highly aquatic, found in or River approximately 2.1 miles near permanent fresh water. Often southwest of the site. along streams with rocky beds and riparian growth. Xantusia henshawii —/—/C Inhabits chaparral, coastal sage Moderate. Suitably rocky habitat and granite night lizard scrub, creosote scrub, woodland, and water occurs on -site but the nearest coniferous forest. Prefers massive documented occurrences are over granite boulders and outcrops in 3 miles northeast of the site. shaded canyons or near water and avoids south -facing slopes. BIRDS Aimophila ruficeps —/—/C Resident in Southern California High. Multiple eBird occurrences canescens coastal sage scrub and sparse mixed documented on -site. Southern California chaparral. Frequents relatively steep, rufous -crowned sparrow often rocky hillsides with grass and forb patches. Ammodramus —/SSC/NAC (Partial) Dense grasslands on rolling hills, Does not occur. Native grasslands do savannarum lowland plains, in valleys and on not occur on -site and the only record grasshopper sparrow hillsides on lower mountain slopes. in Temecula is a 1993 eBird Favors native grasslands with a mix occurrence. of grasses, forbs and scattered shrubs. Loosely colonial when nesting. Amphispiza belli Belli —/—/C Nests in chaparral dominated by fairly Low. On -site buckwheat scrub may Bell's sparrow dense stands of chamise. Found in be suitable but there are no coastal sage scrub in south of range. occurrences documented within Nest located on the ground beneath a 5 miles of the site. shrub or in a shrub 6-18 inches above ground. Territories about 50 yards apart. Ardea Herodias —/—/C Colonial nester in tall trees, cliffsides, High. Suitable habitat occurs on -site great blue heron and sequestered spots on marshes. and multiple eBird occurrences are Rookery sites in close proximity to documented on -site. foraging areas: marshes, lake margins, tide -flats, rivers and streams, wet meadows. Athene cunicularia —/SSC/C Open, dry annual or perennial Moderate. Suitable habitat occurs burrowing owl grasslands, deserts, and scrublands on -site and there is a 2001 CNDDB characterized by low -growing occurrence within 2 miles of the site. vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably, the California ground squirrel. Botaurus lentiginosus —/—/C Freshwater and slightly brackish Does not occur. Marginally suitable American bittern marshes. Also in coastal saltmarshes. habitat occurs on -site but there are Dense reed beds. no records in Temecula or adjacent communities. Buteo swainsoni —/ST/C Breeds in grasslands with scattered Moderate. Suitable habitat occurs on- Swainson's hawk trees, juniper -sage flats, riparian site and one 1933 CNDDB areas, savannahs, and agricultural or occurrence and one 2015 eBird ranch lands with groves or lines of occurrence overlaps the site. trees. Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent populations. E-4 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Species Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Local) Habitat Preferences/Requirements Potential for Occurrence Cardellina pusilla —/—lC Most deciduous shrub habitats, but High. Two eBird occurrences Wilson's warbler primarily riparian shrub understory. documented on -site. Also woodland, suburban. Cathartes aura —/—/C Forage on carrion in open areas such High. Species is relatively common, turkey vulture as grassland, pasture, or non- site is suitable for foraging, but does intensive agriculture. Nest in caves or not contain suitable nesting habitat. crevices in rocky cliffs and slopes. Circus cyaneus —/SSC/C Coastal salt and freshwater marsh. Moderate. Suitable foraging habitat hudsonius Nest and forage in grasslands, from occurs on -site and one 2017 eBird northern harrier salt grass in desert sink to mountain record is documented on -site. cienagas. Nests on ground in shrubby vegetation, usually at marsh edge; nest built of a large mound of sticks in wet areas. Coccyzus americanus —/SE/C, R/VP Riparian forest nester, along the Low. Suitable habitat occurs on -site occidentalis broad, lower flood -bottoms of larger and one 1950 CNDDB occurrence is western yellow -billed river systems. Nests in riparian documented in the Santa Margarita cuckoo jungles of willow, often mixed with River on and adjacent to the site, but cottonwoods, with lower story of no other records have been blackberry, nettles, or wild grape. documented in southwestern Riverside County. Dryobates pubescens —/—/C Open, deciduous woodland, High. Suitable habitat occurs on -site downy woodpecker especially riparian. Less abundant in and multiple eBird records occur on - coniferous forests. Has adapted to site. orchards and wooded areas in parks and residential areas. Empidonax traillii FE/SE/C, R/VP Riparian woodlands in Southern Low. Suitable habitat occurs on -site extimus California. but there are no records in southwestern willow southwestern Riverside County. flycatcher Eremophila alpestris —/—/C Coastal regions, chiefly from Sonoma High. Suitable habitat occurs on -site actia County to San Diego County. Also and multiple eBird occurrences are California horned lark main part of San Joaquin Valley and documented on -site. east to foothills. Short -grass prairie, "bald" hills, mountain meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, alkali flats. Falco peregrinus anatum —/—/FPC, R/VP Near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or other Does not occur. Only somewhat American peregrine water; on cliffs, banks, dunes, suitable habitat occurs on -site and falcon mounds; also, human -made the species is not documented in structures. Nest consists of a scrape Temecula. or a depression or ledge in an open site. Geothlypis tolmiei —/—/C Largely present in Southern California Low. Suitable habitat occurs on -site Macgillivray's warbler during migration only, where they but there are few records in the inhabit areas of dense shrubs and project's vicinity. well -shaded areas along mountains and deserts of interior California, less common along coast. Breeds primarily in openings of coniferous forest, including shrubby areas with little to no canopy. Haliaeetus —/SE, FP/C, R/VP Ocean shore, lake margins, and High. Species observed flying over leucocephalus rivers for both nesting and wintering. the site (eBird 2017) and site bald eagle Most nests within 1 mile of water. supports suitable habitat. Nests in large, old -growth, or dominant live tree with open branches, especially ponderosa pine. Roosts communally in winter. E-5 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Species Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Local) Habitat Preferences/Requirements Potential for Occurrence Leiothlypis ruficapilla —l—lC Dry, often mountainous habitat, High. One eBird occurrence Nashville warbler including deciduous and coniferous documented on -site. forest. Does not breed in Southern California, largely present only in migration. Melospiza lincolinii —/—/NAC Largely non -breeding in Southern High. Multiple eBird occurrences Lincoln's sparrow California where they occupy a wide documented on -site. variety of habitats with low, dense cover, especially wetter areas. Riparian areas, weedy ditches, tamarisk thickets, and suburban yards are used. Breeding habitat consists of subalpine and montane boggy habitats dominated by willows. Nycticorax nycticorax —/—/C Colonial nester, usually in trees, High. Suitable habitat occurs on -site black -crowned night occasionally in tule patches. Rookery and multiple eBird occurrences are heron sites located adjacent to foraging documented on -site. areas: lake margins, mud -bordered bays, marshy spots. Oreortyx pictus —/—/C Primarily dense shrub -dominated Low. Somewhat suitable habitat mountain quail communities such as chaparral, occurs on -site but there are few mixed desert scrub, early- records in the project's vicinity. successional -stage vegetation. Also forest and woodland habitat. Polioptila californica FT/SSC/C Obligate, permanent resident of Moderate. On -site buckwheat scrub is californica coastal sage scrub below 2,500 feet suitable habitat and a 2001 CNDDB coastal California in Southern California. Low, coastal record occurs on -site. gnatcatcher sage scrub in and washes, on mesas and slopes. Not all areas classified as coastal sage scrub are occupied. Sphyrapicus thyroideus —/—/NAC Breeds in conifer and mixed conifer- Does not occur. Only somewhat Williamson's sapsucker deciduous forests. Overwinters in suitable habitat occurs on -site and similar habitat at lower elevation and the species is not documented in sometimes use deciduous riparian Temecula. and oak forests. Strix occidentalis —/SSC/NAC Mixed conifer forest, often with an Does not occur. Site is outside of occidentalis understory of black oaks and other known geographic range. California spotted owl deciduous hardwoods. Canopy closure >40%. Most often found in deep -shaded canyons, on north - facing slopes, and within 300 meters of water. Tachycineta bicolor —/—/C Fields, marshes, shorelines, and High. One eBird occurrence tree swallow riparian woodland with snags. Cavity documented on -site. nester. Vireo bell/i pusillus FE/SE/C, R/VP Summer resident of Southern Present. Multiple individuals were least Bell's vireo California in low riparian in vicinity of heard singing throughout the riparian water or in dry river bottoms; below habitats on -site during the habitat 2,000 feet. Nests placed along assessment and vegetation mapping margins of bushes or on twigs surveys. projecting into pathways, usually willow, Baccharis, mesquite. MAMMALS ' Canis latrans —/—/C Habitat generalist ranging from open High. Suitable habitat occurs on -site coyote grassland to shrubland to dense and species is relatively common and riparian forest. Den usually in a widespread. burrow but may also be above ground in debris or crevices. A Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Species Name Status Common Name (Federal/State/Local) Habitat Preferences/Requirements Potential for Occurrence Chaetodipus fallax fallax —/SSC/— Coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands, Low. Somewhat suitable habitat northwestern San Diego sagebrush, etc. in western San Diego occurs on -site and two CNDDB pocket mouse County. Sandy, herbaceous areas, occurrences from 1994 and 2001 are usually in association with rocks or documented within 5 miles of the site. coarse gravel. Dipodomys simulans —/—/C Scrub, chaparral, and grassland in Low. Suitable habitat occurs on -site, Dulzura kangaroo rat Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, but no records are documented in San Diego and San Bernardino Temecula. counties. Generally occurs at sites less than 2,400 feet in elevation. Grassland, coastal scrub and chaparral. Within scrub and chaparral habitat it occurs in areas with sparse shrub cover or less mature habitats associated with early succession. Dipodomys stephensi FT/ST/— Primarily annual and perennial Low. Suitable habitat occurs on -site Stephens' kangaroo rat grasslands, but also occurs in coastal and multiple CNDDB occurrences are scrub and sagebrush with sparse documented within 2 miles of the canopy cover. Prefers buckwheat, project but none more recent than chamise, brome grass and filaree. 1994. Will burrow into firm soil. Eumops perotis —/SSC/— Many open, semi -arid to and habitats, Moderate. Suitable foraging and californicus including conifer and deciduous roosting habitat occur on -site and one western mastiff bat woodlands, coastal scrub, 1991 CNDDB occurrence overlaps grasslands, chaparral, etc. Roosts in the site. crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, trees and tunnels. Glaucomys oregonensis —/SSC/NAC Known from black oak or white fir Does not occur. Site is outside of californicus dominated woodlands between known geographic range. San Bernardino flying 5,200-8,500 feet in the San squirrel Bernardino and San Jacinto ranges. May be extirpated from San Jacinto range. Needs cavities in trees/snags for nests and cover. Needs nearby water. Lepus californicus —/—/C Occurs primarily in and regions with High. Multiple occurrences have been bennettii short grass. Preferred habitats documented throughout Temecula San Diego black -tailed include open grasslands, agricultural Creek and Pechanga Creek during jackrabbit fields, and sparse coastal scrub. prior wildlife tracking studies. Not typically found in high grass or Additionally, suitable habitat for this dense brush. Nesting sites are species occurs within the project generally under bushes or shrubs that area. have shallow depressions. Lynx rufus —/—/C Areas of thick undergrowth within High. Multiple iNaturalist records in bobcat coniferous -deciduous woodlands, less developed areas surrounding forests, swamps, riparian, scrub, Temecula, and multiple occurrences desert, and mountain habitats. Large have been documented throughout blocks of habitat are favored. Temecula Creek and Pechanga Creek during prior wildlife tracking studies. On -site riparian habitat is suitable. Neogale frenata —/—/C Brushland and open woodlands, field High. Occurrences have been long-tailed weasel edges, riparian, grasslands, marshes. documented throughout Temecula Often found near water, tolerant of Creek and Pechanga Creek during proximity to humans. prior wildlife tracking studies. Additionally, suitable habitat occurs on -site. E-7 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Communitv Wildfire Protection Plan Species Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/Local) Habitat Preferences/Requirements Potential for Occurrence Perognathus -/SSC/C Lower elevation grasslands and Moderate. Suitable habitat and soils longimembris brevinasus coastal sage communities in and occur on -site and one 1993 CNDDB Los Angeles pocket around the Los Angeles Basin. Open occurrence is documented on -site. mouse ground with fine, sandy soils. May not dig extensive burrows, hiding under weeds and dead leaves instead. Puma concolor -l-lC Remote or mountainous areas High. Occurrences have been mountain lion containing riparian woodlands, documented throughout Temecula forests, or rugged areas with high Creek and Pechanga Creek during brush cover. Large (>2,220 square prior wildlife tracking studies. km) areas of habitat necessary for long-term population persistence. Sylvilagus bachmani -/-/C Dense scrub, brushy habitat edges, High. Suitable habitat occurs on -site brush rabbit chaparral, cactus patches, and and there is a 2020 iNaturalist record brushy areas on sand dunes. approximately 2.15 mi NE of the site. Federal Listings FE: Federally endangered FT: Federally threatened FC: Federal Candidate Species FP: Fully Protected State Listings SE: State endangered ST: State threatened SCE: State candidate for listing as Endangered CDFW SSC: Special Species of Concern Western Riverside County MSHCP Special Status C - Covered NAC - Not Adequately Covered R/VP - Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool E-8 ATTACHMENT A.2 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum G `l l/ SWC C ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 2136 d Science': dreative Solutions 3838 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 220 San Diego, California 92108 Tel 619.320.1450 www.swco.com TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: City of Temecula Department of Development 4100 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Attn: Mark Collins From: Leonard Griffiths, Southern California Natural Resources Director Date: January 30, 2023 Re: Next Steps for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan / SWCA Project No. 74976 SWCA's 2023 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Consistency Analysis) was prepared after vegetation mapping and habitat assessment surveys were conducted within the Community Wildfire Protection Plan project area. However, sections of the report remain incomplete because approval to conduct focused surveys was not provided. In order to complete the Consistency Analysis, focused surveys are required for the following: • Fairy shrimp (Consistency Analysis Section 4.3) • Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Section 6.1.2 birds (Consistency Analysis Section 4.4) • MSHCP Section 6.1.2 plants (Consistency Analysis Section 4.5) • Burrowing owl (Consistency Analysis Section 6.3) Additionally, impacts cannot be quantified at this time given that the project description is conceptual, and the above focused surveys would need to be completed before the extent of impacts to sensitive resources could be determined. Similarly, mitigation cannot be determined without a complete inventory of impacts that would require mitigation. However, given the nature of the project and the overall biological sensitivity of the CWPP project area, it is expected that fuels management activities would result in impacts to sensitive biological resources and would require mitigation. Therefore, a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) is expected to be required. In order to have a complete submittal package, a Joint Process Review QPR) application is required. A JPR application has been drafted, but the following are required in order to complete the application: • Detailed project description • Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) lands replacement analysis (MSHCP Section 3.2.1) 0 DBESP Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula Communitv Wildfire Protection Program SWCA was also provided with ICF's 2023 Temecula Creek Wildlife Corridor Project — Baseline Conditions, Opportunities, and Constraints Report prepared for The Nature Conservancy. This report covers the portion of the CWPP project area that occurs approximately between the Interstate 15 and Pechanga Parkway crossings and includes a discussion of baseline biological conditions, plans for enhancing wildlife movement through the area, and avoidance and mitigation measures that have been developed in consultation with multiple stakeholders including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. Given the extensive coordination that has occurred for this project within the larger CWPP project area, it will be crucial to ensure consistency between the CWPP and the Temecula Creek Wildlife Corridor Project going forward. Additionally, the DBESP template notes that "for impacts related to MSHCP Section 6.1.2, applicants are encouraged to coordinate early by attending one or more pre -application meetings with the Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA), Wildlife Agencies comprised of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to discuss riparian/riverine issues, regulated waters issues, and/or mitigation options. If mitigation is agreed to during this early coordination effort, the Applicant may be granted a 30-day DBESP review instead of the typical 60-day review. Contact Kristin Staudenmaier at RCA (kristins@wrcrca.org) in order to request a time slot at a pre -application meeting." Given that fuels management zones within sensitive riparian/riverine areas would likely require ongoing vegetation removal, these areas would be considered permanently impacted. Therefore, attendance at a pre -application meeting is recommended. SWCA would be pleased to carry out the above tasks and coordination when funding is available for the CWPP. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions at (602) 274-3831 ext. 16874 or leonard.griffiths@swca.com. Thank you, Leonard Griffiths Southern California Natural Resources Director ATTACHMENT A.3 Aquatic Resources Assessment SWCA1 \\ ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Sound Science. Creative Solutions 320 North Halstead Street, Suite 120 Pasadena, California 91107 Tel 626.240.0587 Fox 626.568.2958 www.swca.com TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Mark Collins, Assistant Planner City of Temecula Department of Development 4100 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 From: Bonnie Rogers, PWS, Senior Wetland Scientist Date: January 30, 2023 Re: Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Resources at the Temecula Creek Project I SWCA Project No. 00074976-000-PAS INTRODUCTION SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) was retained by the City of Temecula to develop a strategic comprehensive Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Temecula Creek, focusing on the Temecula Creek project area, located at approximately 33.4747' N, 117.1278' W. This technical memorandum describes the results of a preliminary assessment of aquatic resources completed by SWCA. The purpose of the survey was to walk the review area and map the general extent of the stream along its approximate ordinary high-water mark and test for potential wetlands, and to inform overall project planning. A full jurisdictional delineation was not completed. METHODS SWCA wetland scientists Bonnie Rogers and Luis Aguilar surveyed the review area on October 9, 2023. The review area consists of a 100-foot buffer surrounding the approximately 177-acre project area. The review area is generally located south of Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula in southwestern Riverside County, California (Figure 1, Figure 2). Interstate-15 (1-15) bisects the western portion of the review area, and Pechanga Parkway bisects the central portion. The review area is within the 2021 U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS's) Temecula and Pechanga quadrangle. Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Resources at the Temecula Creek Project 0) � �v 4Y, 1 , Ad 1 !'1�~ TT. �_._��•. o�'r�^' /t I ' • A � i `1 0 � � it A10 IRS t � N11 AVE .. �ec�.a SIr tation ��` rya �1 l too, '1� 1k, �`✓. //11,�/ y�;J ����t ��Y, 1000 �i r� �1.� q� �. Course f_ \l I 3' G ,- it iGnlf ZIA `-. ✓. S;6UfSC I �M�r '� �10 �3 i' LT�% j�i��� IS � n.•. c � r Project Area Riverside County, CA 0 1,000 2,000 USGS 7.5' Quadrangle: Feet Review Area (100-ft r J Buffer) Temecula, CA, 33117-D2 Pechanga, CA, 33117-D1 Meters 0 300 600 T8S R2W Sections 04,05,06,07, 08,09,15,16,17,18,19,20,21, N 22,28,29,30 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N1N 33.4747°N 117.1278°W Base Map: Esri ArcGIS Online, accessed October 2023 1.24, 000 Updated: 10/23/2023 Project 74976 Layout: 74976A_R_Topo ^� ] )� A J Aprx: W L(�, 74976CItyofTemeculaCWPP_ARE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Figure 1. Review area on topographic basemap. I Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Resources at the Temecula Creek Project Project Area I.J Review Area (100-ft Buffer) Riverside County, CA soo 1 000 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N Feet 33.4747°N 117.1278oW Meters o zsa soo N A Base Map: Esri ArcGIS Online, accessed October 2023 120, 000 Updated: 10/23/2023 ProjectNo. 74976 S 1 C A Layout: 74976_AR_Project Aerial JW H Aprx: 7497601tyofTemeculaMPP_ARE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Figure 2. Review area on aerial imagery basemap. 3 Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Resources at the Temecula Creek Project The following publicly available databases were reviewed by desktop prior to the field survey: • Google Earth aerial imagery (Google Earth 2023) • National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2023a) • Natural Resources Conservation Services (MRCS) Web Soil Survey (MRCS 2023) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2023b) • USGS National Hydrological Dataset (NHD) (USGS 2023a) The preliminary assessment was conducted in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] 1987), the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2008a), and A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008b). Potential extents of aquatic resources were assessed through application of the current Clean Water Act "Waters of the United States" rule amendment and Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. USACE waters of the United States (WOUS) was estimated by mapping the center line of the stream and comparing conditions with aerial imagery while in the field in order to draw the approximate boundaries of the OHWM for estimating WOUS. California State Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) waters of the State were assumed to be the same as WOUS. The extent of estimated California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdictional resources were mapped using previously collected vegetation community data to assess the maximum extent of the riparian habitat (to the outer dripline). Wetland sampling plots were evaluated to assess potential wetlands across the site. The wetland scientists conducted a preliminary survey of the review area on foot, documenting aquatic resources extents, photographs (see Exhibit A), and wetland determination sampling plot points (Exhibit B). All resources were mapped utilizing a Geode® GPS unit set to submeter accuracy (1-3-foot resolution). Three wetland determination sampling plots (SPO1, SP02, and SP03) were evaluated and recorded on the USACE Wetland Determination Data Form — Arid West Region (see Exhibit B). EXISTING CONDITIONS Hydrology The review areas is situated along Temecula Creek, as well as portions of Murrieta Creek and Pechanga Creek. Directly abutting the review area are residential and commercial developments to the north, south, and east, a golf course to the south, and undeveloped land to the west and southwest. Temecula Creek drains into Santa Margarita River, which flows directly to the Pacific Ocean (a Traditional Navigable Water). Temecula Creek generally conveys flow in a westerly direction, becoming Santa Margarita River at the confluence of Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek in the western portion of the review area (Figure 3). Pechanga Creek conveys flow in a northerly direction and drains into Temecula Creek in the center portion of the review area. The review area is within the Long Canyon-Murrieta Creek Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watershed (HUC 12 180703020407) and the Pechanga Creek — Temecula Creek HUC watershed (HUC 12 180703020302) (USGS 2023b). The NWI shows mapped Freshwater Emergent Wetlands, Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetlands, and Riverine features in the review area (Figure 4). Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Resources at the Temecula Creek Project 9 T0n7ecu�aG i i � i o I I V i r �J fs� 4r ' 3 Project Area NHDPIus Flowlines Riverside County, CA 0 800 1 t,uu r J Review Area (100-ft Buffer) • Stream/River - Intermittent NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N Feet Meters 33.4747'N 117.1278oW 0 250 500 — - Stream/River - Perennial — Stream/River - Ephemeral N — Artificial Path n Pipeline - Aqueduct N Underground Base Map.' Esri ArcGIS Online. accessed October 2023 Updated: 10/23/2023 1 22,000 Project No. 74976 Layout: 74976_AR_NHD ]�� Aprx: JV\Y/ SW 74976CityofreeculaC WPP_ARE m ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Figure 3. NHD desktop data. 5 Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Resources at the Temecula Creek Project SgNTiAGO LOLITA Rp O O � O s I � •s 14 , \ � S Project Area Riverside County, CA o Soo 1,50o r j Review Area (100-ft Buffer) NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N 33.4747°N 117.1278oW Feet Meters 0 250 500 NWI Wetland Type Freshwater Emergent Wetland N Freshwater Forested/Shrub A Wetland Freshwater Pond Base Map.: ESnArcGIS Online, accessed October2023 1 22,000 Riverine Updated: 10/23/2023 Project No.74976 Layout 74976_AR_NWI [�� ]� %� Aprx: J V \♦/ 74976CityofTerueculaC WPP_ARE L/••�1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Figure 4. NWI desktop data. I Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Resources at the Temecula Creek Project Vegetation consists of a mixture of dense riparian woodland, riparian scrub, upland plant communities, and ruderal communities. A few freshwater marshes dominated by cattail (Typha spp.) and bulrush (Schoenoplectus spp.) also occur on -site. Vegetation Communities Approximately 26 Vegetation Communities/Associations and Land Cover Types were previously identified by SWCA in the review area, including nine vegetation communities associated with wetlands and riparian habitats. Vegetation alliances were mapped following methods and conventions from A Manual of California Vegetation Online (California Native Plant Society 2023). Of the 26 communities, the following wetland and riparian vegetation communities were mapped: Arroyo Willow Thickets (Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance), Cattail Marshes (Typha (angustifolia, domingensis, latifolia) Herbaceous Alliance), Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland (Populus fremontii - Fraxinus velutina — Salix gooddingii Forest & Woodland Alliance), Gooding's Willow — Red Willow Riparian Woodland and Forest (Salix gooddingii - Salix laevigata Forest & Woodland Alliance), Hardstem and California Bulrush Marshes (Schoenoplectus (acutus, californicus) Herbaceous Alliance), Mulefat Thickets (Baccharis salicifolia Shrubland Alliance), Nodding Beggartickes — Western Godlentop — Marsh Seedbox Mudflats (Bidens cernua - Euthamia occidentalis - Ludwigia palustris Herbaceous Alliance), Sandbar Willow Thickets (Salix exigua Shrubland Alliance), and Tamarisk Thickets (Tamarix spp. Shrubland Semi - Natural Alliance). Landcover Types identified include Open Water, Unvegetated Streambed, Developed, and Disturbed. For more information regarding vegetation communities identified on -site, including all vegetation community associations and upland vegetation communities, please refer to the draft Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the City of Temecula Community Wildlife Protection Program being prepared by SWCA. Critical Habitat No USFWS-designated critical habitat for federally listed species overlaps or is immediately adjacent to the review area. The nearest designated critical habitat is for San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) and coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), located approximately 0.5 mile northwest and 0.5 mile southwest, respectively, of the review area. RESULTS Weather Weather during the October 9, 2023, survey was warm with generally clear skies. The temperature ranged between 90 and 100 degrees Fahrenheit, with calm winds between 0 and 5 miles per hour. Conditions were ideal for performing visual surveys of the review area. Aquatic Resources In total, six aquatic resource features (17O1-1706) were estimated and mapped in the review area: three named drainages —Temecula Creek (17O1), Pechanga Creek (1702), and Murrieta Creek (F03)—and three unnamed drainages (F04—F06) (Figure 5). F04 and F05 drain into FO1 in the east -central portion of the review area. F06 drains into F03 near the northwestern limits of the review area. Site conditions support flowing and standing or ponded water in several locations. Soils were mostly sandy and loamy with some clayey and silty textures. 7 Assessment ofAauatic Resources at the Temecula Creek 1 ;:�•!Ar ♦ t ♦�.../ s �� ,��——�����^, �,.►�—�� ice' � p 1 ateat aC � � P��ee�k� PP09P11PPOSz__PP06 PP02 PP03 F01 i------r,; �f PP01 gay,` PP08 PP10" I PP07 —_1 a . PP04 ' W SP03 SP02 1" 102 ; CITY OF TEMECULA CWPP Project Area Riverside County. CA 0 .00 1200 NAD 1983 StatePlane California Feet I_ j Review Area (100-ft Buffer) A FIPS O406 Feet Meters Preliminary Estimates 33.4747°N117.1278°W 0 150 300 Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Aquatic Resources _ Centerline N • Wetland Determination Sample Point (SP) n O Photo Point (PP) Base Map: Esn ArcGlS Online. N ®Streambed Associated Riparian Habitat accessed 1.15,000 and p d:10/2October2023 Updated: 10/23/2023 0 Upland Vegetation Communities Project No. 74976 c f� 74976_AR_PrelimMLayout apping SwC /� Aprx: L 74976CityoffemeculaCWPP_ARE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Figure 5. Preliminary estimates of aquatic resources. Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Resources at the Temecula Creek Project Based on conditions and connectivity in the watershed, Features FO1 through F06 are expected to be jurisdictional aquatic resources under programs administered by the USACE Los Angeles District, the Water Board's Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the CDFW. Hydrological indicators, such as sediment deposits, surface soil cracking, drift deposits, and changes in vegetation composition were used to approximate an OHWM center line. Exact OHWM boundaries were not mapped during the field survey. Potential CDFW jurisdictional resources were mapped on figures using previously collected vegetation community data for the riparian habitat. Three wetland determination sampling plots (SPO1—SP03) were examined and recorded on datasheets (Table 1; see Exhibit B) where potential wetlands were expected. SP01 was examined in the low -flow channel of FO 1 near the eastern limits of the review area. SPO1 exhibited a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology; however, soils did not meet any hydric soil indicator. Wetland hydrology observed at SPO1 included surface water and a water table at a depth of 2 inches below the surface. SP02 was also examined in the low -flow channel of FO1 immediately west of the confluence of FO 1 and F02. SP02 did not exhibit any of the three wetland parameters. SP03 was examined adjacent to a golf course located in a disturbed portion of the FO1 streambed. SP03 exhibited wetland hydrology; however, soils did not meet any hydric soil indicator. Due to the prevalence of nonnative species and proximity to the golf course, vegetation was determined to be problematic at SP03. Table 1. Wetland Determination Sampling Plots Hydrologic Hydric Soil Hydrophytic Wetland/ Geographic Plot Indicators Indicator Vegetation Non -wetland Relative Plot Location Coordinate Indicator Result SP01 Yes No Yes Non -wetland Streambed of Temecula Creek, 33.4734 N, 117.114 W in the eastern limits of the review area SP02 No No No Non -wetland Streambed of Temecula Creek; 33.4729 N, 117.13 W west of the confluence of Pechanga Creek and Temecula Creek SP03 Yes No Yes Non -wetland Streambed of Temecula Creek; 33.4732 N, 17.135 W adjacent to golf course DISCUSSION Six jurisdictional features (FO1—F06) within the review area are presumed to be regulated by the USACE, Water Board, and CDFW. As a result, regulated impacts within the project area may require USACE permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and/or Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and Section 1600 (Lake and Streambed Alternation) of the California Fish and Game Code. Other considerations associated with permitting include evaluating potential direct and indirect effects on federally listed endangered and/or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (Section 7), nesting birds protected under Migratory Bird Treaty Act, a consistency analysis in accordance with the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and consideration of impacts to cultural and historic resources under the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). 0 Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Resources at the Temecula Creek Project LITERATURE CITED California Native Plant Society. 2023. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Available at: http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/. Accessed October 2023. Google Earth. 2023. Watersheds. Available at: https:Hearth.google.com/web/search /33.473550N,+117.1327°W/. Accessed October 2023 Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2023. USDA Web Soil Survey. Available at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed August 2023. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. Version 2.0.2008. Edited by J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR 08-28. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 2008b. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carbell v. United States. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/ files/2016-02/documents/cwa_jurisdiction following _rapanosI20208.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023a. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed August 2023. 2023b. USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. Available at: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/. Accessed June 2023. U.S Geological Service (USGS). 2023a. National Hydrography Dataset. Available at: http s://www.usgs. gov/national-hydrography/national-hydrography-dataset?qt- science_support page related_con=0#qt-science support page_related_con. Accessed October 2023. 2023b. National Watershed Boundary Dataset. Available at: ftp://rockyftp.cr.usgs.gov/ vdelivery/Datasets/Staged/Hydrography/WBD/National/GDB/. Accessed October 2023. 10 EXHIBIT A Survey Photographs Photograph A-1. Overview of eastern (upstream) portion of Temecula Creek, facing north. Photograph A-2. OHWM limits of Temecula Creek adjacent to an island terrace with riparian vegetation; view facing south. A-1 Photograph A-3. Island terrace with sandy soils and riparian vegetation; no OHWM indicators observed; view facing west. Photograph A-4. Downstream view of OHWM southern boundary, facing northwest. A-2 �b I- 1 .��►: s'i :��. � 1.. � R�'.r..,,7�!� tr! .! �`:r� . �• .,� g•]`•rb°� : �$,: +r� �a.�''^g�:�.+'- •; °=.i• ' _ v . it :�y =ys�a.. �. J`.�'`'�; �;,'�� - _ .0 �' � , � ` • :._ 4 ' .�• _ •fix .•�. �. '� .j .. ,� �T`i;t�;���• ,s" ,.. r r;., :"} sx' ..s• ''� r";..'. s `�>°'i;':'�^' ,� !r" ,f, �r �. �s.d. `F^�¢''• J OR I 1 y� .aui •:. 7 5 5` 6s '.S 'iS' ,y�.ptT' �,�>. r'�P•r r��su �_'!'-�:'�� .;rJ!aft'g•• s-�::. Y �`' -'i• a ye,�, a �'t w ''J%°__.SSJ ., . i'.r;""; ol •�'x' ;'x,-• Fib ,:: F' W:. a r� t N a. ,'� Y' , I w '� .,i,,.\N - Y' - ^ `r y ,!.'•i�•',�`$S-. e��pg�.:-.Y y'.} �." :i a ��: � r, r tom..,.: :� •j /�`-r�,r. ��` � .. .ter_-.�,j;}`•s: .i •; _ '��::'y ��- S 1 • Key ' -' -' �l - ~• •- 'dam C '�'�" -- � `i1• ;ijv y. ,� y, { �' � :� ti Photograph A-6. Upstream example of perennial flow; view facing southeast. i j 3�` �� •kJ �6 3 ?�Y r i a Wit: 1 - 4i'All Photograph A-7. Example of freshwater pond with cattail and duckweed (Lemna sp.); view facing north. A-4 Photograph A-8. Interface of golf course and Temecula Creek; view facing west. Photograph A-9. View of SP01. A-5 f .......... Photograph A-11. View of SP03. ,*C A-7 W:I:II:1ki=3 Datasheets WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Arid West Region Project/Site: Temecula City/County: Temecula/Riverside County Sampling Date: 10/09/2023 Applicant/Owner. City State: CA Sampling Point: 01 Investigator(s): Bonnie And Luis Section, Township, Range: Sea 00 T8S R2W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Channel Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): <5% Subregion (LRR): LRR C Lot: 33.4734 Long:-117.114 Datum: WGS1984 Soil Map Unit Name: GuB - Grangeville fine sandy loam, poorly drained, saline-alk ali, 0 to 5 percent N WI classification: R4SBA slopes Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes: X No: Hydric Soil Present? Yes: No: X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland. Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes: X No: Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum, (Plot size: 30) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: 0/6 Cover Species? Status 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4 0 -Total Cover Percent of Domant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum: (Plot size:, Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Baccharis salicifolia 20 Y LAC 2. Salix laevigata 1 N FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 25 x 1 = 25 3. 4. FACWspecies 1 x2- 2 5. LAC species 20 x 3 - 60 21 -Total Cover EACH species 31 x4= 124 UPL species 0 x5= 0 Herb Stratum: (Plot size: 3 Column Totals: 77 (A) 211 (B) 1. Melilotus indices 30 Y FACU Prevalence Index - B/A- 2.74 2. Persicana antolia 25 Y OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3. Heliotropium curassavicum 1 N FACU 4. X Dominance Test is >50% 5. X Prevalence Index is S3.0' 6. 7 _ Morphological Adaptations' (Profice supporting 8 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 56 -Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woody Vine Stratum: (Plot size:) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Hydrophytic tic 0 -Total Cover Vegetatio tation Present? Yes X No Bare Ground in Herb Strattm 40 %Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West -Version 2.0 B-1 SOIL Sampling Point: 01 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Lee Texture Remarks 0-0.5 SY 3!2 100 0 Clay Loam 0.5-12 SYR 4!3 100 0 Sand 12-16 10V 4/1 100 0 Loamy Sand 1Type: C=Con centra[ion, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS -Covered or Coaled Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _Sandy Redox (SS) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) _ Black Histic (A3) _Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _Reduced Vertic (F18) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Stratified Layers (AS) (LRR C) _Depleted Matrix (F3) _Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) _Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Depressions (F8) 31ndicators of hyd rophyfic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary indicators (2 or more required); X Surface Water (A1) _Sal[ Crust (B11) _Water Marks (131) (Riverine) X High Water Table (A2) _Biotic Crust (B12) _Sediment Deposits (132) (Riverine) X Saturaton (A3) _Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) _ Water Marks (131) (Nonriverine) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Sediment Deposits (132) (Nonriverine) _Oxidized Rhiz ospheres along Living Roots (CS) _Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Drift Deposits (133) (Nonriverine) _Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (DS) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0.25 Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 2 Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks B-2 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Arid West Region Project/Site: Temecula City/County: Temecula/Riverside County Sampling Date: 10/09/2023 Applicant/Owner. City State: CA Sampling Point: 02 Investigator(s): Bonnie And Luis Section, Township, Range: Sea 00 T8S R2W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Channel Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): <5% Subregion (LRR): LRR C Lot: 33.4729 Long:-117.13 Datum: WGS1984 Soil Map Unit Name: RsC - Riverwash NWl classification: PFOC Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes: No: X Hydric Soil Present? Yes: No: X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland. Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes: No: X Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum:(Plot size: 30) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Cover Species? Status 1. Tamarixramosissima 10 Y UPL Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. 3, Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4 10 -Total Cover Percent of Dormant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum: (Plot size:, Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Bacchads salicifolia 70 Y FAC 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 3. 4. FACW species 0 x2= 0 5. FAC species 90 x 3 = 270 70 -Total Cover EACH species 14 x 4 = 56 UPL species 10 x5= 50 Herb Stratum: (Plot size: Column Totals: 114 (A) 376 (B) 1. Artemisia douglasiana 20 Y LAC Prevalence Index = B/A= 3.30 2. Ambrosia psilostachya 10 Y FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3. Erigeron canadensis 4 N EACH 4. Dominance Test is >50% 5. Prevalence Index is <3.01 6. Morphological Adaptations' (Profice supporting 7 8 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 34 -Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woody. Vine Stratum: (Plot size:) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Hydrophytic 0 -Total Cover Vegetation Present? Yes No X Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West -Version 2.0 B-3 SOIL Sampling Point: 02 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Lee Texture Remarks 0-4 2.5Y 4/2 100 0 Loamy Sand 4-16 2.5Y 4/2 100 0 Sand 1Type: C=Con centra[ion, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS -Covered or Coaled Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _Sandy Redox (SS) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) _ Black Histic (A3) _Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _Reduced Vertic (F18) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Stratified Layers (AS) (LRR C) _Depleted Matrix (F3) _Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) _Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Depressions (F8) 31ndicators of hyd rophyfic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary indicators (2 or more required); _ Surface Water (A1) _Sal[ Crust (B11) _Water Marks (131) (Riverine) _ High Water Table (A2) _Biotic Crust (B12) _Sediment Deposits (132) (Riverine) _ Saturation (A3) _Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _Drift Deposits (33) (Riverine) _ Water Marks (131) (Nonriverine) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Sediment Deposits (132) (Nonriverine) _Oxidized Rhiz ospheres along Living Roots (C3) _Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Drift Deposits (33) (Nonriverine) _Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks B-4 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Arid West Region Project/Site: Temecula City/County: Temecula/Riverside County Sampling Date: 10/09/2023 Applicant/Owner. City State: CA Sampling Point: 03 Investigator(s): Bonnie And Luis Section, Township, Range: Sea 00 T8S R2W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Channel Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): <5% Subregion (LRR): LRR C Lot: 33.4732 Long:-117.135 Datum: WGS1984 Soil Map Unit Name: RsC - Riverwash NWl classification: No Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes: X No: Hydric Soil Present? Yes: No: X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland. Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes: X No: Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum: (Plot size: 30) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Cover Species? Status 1 Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) 2. 3, Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4 0 -Total Cover Percent of Dormant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum: (Plot size:, Prevalence Index worksheet: 1, 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 3. 4. FACW species 2 x2= 4 5. FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 0 -Total Cover EACH species 95 x 4 = 380 UPL species 1 x5= 5 Herb Stratum: (Plot size: Column Totals: 98 (A) 389 (B) 1. CVnodon dactVlon 95 Y EACH Prevalence Index = B/A= 3.97 2. Pluchea odorata 2 N FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3. Rumexaguaticus 1 N UPL 4. Dominance Test is >50% 5. Prevalence Index is <3.01 6. Morphological Adaptations' (Profice supporting 7 8 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 98 -Total Cover X Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woody. Vine Stratum: (Plot size:) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. Hydrophytic 0 -Total Cover Vegetation Present? Yes X No Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 _ Remarks: Golf course adjacent US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West -Version 2.0 B-5 SOIL Sampling Point: 03 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Lee Texture Remarks 0-2 2.5Y 4/2 100 0 Loamy Sand 2-4 SY 3!2 90 SYR 3/3 10 C MP Silty Clay Muck Loam 4-16 SY 2.5/2 100 0 SiltyClay 'Type: GCon centra[ion, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS -Covered or Coaled Sand Grains. zLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: _ Histosol (Al) _Sandy Redox (SS) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) _ His[ic Epipedon (A2) _Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) _ Black His[ic (A3) _Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _Reduced Vertic (1`18) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Stratified Layers (AS) (LRR C) _Depleted Matrix (F3) _Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) _Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Depressions (F8) 31ndicators of hyd rophyfic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Cloyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary indicators (2 or more required); _ Surface Water (A1) _Salt Crust (B11) _Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) _ High Water Table (A2) _Biotic Crust (B12) _Sediment Deposits (132) (Riverine) X Saturaton (A3) _Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _Drift Deposits (133) (Riverine) _ Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Sediment Deposits (132) (Nonriverine) X Oxidized Rhiz ospheres along Living Roots (C3) _Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Drift Deposits (33) (Nonriverine) _Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (139) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 2 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks B-6 APPENDIX B Cultural Resources B. Cultural Resources CRITICAL ISSUES ANALYSIS REPORT A cultural resources critical issues analysis (CIA) was conducted to disclose information on known cultural resources within the project area and assess potential risks to those resources that may occur during implementation of the CWPP. This CIA is a preliminary cultural resources study aimed at the identification of potential critical issues and does not satisfy technical study requirements that may be required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The full CIA report is included as Attachment B.1. B-1 ATTACHMENT B.1 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan JANUARY 2024 PREPARED FOR City of Temecula Department of Development PREPARED BY SWCA Environmental Consultants CULTURAL RESOURCES CRITICAL ISSUES ANALYSIS FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA - TEMECULA CREEK COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN Prepared for City of Temecula Department of Development 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Attn: Mark Collins, Assistant Planner Prepared by Aaron Elzinga, M.A., RPA, Susan Zamudio-Gurrola, M.H.P., and David Sayre, B.A. Principal Investigators John J. Eddy, M.A., RPA, and Garret Root, M.A. SWCA Environmental Consultants 320 North Halstead Street Pasadena, California 91107 (626) 240-0587 www.swca.com SWCA Project No. 74976 SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 24-5 January 2024 Keywords: CEQA; cultural resources; critical issues analysis (CIA); Luiseno; City of Temecula; Riverside County; Township 8 South, Range 3 West, Sections 13 and 24 (USGS Temecula, California, quadrangle) and Township 8 South, Range 2 West, Sections 17-20 (Pechanga, California, quadrangle) Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Purpose and Scope: The City of Temecula is developing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) for 177 acres of land along sections of Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, and Pechanga Creek from approximately the terminus of Temecula Parkway at the northwest end to the Saint Thomas of Canterbury Episcopal Church at the east end (project area). The purpose of the CWPP is to reduce the risk of wildfire in the wildland-urban interface area containing sensitive resources that abuts residential and commercial development in the city of Temecula, California. This would occur through fuels reduction focused on the removal of nonnative species, and to a lesser degree, native vegetation where there is an especially high risk of wildfire. The CWPP may allow small handheld mechanical equipment (e.g., mowers and/or brush cutters) for fuels reduction; large machinery typically deployed during vegetation removal, surface grubbing, or grading will not be utilized. The CWPP proposes no earth moving, and the plan is being designed to prioritize avoidance of sensitive environmental resources to the greatest extent practicable. SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) prepared this critical issues analysis (CIA) at the request of the City of Temecula. The purpose of the CIA is to disclose information on known cultural resources within the project area and assess potential risks to those resources that may occur during implementation of the CWPP. This CIA is a preliminary cultural resources study aimed at the identification of potential critical issues and does not satisfy technical study requirements that may be required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). SWCA completed a confidential records search of the local branch of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) I located on the campus of the University of California, Riverside; a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) through the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC); and archival research. The results of the records search and archival research were used to evaluate the likelihood of encountering unreported and/or buried archaeological and historical resources within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Dates of Investigation: On April 13, 2023, SWCA requested a search of the CHRIS at the South Central Coastal Information System (SCCIC), located on the campus of California State University, Fullerton. SWCA received the results on August 24, 2023. The results of the SLF search were received from the NAHC on April 27, 2023, with a list of 18 tribes to contact. Subsequently, SWCA sent coordination letters to the interested tribes seeking additional information on cultural resources that may exist in the vicinity of the CWPP project area. Responses to the request for information have not yet been received. In addition to the records and SLF searches, SWCA conducted a desktop review of available contemporary and historic maps, aerial images, quadrangles, and available Riverside County Assessor parcel data. This archival research focused on assessing the general sequence of historic -era development within the project area and identifying any natural, built, or other resources that may have previously existed within the project area. Aerial images and maps were used to assess the potential for previously unrecorded built environment or archaeological resources to be present on the surface of the project area. Summary of Findings: Records on file at the Eastern Information Center at the University of California in Riverside, California, indicate that nine previously recorded cultural resources are within the project area: the Murrieta Canyon Archaeological District (P-33-011443), three pre -contact sites (RIV-50, RIV-270, and RIV-365) recorded as contributing elements of that district, two multicomponent 1 The CHRIS assigns primary and trinomial site numbers to all archaeological sites, which will be referenced herein first by their trinomial number and, for ease of reference, will exclude the "CA-" prefix. Sites that are not assigned a trinomial are referenced by their primary number. Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan archaeological sites with both pre -contact and historic -era remains (RIV-3410H and RIV-4707H), an additional pre -contact site (P-33-011222), a pre -contact isolated find (P-33-025246), and a historic -era bridge (P-33-013135) that is no longer extant. The Murrieta Canyon Archaeological District and the three contributing pre -contact sites within the project area appear to be either listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and/or local historical registers. Twenty-one previously recorded cultural resources were identified outside of the project area within a 0.5-mile radius of the project: 18 pre -contact archaeological sites and three historic -era cultural resources. The SLF search indicated that the project area is positive for sacred Native American cultural resources and recommended consultation with the Pechanga Band of Indians. SWCA archaeologists familiar with the project area identified the Luiseno Ancestral Origin Landscape, a tribal cultural resource (TCR) and NRHP-listed property, as the possible sacred Native American resource identified by the NAHC. The Luiseflo Ancestral Origin Landscape encompasses the entire project area and is one of the most sacred landscapes to the Luiseno people and the location of culturally significant events associated with creation of all things at `exva Temeeku, linking surviving Luiseno populations to their ancestors, including the first people, the Kdamalam. Tribal members have previously indicated that the project area is sensitive not only for TCRs, but also for its spiritual significance to current tribal members as continuum with their past. According to the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment conducted by ICF International (ICF) (2023:2-43, 2-44), tribal representatives specifically pointed out the confluence of Murrieta and Temecula Creeks and the surrounding canyons, including Rainbow Canyon and Pechanga Creek. In response to SWCA's request for information, Paul Macarro (Cultural Coordinator, Pechanga Band of Indians) wrote on January 27, 2024, that "for any project, there is not a more culturally sensitive - span in our entire Ancestral Territory." Furthermore, the tribe reserves its "rights to participate in the formal environmental review process, including government -to -government consultation with the Lead Agency, and requests to be included in all correspondence regarding this Project" (Macarro 2024) (Exhibit B). While residential, commercial, and infrastructure development nearly completely encircles the project, the project area itself has not been extensively developed. As such, it is possible that new surficial and buried archaeological resources associated with Native American land use is present in the project area. SWCA considers the entire project area to have a very high sensitivity for pre -contact, Native American affiliated archaeological resources. Archival research noted at least nine roads that transected or intersected the project area dating to the early twentieth century (before 1940), and additional roads and a gauging station at the northwest corner of the project area dating to the late 1940s. However, no extant buildings or structures appear to be located within the project area. The likelihood of encountering new historic -era archaeological resources such as trash deposits, privies, structural remains, etc., in the identified areas of historical interest is considered moderate. Outside these areas of historic interest, the project area remained vacant and undeveloped, and as such, the likelihood of encountering historic -era archaeological resources in remaining portions of the project area is considered low. Impacts to sensitive archaeological resources and TCRs (including the above -mentioned resources and any, as of yet, unidentified resources) have not been determined to date because focused surveys within the project area were not authorized at this time and responses/input from interested tribes have not yet been received. Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) encroachment permit(s) may be required if work occurs within Caltrans' right-of-way along Interstate 15. This interstate, which crosses through the project area, was constructed in the 1970s but is likely exempt from evaluation (Property Type 6) under Attachment 4 of the First Amended Caltrans Section 106 Programmatic Agreement. Recommendations: The CWPP is an action that must comply with CEQA. Should the project qualify for CEQA coverage by tiering from the California Vegetation Treatment Program (Ca1VTP) Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), or if a new Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is required, it is recommended that cultural and tribal resources assessments/technical studies be prepared. Therefore, SWCA recommends a focused archaeological survey, performed by qualified archaeologists and Native American tribal representatives, to identify previously unknown cultural resources, assess the current condition of previously recorded cultural resources, and assess impacts to cultural resources and TCRs within the project area. An intensive archaeological survey will help provide the basis for the development of effective protection measures for cultural resources within the treatment area(s). The project also requires an offer of tribal consultation from the City of Temecula under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Public Resources Code 21080.3.1), as well as formal government -to -government consultation. Tribal participation in any archaeological survey is anticipated, and tribal input and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) should be incorporated in the development of any protection measures and taken into consideration prior to the removal of native species. Participation of and consultation with the local Native American community is crucial to the effective identification and protection of cultural resources within the CWPP area (City of Temecula 2005). Native American participation is required for all levels of future investigations in the CWPP planning area, including those areas that have been previously developed, unless additional information can be provided to demonstrate that the property has been graded to a point where no cultural resources would be impacted. Areas that have not been previously developed should be surveyed to determine the potential for historical resources to be encountered and whether additional evaluation is required. All invasive and nonnative plant —removal methods should be designed to minimize potential impacts to cultural resources, and excavation of root mass is not recommended. Low -impact fuels reduction approaches should be designed with assistance from Pechanga Band members and should minimize ground disturbance to the extent possible. TEK should be integrated into the revegetation components of the fuels reduction efforts. Culturally significant plant species, such as yerba mansa (Anemopsis californica; Luiseno word is Chevnash), rush (Juncus sp., Luiseno word is Shoila), deer grass (Muhlenbergia rigens; Luiseno word is Yulalac), and others, should be discussed with Pechanga Band members and be incorporated into project implementation plans. If an IS/MND or EIR is needed, tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 would also be required. A paleontological records search and desktop analysis should also be performed. Impacts to paleontological and cultural resources will be determined once a project description of sufficient detail to quantify impacts is available. Once a detailed project description is available, a paleontological assessment is performed, tribal input has been shared/received, and the surveys have been conducted, impacts can be adequately identified and quantified, and appropriate mitigation can be determined. Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan CONTENTS Introduction................................................................................................................................................. I ProjectLocation..................................................................................................................................... I RegulatorySetting...................................................................................................................................... 5 StateRegulations.................................................................................................................................... 5 California Environmental Quality Act............................................................................................. 5 California Register of Historical Resources..................................................................................... 7 Treatment of Human Remains......................................................................................................... 8 LocalRegulations................................................................................................................................... 8 Methods........................................................................................................................................................ 9 California Historical Resources Information System Records Search ................................................... 9 SacredLands File Search..................................................................................................................... 10 ArchivalResearch................................................................................................................................ 10 Results........................................................................................................................................................ 10 CHRISRecords Search........................................................................................................................ 11 Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies......................................................................... 11 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources....................................................................................... 17 NativeAmerican Coordination................................................................................................................ 22 SacredLands File Search..................................................................................................................... 22 Native American Contact Results........................................................................................................ 22 DesktopReview................................................................................................................................... 26 Initial Sensitivity Assessment............................................................................................................... 35 References.................................................................................................................................................. 38 Exhibits Exhibit A. CONFIDENTIAL —California Historical Resources Information System Records Search Results Exhibit B. Sacred Lands File Search Results iv Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Figures Figure1. Project vicinity............................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Project site plotted on a 2020 aerial photograph........................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Project location plotted on the USGS Temecula and Pechanga, California, 7.5-minute quadrangles................................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 4. Project area plotted on a map of Native American and historical sites published by the Southwest Museum (1962) and re -printed in Johnston(1962)................................................ 28 Figure 5. Project site plotted on 1901 USGS San Luis Rey and Lake Elsinore, California, 30-minute topographic quadrangles.......................................................................................................... 29 Figure 6. Project site plotted on 1948 USGS Temecula and 1949 USGS Pechanga, California, 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles........................................................................................ 30 Figure 7. Project site plotted on 1968 USGS Temecula and Pechanga, California, 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles.......................................................................................................... 31 Figure 8. Project site plotted on aerial photographs from 1939 (top) and 1947 (bottom) ........................... 33 Figure 9. Project site plotted on aerial photographs from 1962 (top) and 1976 (bottom) ........................... 34 Tables Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within 0.5 Mile of the Project Area ................................... 11 Table 2. Previously Recorded Resources within 0.5 Mile of the Project Area ........................................... 18 Table 3. Native American Scoping Record for the City of Temecula Community Wildfire ProtectionPlan Project*........................................................................................................... 23 v Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan INTRODUCTION The City of Temecula is developing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) for 177 acres of land along sections of Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, and Pechanga Creek from approximately the terminus of Temecula Parkway at the northwest end to the Saint Thomas of Canterbury Episcopal Church at the east end (project area). The purpose of the CWPP is to reduce the risk of wildfire in the wildland-urban interface area, which contains sensitive resources and abuts residential and commercial development in the city of Temecula, California. This would occur through fuels reduction focused on the removal of nonnative species and, to a lesser degree, native vegetation where there is an especially high risk of wildfire. The CWPP may allow small handheld mechanical equipment (e.g., mowers and/or brush cutters) for fuel reduction; large machinery typically deployed during vegetation removal, surface grubbing, or grading will not be utilized. The CWPP proposes no earth moving, and the plan is being designed to prioritize avoidance of sensitive environmental resources to the greatest extent practicable. SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) prepared this critical issues analysis (CIA) at the request of the City of Temecula. The purpose of the CIA is to disclose information on known cultural resources within the project area and assess potential risks to those resources that may occur during implementation of the CWPP. This CIA is a preliminary cultural resources study aimed at the identification of potential critical issues and does not satisfy technical study requirements that may be required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Given the very high sensitivity for pre -contact archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources (TCRs), it is unlikely that the project would qualify for a CEQA Exemption (Statutory Exemption [pursuant to Article 18 of the State CEQA Guidelines — Section 21083] or Categorical Exemption [Article 19 — Section 21084] of the California Public Resources Code [PRC]). However, because portions of the Temecula Creek CWPP area are within the California Vegetation Treatment Program (CaIVTP) Treatable Landscape and include covered treatment activities (i.e., wildland-urban interface fuel reduction) the project would likely qualify for CEQA coverage by tiering from the CaIVTP Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). It is anticipated that cultural and tribal resources technical studies will be required under CEQA, and possibly under NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA in the event of a federal nexus. These technical studies would be prepared and included as a CaIVTP PEIR addendum. SWCA archaeologists Aaron Elzinga, M.A., Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), and David Sayre, B.A., as well as SWCA architectural historian Susan Zamudio-Gurrola, M.H.P., prepared the report, under the direction of Principal Investigator John J. Eddy, M.A., RPA. Copies of the report are on file with SWCA's Pasadena office and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California in Riverside, California. Project Location The project is in the City of Temecula in southwestern Riverside County, California. It is immediately south of Temecula Parkway/State Route 79 and intersects a portion of Interstate 15 on the west (Figure 1— Figure 3). Specifically, the project site is depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS's) 7.5-minute Temecula, California, quadrangle in Sections 13 and 14, Township 8 South, Range 3 West and on the Pechanga, California, quadrangle in Sections 17-20, Township 8 South, Range 2 West (see Figure 3). Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan t A K EV If W Soboba MOUNTAINS Reservation / � Hemet � y * � Sun City ft ROUSE R �-1y : ake Elsinore C NA N Wildomar 79 + N Z c 1 x Y Mur`�a / � = — � 5`ao4 Temecula SAN MATED Ik _ CANYON 1 79 SANTA f t g Pecha nga � .t Reservation ♦ AVER ARGARITA �["� OUNTAINS it 4342ft � 'j. SAN UI EN t9a��aR / FalI brook I AGUA TIBIA ](MOUNTAIN` �I Camp - M F PAEOMAR Pendleton / Marine Corps Base C - I� MOUNTAIN � S Reservation;ft \ 76 La Jolla -J--reservation li Valley Center - Oceanside, _ Vista OAT HIdiS • Carlsbad Project Location RivCounty CA NAO 19n LfT 83 U7M Zone SSN 1 FeCE O County Boundary 3703926N m 986122E m �Merers 0 3,9W 6,Ooo N A wsa uav: eanAmcls omma. 1:300,000 a Upd.1 ecambar2oz9 UptlaEed12/2012023 SWCA Layout. 7A91fi_TemerulaCN1PP PIojV�c FHVIRONMENTinL CONSYLTAHES Figure 1. Project vicinity. Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan 17-1 Project Bounde ry Riverside County, CA o InI,oao USGS Z5' Quadrangle: Fee, Temecula, CA, 33T17-D2 MM"—Me"' Pechanga, CA, 33117-01 0 100 200 T85 R3W Section 24 TSS VW Section 04-09, N 15-22,2IIN A NAO 1983 UTM Zone 11N N 3703926N m 488122E m 1:16,500 Bese Map: EsnArcG150nllne, C e .U'd—en,ee,aoza SWCA Updatetl:iZ9912023 Proian No. 79076 La t74076_Te—11CWPP_Aenal rMVI—EM7MCOM5YLMM,s Figure 2. Project site plotted on a 2020 aerial photograph. 3 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan � a aim ; - r_ �� 1 1 ) a t�I .~_ rnieC Gdf y CCMUGolf l ip su F� -J_ _. •Y4, 1 iti . Course � . �. / �"/� � f� ` �1``\ 1 \ t 44 it �• � �.. V W lam I ti 4 RBS. VATIOI��i 17-1 Project Boundar 1 Y Riverside County, CA U5GS Z5' Quadrangle: 0 1000 20W r — Township I Range Boundary Temecula, CA, 33117-D2 Pechnga, CA, 33117-D1 �Meaers 0 25e aO - USGS Quadrangle Boundary T85 ft3W Sect€on 13,29 Tas R2W Section 17-2o N NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N 3703926N m 988122E m A N ee.,e MeP: es�gr=�as amnia. a e.ssed December 2023 1:24,000 updated: 1-12— Protect No.-78 Layout 74978_7--e CWPP_P'o Loc JW(lVS ■ CA lagROMMPN7nLcaMsu TS Figure 3. Project location plotted on the USGS Temecula and Pechanga, California, 7.5-minute quadrangles. Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Directly abutting the project area is primarily residential and commercial development to the north, south, and east; a golf course to the south; and undeveloped land to the west and southwest. The project area is situated along sections of Temecula Murrieta and Pechanga Creeks from approximately the terminus of Temecula Parkway at the northwest end to the Saint Thomas of Canterbury Episcopal Church at the east end. Several conservation easements are included within the project area, and the area is in proximity to other protected areas. Surrounding land use is mostly residential with a mixture of commercial and institutional properties. The project area itself remains mostly undeveloped. REGULATORY SETTING This section identifies regulations, state legislation, and local statutes, ordinances, and guidelines that govern the identification and treatment of cultural resources and analysis of project -related effects to cultural resources. The lead agency must consider these requirements in making decisions on projects that may affect cultural resources. State Regulations The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), a division of the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), performs certain duties described in the PRC and maintains the California Historic Resources Inventory and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The state -level regulatory framework also includes CEQA, which requires the identification and mitigation, if necessary, of substantial adverse impacts that may affect the significance of eligible historical and archaeological resources. California Environmental Quality Act CEQA requires a lead agency to analyze whether historic and/or archaeological resources may be adversely affected by a proposed project. Under CEQA, a "project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment" (PRC 21084.1). This analysis involves a two-part process: first, the determination must be made whether the proposed project involves cultural resources. Second, if cultural resources are present, the proposed project must be analyzed for a potential "substantial adverse change in the significance" of the resource. HISTORICAL RESOURCES According to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5, for the purposes of CEQA, historical resources are defined as follows: ■ A resource listed in, or formally determined eligible ... for listing in the CRHR (PRC 5024.1, 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 4850 et seq.). ■ A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC 5020.1(k) or identified as significance in a historic resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC 5024.1(g). ■ Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that the lead agency determines to be eligible for national, state, or local landmark listing; generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be historically significant (and therefore a historic resource under CEQA) if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR (as defined in PRC 5024.1, 14 CCR 4852). 5 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to convey the reasons for their significance. Resources whose historic integrity (as defined above) does not meet National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. According to CEQA, the fact that a resource is not listed in or determined eligible for the CRHR or is not included in a local register or survey shall not preclude the lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource (PRC 5024.1). Pursuant to CEQA, a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[b]). Substantial Adverse Change and Indirect Impacts to Historical Resources CEQA Guidelines specify that a "substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired" (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5). Material impairment occurs when a project alters in an adverse manner or demolishes "those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion" or eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR, or local register. In addition, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2, the "direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects." ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES In terms of archaeological resources, PRC 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: (1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. (2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. (3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY BILL 52 Assembly Bill (AB) 52 amended PRC 5097.94 and added PRC 21073, 21074(a) and (b), 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3. AB 52 formalizes the lead agency —tribal consultation process, requiring the lead agency to initiate consultation with California Native American groups that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project, including tribes that may not be federally recognized. Lead agencies are required to begin consultation prior to the release of a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Section 4 of AB 52 adds Sections 21074(a) and (b) to the PRC, which address TCRs and cultural landscapes. PRC 21074(a) defines TCRs as one of the following: 1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR. Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1. 2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Section l (a)(9) of AB 52 establishes that "a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on the environment." Effects on TCRs should be considered under CEQA. Section 6 of AB 52 adds Section 21080.3.2 to the PRC, which states that parties may propose mitigation measures "capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource." Further, if a California Native American tribe requests consultation regarding project alternatives, mitigation measures, or significant effects on TCRs, the consultation shall include those topics (PRC 21080.3.2[a]). The environmental document and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (where applicable) shall include any mitigation measures that are adopted (PRC 21082.3[a]). California Register of Historical Resources Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is "an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state's historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change" (PRC 21083.2 and 21084.1). Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as significant in historical resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs, may be nominated for the CRHR. According to PRC 5024.1(c), a resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it meets one or more of the following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria. ■ Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. ■ Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in California's past. ■ Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. ■ Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to convey the reasons for their significance. Resources whose historic integrity does not meet NRHP criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. While all sites are evaluated according to all four of the CRHR criteria, the eligibility for archaeological resources is typically considered under Criterion 4. Most prehistoric archaeological sites are lacking identifiable or important association with specific persons or events of regional or national history (Criteria 1 and 2) or lack the formal and structural attributes necessary to qualify as eligible under Criterion 3. An archaeological site may be considered significant if it displays one or more of the following attributes: chronologically diagnostic, functionally diagnostic, or exotic artifacts; datable materials; definable 7 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan activity areas; multiple components; faunal or floral remains; archaeological or architectural features; notable complexity, size, integrity, time span, or depth; or stratified deposits. Determining the period(s) of occupation at a site provides a context for the types of activities undertaken and may supply a link with other sites and cultural processes in the region. Further, well-defined temporal parameters can help illuminate processes of culture change and continuity in relation to natural environmental factors and interactions with other cultural groups. Finally, chronological controls might provide a link to regionally important research questions and topics of more general theoretical relevance. As a result, the ability to determine the temporal parameters of a site's occupation is critical for a finding of eligibility under Criterion 4 (information potential). A site that cannot be dated is unlikely to possess the quality of significance required for CRHR eligibility or be considered a unique archaeological resource. The content of an archaeological site provides information regarding its cultural affiliations, temporal periods of use, functionality, and other aspects of its occupation history. The range and variability of artifacts present in the site can allow for reconstruction of changes in ethnic affiliation, diet, social structure, economics, technology, industrial change, and other aspects of culture. Treatment of Human Remains The disposition of burials falls first under the general prohibition on disturbing or removing human remains under California Health and Safety Code 7050.5. More specifically, remains suspected to be Native American are treated under CEQA at CCR 15064.5; PRC 5097.98 illustrates the process to be followed in the event that remains are discovered. If human remains are discovered during construction, no further disturbance to the site shall occur, and the County Coroner must be notified (CCR 15064.5 and PRC 5097.98). Local Regulations The City of Temecula General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element contains goals and policies to ensure the preservation of cultural heritage. Historical and cultural resources may include buildings, structures, landscape features, roads, trails, objects, and sites that represent significant contributions to local culture, history, and public art (City of Temecula 2005). Associated General Plan goals and policies include: Goal 6 Preservation of significant historical and cultural resources. Policy 6.1 Maintain an inventory of areas with archaeological/paleontological sensitivity, and historic sites in the Planning Area. Policy 6.2 Work to preserve or salvage potential archaeological and paleontological resources on sites proposed for future development through the development review and mitigation monitoring processes. Policy 6.3 Preserve and reuse historical buildings in accordance with the Old Town Specific Plan. Policy 6.4 Assist property owners in seeking state and/or federal registration and appropriate zoning for historic sites and assets. Policy 6.5 Pursue the acquisition and preservation of historical buildings for public facilities in accordance with the Old Town Specific Plan when appropriate. Policy 6.6 Ensure compatibility between land uses and building designs in the Old Town Specific Plan Area and areas adjacent to Old Town. 8 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Policy 6.7 Encourage use of California's Historic Building Code when preserving/rehabilitating historic structures. Policy 6.8 Support an integrated approach to historic preservation in coordination with other affected jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations for areas within the Planning Area and surrounding region that seeks to establish linkages between historic sites or buildings with other historic features such as roads, trails, ridges, and seasonal waterways. Policy 6.9 Encourage the preservation and re -use of historic structures, landscape features, roads, landmark trees, and trails. Policy 6.10 Work with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians to identify and appropriately address cultural resources and tribal sacred sites through the development review process. Policy 6.11 Encourage voluntary landowner efforts to protect cultural resource and tribal sacred sites consistent with State requirements (City of Temecula 2005). The City Municipal Code defines a Historic Building as "a building listed individually on the National Register of Historic places, or by a state or county agency charged with recognition or preservation of historic structures, or by resolution of the city council as having significant local or regional historical importance and value to the community" (Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.34.010). A review of City documents indicates that the following shall be considered for requests for the addition or removal of buildings/structures to the Temecula Local Historic Register: • That the proposed structure is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Temecula's historic and cultural heritage. • That the structure is associated with the lives of persons important in Temecula's past. • That the structure embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important individual, or possesses high artistic value. • That the structure yielded, or may be likely to yield information in prehistory or history of Temecula. (City of Temecula 2011) METHODS In support of this CIA, SWCA completed a confidential records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search through the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and archival research. The results of these searches were used to identify the presence/absence of known cultural resources or the likelihood of encountering cultural resources within the project area. California Historical Resources Information System Records Search On April 13, 2023, SWCA requested an in-house records search of the CHRIS at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) located at the University of California, Riverside. The search included any previously recorded cultural resources and investigations within a 0.8-kilometer (km) (0.5-mile) radius of the CWPP area. For the purposes of this CIA, only previous studies and California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Series site records for resources within the CWPP area were requested and 0 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan reviewed (Exhibit A). The previously recorded cultural resources and previously completed cultural resource studies that are within a 0.5-mile radius of the project area were requested but not assessed or reviewed in detail. The CHRIS records search also included a review of listings for the NRHP, CRHR, California Points of Historical Interest, and California Historical Landmarks. Sacred Lands File Search The NAHC is charged with identifying, cataloging, and protecting Native American cultural resources within an SLF database. These resources include ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in California. In addition to the SLF, the NAHC maintains a list of tribal contacts affiliated with various geographic regions of California. The contents of the SLF are strictly confidential and the results are simply reported as "positive" or "negative." In addition to the SLF results the NAHC includes a list of tribal contacts with affiliation to the specified location and recommends contacting each person for any additional or unrecorded information. On April 13, 2023, SWCA contacted the California NAHC for a review of its SLF to determine whether any NAHC-listed Native American sacred lands are within or adjacent to the project area. A letter from the NAHC summarizing the results of the records search was received on April 27, 2023, and a copy of the letter is provided in Exhibit B. Archival Research Concurrent with the confidential CHRIS records search, SWCA conducted a desktop review of available historic maps, aerial images, and quadrangles. This archival research focused on assessing the general sequence of historic -era development and identifying any natural, built, or other resources that may have previously existed within the project area. The aerial images and maps were also used to assess the potential for previously unrecorded built environment or archaeological resources present on the surface of the project area. Sources consulted included the following publicly accessible data sources: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2023) historical topographic maps; University of California, Santa Barbara Aerial Imagery Library (2023); and NETROnline Historical Aerials (2023) (historic topographic maps and aerial images). In addition, as part of the effort to identify known built environment historical resources within or adjacent to the project area, SWCA reviewed the following: the City of Temecula General Plan, Old Town Specific Plan, Municipal Code, and a list of "Historical Places" identified by the City (City of Temecula 2005, 2011, 2023); the County of Riverside General Plan; the OHP-prepared Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) for Riverside County; and determination of eligibility listings for the NRHP (National Park Service 2023; OHP 2023a, Riverside County 2015). RESULTS The goal of this CIA is to identify cultural resources constraints that may be present within the project area. This was completed using the results of a confidential records search of the CHRIS, an SLF search through the California NAHC, and archival research. 10 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan CHRIS Records Search SWCA received the results of the CHRIS records search from the EIC on August 22, 2023, which included a search of the project area and a 0.8-km (0.5-mile) radius. Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies The results of the cultural resources records search at the EIC identified 94 previously conducted cultural resources studies within a 0.8-km (0.5-mile) radius of the project area, of which 37 studies intersect the project area (Table 1). These include 17 archaeological field studies, eight archaeological field studies with literature searches, one evaluation, one literature search, one evaluation and excavation, one monitoring, one archaeological excavation and monitoring, and seven studies that did not explicitly identify the type of study that occurred. Four of these studies have been published within the last 10 years (RI-09155, RI-09986, RI-10106, and RI-10114). Of the 57 previously conducted cultural resource studies outside the project area but within the 0.8-km (0.5-mile) radius, 31 are archaeological field studies, nine consist of archaeological field studies with literature searches, two are archaeological field studies with a literature search and management planning, one is an evaluation and excavation, one is a monitoring study, four are archaeological evaluations with field studies, one is an excavation and monitoring study, one is a literature search, one is an archaeological and architectural/historical study, one is an archaeological and architectural/historical study with monitoring, one is an archaeological and architectural/historical study with management/planning, one is an architectural/historical evaluation and literature search, and three are projects that did not explicitly identify the type of study within the records search results Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within 0.5 Mile of the Project Area Report Report Title Author (Affiliation) Year Relationship to Number the Project Area RI-00110 Archaeological Impact Evaluation: Wolfs Grave Stuart, James 1973 Outside Property (Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside) RI-00111 Archaeological Impact Evaluation: Proposed Pala Leslie E. Wildesen 1973 Within Village Development Rancho California (Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside) RI-00328 Environmental Impact Evaluation: Archaeological Larry L. Bowles 1978 Within Assessment of Parcel 11, 984 (Archaeological Consultant, Colton, CA) RI-00513 Environmental Impact Evaluation: Archaeological Stan Wilmoth 1978 Within Assessment of EMWD Proposed Effluent Holding (Archaeological Ponds and Pipeline, Rancho California Regional Research Unit, U.C. Plant, Riverside County Riverside) RI-00545 An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract Bowles, Larry L. and 1979 Outside No. 3983 Jean A. Salpas (Archaeological Consultant) RI-00707 An Archaeological/Paleontological Survey, Inventory Roeder, Mark (Scientific 1979 Outside and Assessment of the Proposed San Diego Resource Surveys, Inc., "Pipeline 5" Right -of -Way and Attendant Facilities Santa Ana, CA) Located in the Counties of Riverside and San Diego, California 11 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Report Report Title Author (Affiliation) Year Relationship to Number the Project Area RI-00968 Environmental Impact Evaluation: Archaeological Drover, Christopher E. 1980 Outside Assessment of Tentative Parcel 15211, Riverside (Consulting County, California Archaeologist) RI-01048 Cultural Resource Inventory and Impact Assessment White, Christopher W. 1980 Outside for the KACOR/Rancho California Property (Archaeological Systems Management, Inc.) RI-01323 Archaeological Assessment of TR 3750, TR 3646, Desautels, Roger J. 1981 Outside GPA 240 (Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., Santa Ana, CA) RI-01426 Archaeological Assessment for Tentative Parcel Bowles, Larry L. 1982 Within 18254 (Unknown) RI-01857 An Archaeological Assessment of TT 1987Z Yohe, Robert M. II 1984 Outside Temecula Area of Riverside County, California (Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside) RI-02034 Archaeological Survey of Tentative Parcel No. Lerch, Michael K. (Lerch 1986 Outside 21769, Rainbow Canyon Road, Riverside County, and Associates) California RI-02070 Negative Archaeological Survey Report: Route 15, Crotteau, Karen 1984 Within P.M. 1.1/1.6 (CALTRANS District 8, San Bernardino) RI-02169 Rancho Villages Assessment District Cultural Christopher E. Drover 1987 Within Resources Element (Consulting Archaeologist, Tustin, CA) RI-02186 Letter Report: Cultural Resources Assessment of Philip Wilke 1987 Within Temecula Creek Bridge No. 56C-165 (Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside) RI-02261 The Tonan Ranch Cultural Resources Assessment Drover, C.E. (Consulting 1988 Within Archaeologist, Tustin, CA) RI-02262 Letter Report: Tonan Ranch, CA-RIV-3410. Drover, Christopher E. 2000 Within (Drover Consulting Archaeology) RI-02343 An Archaeological Assessment of Temecula Creek Drover, C.E. (Unknown) 1988 Outside Inn Golf Course Expansion, Riverside County, California RI-02384 Reevaluation of Archaeological Sites Recorded on McCarthy, Daniel F. 1988 Within TPM 23987, Located in the Temecula Area of (Archaeological Riverside County, California Research Unit, U.C. Riverside) RI-02421 The Tonan Ranch - Cultural Resources Assessment; Drover, C.E. (Unknown) 1988 Within An Archaeological Test Excavation of RIV-3410 RI-02422 Data Recovery at Tonan Ranch, CA-RIV-3410 Drover, Christopher and 1991 Within Diane Pinto (Christopher Drover) RI-02471 An Archaeological Assessment of Temecula Creek Drover, C.E. (Unknown) 1989 Outside Inn Expansion, Riverside County, California RI-02522 The Murdy Ranch Cultural Resources Assessment. Drover, Christopher E. 1989 Outside (Unknown) RI-02543 An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Parcel Keller, Jean S. 1989 Outside Map No. 22806, Riverside County, California. (Unknown) 12 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Report Number Report Title Author (Affiliation) Year Relationship to the Project Area RI-02545 An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Map No Keller, Jean S. 1989 Outside 24739, Riverside County, California. (Unknown) RI-02546 An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Parcel Keller, Jean S. 1989 Outside Map No. 24741, Riverside County, California. (Unknown) RI-02547 Rancho Villages Assessment District Sewer Lift Drover, Christopher E. 1989 Within Station: The Vail Site, RiV-365. An Archaeological and Cole Parker Test and Mitigation. (Unknown) RI-02727 An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Parcel Keller, Jean A. 1990 Outside Map 25582 Riverside County, California (Unknown) RI-02729 An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract Keller, Jean A. 1990 Outside Map 25980 Riverside County, California (Unknown) RI-02757 An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract Brock, James 1990 Within #21067, Rancho California, Riverside County, (Archaeological Advisor California Group) RI-03116 A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Tentative Bissell, R.M. (RMW 1987 Outside Parcel No. 22515 Near Temecula, Riverside County, Paleo Associates) California RI-03189 Cultural Resources Assessment of AT&T's Anonymous (Peak And 1990 Within Proposed San Bernardino To San Diego Fiber Optic Associates and Brian F. Cable, San Bernardino, Riverside And San Diego Mooney Associates) Counties, California RI-03312 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Tentative Shinn, Juanita R. (RMW 1990 Outside Tract 22286, Temecula, Riverside County Paleo Associates) RI-03436 Cultural Resources Assessment. Pala Road Bridge Petersen, C.J., Rachel 1992 Within Sewer and Road Realignment Project at Temecula Greeley, and Bruce Love Creek, Temecula Area of Riverside County, (Archaeological California Research Unit, U.C. Riverside) RI-03437 Extended Phase 1 Survey Of CA-RIV-47071H for the Joyce M. Clevenger 1997 Within Temecula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge, City of (Ogden Environmental Temecula, Riverside County, California and Energy Services Co., Inc.) RI-03439 Archaeological Survey Report for The Temecula De Barros, Philip 1997 Within Creek (Pala Road) Bridge in The City of Temecula (Professional Riverside County, California 08-RIV-CR-Pala Road Archaeological Services) RI-03440 Phase 11 Evaluation of Archaeological Site CA-RIV- Phillip de Barros and 1997 Within 47071H for Determination of Eligibility Temecula Christopher E. Drover Creek (Pala Road) Bridge Project City of Temecula, (Professional Riverside County, California 08-RIV-CR-Pala Road Archaeological Services) RI-03496 Archaeological Survey Report for Riverside County Jones & Stokes 1992 Within Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project Associates, Inc. (Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.) RI-04085 Cultural Resources Survey of A 7.5 Acre Parcel Horne, Melinda (Applied 1998 Outside Located at the Western Edge of Temecula Valley, Earthworks) Riverside County, California RI-04147 Cultural Resources Records Search and Survey Mason, Roger, Philippe 1998 Outside Report for Pacific Bell Mobile Telecommunications Lapin, and Wayne H. Facility: Cm 258-11, City of Murrieta, California Bonner (Chambers Group, Inc.) RI-04346 Identification And Evaluation of Historic Properties: Love, Bruce and Michael 2000 Outside AT&T Wireless Site C79Z City of Temecula, Hogan (CRM TECH) Riverside County, California. 13 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Report Report Title Author (Affiliation) Year Relationship to Number the Project Area RI-04381 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for the Rancho Brown, Joan C. (RMW 2000 Outside Community Church, Temecula, Riverside County, Paleo Associates) California. RI-04404 Final Cultural Resources Inventory Report for The Jones And Stokes 2000 Within Williams Communications, Inc., Fiber Optic Cable Associates, Inc. (Jones System Installation Project, Riverside to San Diego, & Stokes Associates, California Vol I -IV. Inc.) RI-04647 A Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment of APN Keller, Jean A. 2003 Within 961-010-016, 018-020, 25.50 Acres of Land in The (Unknown) City of Temecula, Riverside County, California RI-04689 Cultural Resources Evaluation of CA-RIV-6499 Brown, Joan (SWCA 2003 Outside Located in Temecula, Riverside County, California Environmental Consultants) RI-04865 A Phase 1 Archaeological Resource Survey and A Dice, Michael, E. Bruce 2001 Within Paleontological Records Review of the Temecula Lander, and Leslie Nay Marketplace Project, Located Near Highway 79 And Irish (L&L Avenida De Missiones, City of Temecula, California Environmental, Inc.) RI-05012 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Mckenna Et Al. 2001 Within Proposed Santa Margarita Outfall Project Area, (McKenna et al.) Riverside County, California RI-05027 A Phase 1 Cultural Resources Investigation of the Jeanette A. McKenna 2000 Within Vesta Telecommunications, Inc. Fiber Optic (McKenna et al.) Alignment, Riverside County to San Diego County, California RI-05065 Cultural Resources Records and Literature Review Mirro, Vanessa (Applied 2005 Within for The Temecula Creek Inn Project, Temecula, Earthworks) California RI-05108 Cultural Resources Survey Of 21.47 Acres, APN# Anonymous (APPLIED 2003 Outside 961-010-014 And APN# 961-010-015 Temecula, EARTH WORKS) California RI-05277 Cultural Resource Survey. I-151SR79 Land Dice, Michael and 2004 Within Acquisition Project City of Temecula, Riverside Marnie Aislin-Kay County, CA (APN# 922-210-05Z -060, and -061) (Michael Brandman Associates) RI-05430 Archaeological Monitoring Report. Middle School Love, Bruce, Harry 2001 Outside Site #5 (Wolf Creek), City of Temecula, Riverside Quinn, and Michael County, California Hogan (CRM TECH) RI-05535 A Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment of Keller, Jean A. 2005 Within Tentative Tract Map 31946, +/--46.58 Acres of Land (Unknown) in Temecula, Riverside County, CA RI-05733 Cultural Resources Records Search and Field Mason, Rodger D. 2003 Outside Survey Report for Verizon Telecommunications (Chambers Group, Inc.) Facility: Avocado in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, CA RI-05880 Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey of the Temecula Mirro, Vanessa 2006 Outside Creek Inn Property, Temecula, California (APPLIED EARTH WORKS) RI-05992 Archaeological Testing and Evaluation: Western Mariam Dandul, Harry M. 2003 Within Portions of Site CA-Riv-3410/H, Temecula Quinn, and Adrian Marketplace Project, City of Temecula, Riverside, Sanchez Moreno CA (CRM TECH) RI-06057 Cultural Resources Survey for the Pujol Street Moslak, Ken (ASM 2006 Outside Condominiums, City of Temecula, Riverside County, Affiliates) California 14 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Report Report Title Author (Affiliation) Year Relationship to Number the Project Area RI-06169 Letter Report: Records Search Results and Site Visit Dice, Michael (Michael 2003 Outside for Sprint Telecommunications Facility Rv54xc468h Brandman Associates) (Car/'s Jr.), 44515 Bedford Court, Temecula, Riverside County, CA RI-06323 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Tang, Bai, Michael 2004 Outside Temecula Hospital Project, Tentative Parcel Map Hogan, Deirdre No. 32468, City of Temecula, Riverside County, Encarnacion, John J. California Eddy, and Casey Tibbet (CRM TECH) RI-06340 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Tang, Bai, Michael 2004 Outside Tentative Tract Map 27890, In the City of Temecula, Hogan, Casey Tibbet, Riverside County, CA and Daniel Ballester (CRM TECH) RI-06487 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Tang, Bai, Michael 2005 Outside Assessor's Parcel Nos. 922-170-014, and -015, In Hogan, Matthew the City of Temecula, Riverside County, CA Wetherbee, and Daniel Ballester (CRM TECH) RI-06612 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Tang, Bai "Tom", 2006 Outside Assessor's Parcel Number 922-130-016, City of Michael Hogan, Josh Temecula, Riverside County, California Smallwood, and Thomas Shackford (CRM TECH) RI-06790 An Archaeological and Paleontological Mitigation- Hoover, Anna M. and 2006 Outside Monitoring Report on Wolf Creek, Tract 29798, +/- Dailey, Brian C. (L&L 175 Acres, City of Temecula, Riverside County, Environmental, Inc.) California RI-06881 Cultural Resources Monitoring of the Temecula Lane Christopher Corey and 2007 Within Project, Tentative Tract Map 31946, City of Cindy Arrington, M.S., Temecula, Riverside County, California. RPA (SWCA Environmental Consultants) RI-07024 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Keller, Jean A. (Jean A. 2006 Outside Tentative Parcel Map 34699, +/- 4.98 Acres of Land Keller) in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California RI-07387 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, Temecula Lord, Kenneth J. (MBA) 2006 Outside Lane 2 Property, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. RI-07489 Letter Report: Cultural Resource Records Search Bonner, Wayne H. and 2007 Outside and Site Visit Results for Verizon Marnie Aislin-Kay Telecommunications Facility Candidate "Redhaw" (Michael Brandman 31524 Rancho Pueblo Road, Temecula, Riverside Associates) County, California RI-07540 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Pujol Keller, Jean A. (Jean A. 2007 Outside Street Apartments, Planning Application 07-0229, +- Keller, Cultural 13.72 Acres of Land in the City of Temecula, Resources Consultant) Riverside County, California RI-07646 A Cultural Resources Survey for the Star World Clifford, James, Scott 2005 Outside Center Project, City of Temecula, Riverside County Mattingly, and Brian F. Smith (Brian F. Smith and Associates) RI-08171 Cultural Resources Assessment Public Safety Sanka, Jennifer M. and 2008 Outside Enterprise Communication Project Riverside, Marnie Aislin-Kay Orange, San Bernadino, and San Diego Counties, (Michael Brandman FM 04174400010 Associates) 15 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Report Report Title Author (Affiliation) Year Relationship to Number the Project Area RI-08327 Letter Report: Cultural Resource Records Search Bonner, Wayne H. and 2009 Outside and Site Visit for Royal Street Communications Sarah A. Williams California, LLC Candidate LA3454A (Temecula (Michael Brandman Creek Inn), 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road, Associates (MBA)) Temecula, Riverside County, California. RI-08485 Archaeological Survey for Southern California Heidelberg, Kurt 2009 Outside Edison's Service Pole Installations in Temecula, (AECOM, Inc.) Murrieta, and Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California RI-08881 An Archaeological Mitigation -Monitoring Report for Anna M. Hoover, Kristie 2012 Within the Temecula Creek Project R. Blevins, Jim McPherson, and Barbara Loren -Webb (L&L Environmental, Inc.) RI-09146 Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Ridge Stropes, Tracy A. and 2013 Outside Park Project, City of Temecula, California Brian F. Smith (Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.) RI-09155 Environmental Sensitive Area Action Plan: For the Mark C. Robinson (ICF 2014 Within Calalco/Alexander Street Traffic Signal Project, City International) of Perris, Riverside County, California, 08-RIV- Cajalco Road, Federal Project No. HSIPL-5956 (203) RI-09257 Cultural Resources Assessment of the New Path Brunzell, David (BCR 2011 Outside Networks, LLC DAS Project in the Cities of Murrieta Consulting) and Temecula, Riverside County, California (BCR Consulting Project No. SYN0901) RI-09272 Cultural Resources Assessment Temecula Creek Brunzell, David (BCR 2014 Outside Inn Project City of Temecula, Riverside County, Consulting) California RI-09293 Historical Resources Evaluation Old U.S. Route Brunzell, David (BCR 2013 Outside 395/Rainbow Canyon Road Segment City of Consulting) Temecula, Riverside County, California RI-09346 A Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report of Keller, Jean (Jean A. 2014 Outside United Surgery Center PA13-0166 APN 959-070- Keller, Cultural 031 Grading Permit No. LD13-085GR 1.01 Acres of Resources Consultant) Land Located at 31469 Rancho Pueblo Road, Temecula Riverside County, California USGS Murrieta, California Quadrangle, 7.5' Series Section 17, Township 8 South, Range 2 West, SBM RI-09350 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Harvey, Victoria 2014 Outside for Temecula Creek Inn, ATC Site No. 274611, (Cogstone Resource Unsectioned Portion of Township 7S, Range 2W, Management) 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road, Temecula, Riverside County, California RI-09380 Historical/Archaeological Monitoring Program Ballester, David (CRM 2015 Outside Rancho Community Reformed Church Sports Field Tech) Project Site RI-09554 Bella Linda Residential Project, Temecula, Riverside Bray, Madeleine, Chris 2012 Outside County, California Lockwood, and Robert Ramirez (ESA) RI-09601 Archaeological Survey Report for the Temecula Park Vasik, Molly (Cogstone) 2015 Outside and Ride Facility Project, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California RI-09623 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Temecula Keeler, Dustin 2015 Outside Gateway Project, Riverside County, California (Cogstone) a Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Report Report Title Author (Affiliation) Year Relationship to Number the Project Area RI-09986 Cultural Resources Assessment Mexico Cafe David Brunzell (BCR 2016 Within Development Plan Temecula, Riverside County, Consulting LLC) California RI-10048 Letter Report: Nextel Communications Proposed Billat, Lorna (Earthtouch 2002 Outside Wireless Telecommunications Service Facilities in LLC) Southern California RI-10088 Archaeological Assessment: Proposed Collocation Beazley, Matthew and 2014 Outside of Antennas on an Existing 73-Foot Stealth Matthew Fields Telecommunications Equipment Compound. (Environmental Corporation of America) RI-10106 Cultural Resources Assessment Pechanga Parkway David Brunzell (BCR 2017 Within Widening Project Temecula, Riverside County, Consulting LLC) California RI-10114 Altair Specific Plan EIR Project Temecula Riverside Candace Ehringer, 2015 Within County California Michael Vader, and Chris Lockwood (ESA) RI-10220 Letter Report: Cultural Resources Record Search Bonner, Diane F. and 2009 Outside and Archaeological Survey Results for the proposed Robert J. Wlodarski Royal Street Communications, California, LLC, Site (Historical Environmental LA3453A (Rancho Baptist Church) located at 29775 Archaeological Research Santiago Road, Temecula, Riverside County, Team (H.E.A.R.T.)) California 92592-3055 RI-10483 Cultural Resources Assessment Ynez Road Brunzell, David (BCR 2018 Outside Improvements Project Temecula, Riverside County, Consulting LLC) California RI-10722 Cultural Resources Records Search Results for Wayne H. Bonner and 2009 Within Verizon Wireless Candidate 'Temecula Creek" Arabesque Said (Michael 44618 Pechanga Parkway, Temecula, CA 92592 Brandman Associates) RI-10724 Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment Temecula Aniela Travers (EBI 2010 Within Creek 44618 Pechanga Parkway, Temecula, Consulting) Riverside County, CA EBI Project #61097011 RI-10893 Cultural Resources Assessment Temecula Park and Brunzell, David (BCR 2019 Outside Ride Project Consulting LLC) Previously Recorded Cultural Resources The results of the cultural resources records search at the EIC identified 30 previously recorded cultural resources within a 0.8-km (0.5-mile) radius of the project area, of which nine intersect the project area (Table 2). These consist of an archaeological district (P-33-011443 [Murrieta Canyon Archaeological Area]) and three pre -contact sites (RIV-50, RIV-270, and RIV-365) that are elements of that district, two multicomponent sites with both pre -contact and historic -era resources (RIV-341 OH and RIV-4707H), an additional pre -contact site (P-33-011222), a historic -era bridge (P-33-013135), and a pre -contact isolated find (P-33-025246). Three of these resources are slightly outside of the project area but are either elements of the archaeological district P-33-011443 (RIV-50 and RIV-270) or within the boundaries of the district but not considered an element of the district (P-33-025246). Of the 21 previously recorded cultural resources that do not intersect the project area but were within 0.8 km (0.5 mile) of the project area consisted of 18 pre -contact cultural resources and three historic -era cultural resources. Table 3 below includes the list of previously recorded cultural resources identified within the vicinity of the project; each of the resources recorded within the project area are also briefly described below. 17 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Table 2. Previously Recorded Resources within 0.5 Mile of the Project Area Primary Trinomial Resource Resource Resource Year (Author, Relationship Number Number Period Type Description Affiliation) to Project Area P-33-000050 CA-RIV-50 Pre -contact Site, element 22 bedrock milling 1952 (Pilling, UCR Within of district features, lithic scatter, ARU); fire -affected rock 1965a (J&K Chartkoff, L (FAR), and midden Kona, UCR ARU); 1970 (Dorothy Luhrs, UCR ARU); 1981 (M. Stein, n/a); 1982 (L.L. Bowles, UCR ARU); 2002 (Cheryl Bowden, Renna EDAW, Inc.) P-33-000270 CA-RIV-270 Pre -contact Site, element 20 bedrock milling 1966 (T. Blackburn, Within of district features, midden, State of California ground stone artifacts, Division of Beaches & ceramic, and lithic Parks); scatter 1982 (L.L. Bowles, UCR ARU) P-33-000365 CA-RIV-365 Pre -contact Site, element 10 bedrock mortars, 1965 (D.S. Miller, J.L. Within of district ground stone artifacts, Chartkoff, UCR ARU); FAR, lithic scatter and 1965b (Joe and Kerry debitage Chartkoff, Leuirc Kona, UCLA); 1972 (T.F. King, Department of Anthropology, UCR); 1988 (Daniel F. McCarthy, ARU UCR) P-33-001071 CA-RIV- Pre -contact Other AP01: Unknown (no 1976 (Eastvold, n/a); Outside 001071 characteristics listed 1987 (R.E. Parr, on the site record) Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside); 1989 (C.E. Drover, D.M. Smith, n/a); 2006 (B. Sheets, K. McLean, A. Ruelas, Applied EarthWorks, Inc.) P-33-003410 CA-RIV- Multicompo Burials, grave 1988 (C.E. Drover— Within 3410/H nent goods/ceremonial Andrew Jackson); artifacts, ground 2001 (Michael Dice, L&L stone, lithic scatter Environmental, Inc.,); with historic 2003 (Unknown) foundations and structures, and fencing P-33-003411 CA-RIV- Historic — — 1988 (C.E. Drover) Outside 003411 P-33-004707 CA-RIV- Multicompo Site Lithic scatter, midden, 1992 (C. J. Petersen, Within 4707/H nent formal tools, ground Archaeological stone, bone awl, FAR Research Unit, UC and historic refuse Riverside); scatter (glass, 1996 (Del James, ceramic, bone, nails, S. Briggs, Joyce and other debris) Clevenger, Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co.); 1997 (Philip de Barros, Professional Archaeological Services) 18 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Primary Trinomial Resource Resource Resource Year (Author, Relationship Number Number Period Type Description Affiliation) to Project Area P-33-004949 CA-RIV- Historic Structure HP08: industrial 1983 (Judy Stewart, Outside 004949 building Riverside County Historical Commission); 1992 (J. Russell, Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.) P-33-009753 CA-RIV- Pre -contact Site Lithic scatter 2000 (Joan C. Brown, Outside 006499 RMW Paleo Associates, Incorporated); 2003 (Joan C. Brown, RMW Paleo Associates, Incorporated); 2015 (Daniel Ballester, Nina Gallardo, and Michael Hogan, CRM TECH) P-33-011005 CA-RIV- Pre -contact Site Habitation debris and 2001 (Harry Quinn and Outside 006645 hearth(s) Mariam Dandul, CRM TECH) P-33-011222 - Pre -contact Site Two concentric -circle 2001 (Jeanette A. Within petroglyphs McKenna, McKenna et al.) P-33-011443 Pre -contact Site, District Cremations/burials, 1972 (Thomas F. King, Within lithic scatter, pottery, UCR ARU) and middens P-33-012517 Pre -contact Site Lithic scatter with 2002 (C. Bowden- Outside bedrock milling Renna, S.Jenkins, feature(s) L. Dreibelbis, EDAW, Inc.) P-33-012520 Pre -contact Site Bedrock milling 2002 (C. Bowden- Outside feature(s) Renna, S. Jenkins, S. Diaz, L. Dreibelbis, EDAW, Inc.) P-33-012731 Pre -contact Site Bedrock milling 1990 (J. Brock and W.A. Outside feature(s) Sawyer, Archaeological Advisory Group) P-33-012732 Pre -contact — Ceramic scatter 1990 (J. Brock and W.A. Outside Sawyer, Archaeological Advisory Group) P-33-012742 Pre -contact Site Bedrock milling 1988 (C. E. Drover, n/a); Outside feature(s) 2011 (David Brunzell, BCR Consulting) P-33-013135 Historic Other Temecula bridge 1986 (Roger G. Within Hatheway, Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.); 1999 (S. Ashkar, Jones & Stokes) P-33-014928 Pre -contact Isolate AP16: other (isolated 2006 (McLean, K. and A. Outside find) Ruelas, Applied EarthWorks, Inc.); 2011 (David Brunzell, BCR) 19 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Primary Trinomial Resource Resource Resource Year (Author, Relationship Number Number Period Type Description Affiliation) to Project Area P-33-014929 CA-RIV- Pre -contact Site Bedrock milling 2006 (Sheets, B., K. Outside 007941 feature(s) McLean, and A. Ruelas, Applied EarthWorks, Inc.); 2011 (David Brunzell and Christina Peterson, BCR) P-33-014930 CA-RIV- Pre -contact Site Bedrock milling 2006 (Ruelas, A., Outside 007942 feature(s) Applied EarthWorks, Inc.); 2011 (David Brunzell and Christina Peterson, BCR) P-33-023889 Pre -contact Isolate Lithic scatter 2014 (Brad Comeau, Outside Dudek) P-33-024088 Pre -contact Other AP16: other 2012 (M. Bray and C. Outside Ehringer) P-33-024089 Pre -contact Isolate AP16: other (Isolated 2012 (M. Bray and C. Outside find) Ehringer, n/a) P-33-024090 Pre -contact Other AP16: other 2012 (M. Bray and C. Outside Ehringer) P-33-024091 Pre -contact Isolate AP16: other (isolated 2012 (M. Bray and C. Outside find) Ehringer, n/a) P-33-024153 Historic Other Rainbow Canyon 2011 (David Brunzell, Outside Road/Old U.S. Route BCR Consulting) 395 P-33-025246 Pre -contact Isolate Ground stone mano 2015 (Michael Vader, Within ESA) P-33-029407 Pre -contact Other AP16: other 2019 (Damien Tietjen, Outside BCR Consulting LLC) P-33-029766 Pre -contact Other AP16: other 2019 (Damien Tietjen, Outside BCR Consulting LLC) P-33-000050 (RIV-50) P-33-000050 (RIV-50) is a large pre -contact village site identified as "Temeku" (Chartkoff et al. 1965a). The site is on a hill adjacent to an unpaved access road, just south of the Santa Margarita River, to the west of Interstate 15, and can be identified by an extensive dark midden (Bowden-Renna 2002; Bowles 1982). Components of the site include ramadas, fire rings, a lithic scatter, stone tools, ceramics, and milling features (Bowden-Renna 2002; Bowles 1982; Chartkoff et al. 1965a; Stein 1981). Previous excavations also identified Spanish -period elements among the pre -contact components (RI-01462) (Bowles 1982). The integrity of the site is unknown, but P-33-000050 is listed in the NRHP as being an element of the Murietta Creek Archaeological District (Bowden-Renna 2002). P-33-000270 (RIV-270) P-33-000270 (RIV-270) is a large pre -contact habitation site consisting of milling features, ground stone, ceramics, and lithics (Blackburn 1966; Bowles 1982; Vader 2015). The site is in an oak grove on a hill above the confluence of Murietta Creek and Santa Margarita River, bounded by a series of unpaved roads (Vader 2015). The site is intact with the only disturbances being access roads in and around the site. Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Bowels (1982) also noted evidence of pot hunting. P-33-000270 is listed in the NRHP as an element of the Murietta Creek Archaeological District (Vader 2015). P-33-000365 (RIV-365) P-33-000365 (RIV-365) is a large pre -contact site near the conjunction of Murietta and Temecula Creeks (Chartkoff et al. 1965b; King 1972; McCarthy 1988). The site consists of milling features, ground stone, and a lithic scatter. King (1972) also noted evidence of cremations and hearths eroding out of a stream bed, but these components were not observed during subsequent surveys or excavations. The site has a deep midden, as observed in road cuts within the site (RI-02384) (McCarthy 1988). Other disturbances include grading along the southwest corner of the site and pothunting along the creek (King 1972; McCarthy 1988). P-33-000365 is listed in the NRHP as an element of the Murietta Creek Archaeological District (King 1972). P-33-003410 (RIV-3410/H) P-33-003410 (RIV-3410/H) is a multicomponent site consisting of both historic and pre -contact elements. The site is located between State Route 79 and Temecula Creek, southeast of the State Route 79 and Jedediah Smith Road intersection (Dice et al. 2001). The pre -contact component consists of an extensive assemblage of ground stone, stone bowls, stone balls, cooking stones, pottery anvils, pendants, debitage, projectile points, stone pipes, modified flake tools, and burials (Dice et al. 2001). The historic component consists of ranch buildings that were part of Vail Ranch and household refuse (Dice et al. 2001). P-33-003410 has not been evaluated for the NRHP, but according to Dice et al. (2001), the site has likely been destroyed by construction activities. Prior to construction activities at the site, the site was highly disturbed by agricultural activities. P-33-004707 (RIV-4707/H) P-33-004707 (RIV-4707/H) is a multicomponent site consisting of both historic and pre -contact components located at the southeast corner of State Route 79 and Pala Road, above Temecula Creek. The pre -contact component consists of ground stone, a sparse lithic scatter, a hearth, pottery sherds, projectile points, and a bone awl (Clevenger and James 1996; de Barros and Drover 1997). The historic component consists of a purple glass fragment, domestic refuse, and nails. P-33-004707 has not been evaluated for its NRHP eligibility. P-33-011222 P-33-011222 is a pre -contact site located along Murietta Creek, just north of Santa Margarita River. The site consists of possible rock art. The rock art is two circles carved into a natural granitic outcrop (McKenna et al. 2001). P-33-011222 has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP. P-33-011443 P-33-011443 is the primary designation for the Murietta Creek Archaeological District. The main components of the district include RIV-50, RIV-270, RIV-365, and P-33-012520. RIV-50, RIV-270, and RIV-365 are large pre -contact habitation areas, and P-33-012520 is a pre -contact milling site (Brunzell 2011). The district is within an oak woodland concentrated around Temecula and Murietta Creeks. This area covers sites RIV-50, RIV-270, RIV-365, and P-33-012520 and has an arbitrary square boundary covering 180 acres. Tom King nominated the sites to the NRHP as a single archaeological district in 1972, and the district was listed (NRHP listing #73000424) on April 24, 1973; the district has both pre -contact and historic period components (ICF 2023:2-43). 21 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan P-33-013135 P-33-013135 was recorded in 1999 as a historic -age bridge on Pala Road that spanned Temecula Creek. It was described as a three -span, earth -filled reinforced concrete bridge with reinforced concrete cantilever bracket and deck on both sides of the span (Ashkar 1999). The bridge had previously been determined ineligible by Caltrans as a Category 5 bridge. It was removed and replaced by a new structure in 1999-2000 (Ashkar 1999; Google Earth 1996, 2002). P-33-025246 P-33-025246 is an isolated find of a unifacial ground stone mano. It was found along Murietta Creek, just north of Santa Margarita River (Vader 2015). NATIVE AMERICAN COORDINATION Sacred Lands File Search On April 27, 2023, SWCA received the results of the SLF search from the NAHC. These results indicated that the project area is positive for sacred Native American cultural resources. The NAHC recommended that the Pechanga Band of Indians, as well as other tribes, be contacted; the NAHC provided a complete list of 19 tribal representatives who may have concerns or further knowledge of resources and sites within the project vicinity. SWCA forwarded the NAHC results to the applicant (the City). The confidential NAHC SLF search results letter and contact list is included in Exhibit B. Coordination letters were sent to all tribes included in the NAHC contact list on December 21, 2023, in order to seek any knowledge that the tribes, including the Pechanga Band, wished to share about the project area, and give the Pechanga Band and others the opportunity to provide the project proponents with their recommendations and advice for implementation of the project and for integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) into the project design. The project area is within the NRHP-listed Luiseno Ancestral Origin Landscape and the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District (P-33-011443), which overlap. Both resources are of great significance to the Luiseno, in general, but especially to the Pechanga Band, who reside on the Pechanga Reservation. The Luiseno Traditional Origin Landscape is important in the traditions of the Luiseno as the place of the creation of the first people (Kaamalam), the death (the first ever) and cremation of the hero Wuyoot, and the transformation of the Kaamalam into the rock outcrops present in the surrounding hills. To the Luiseno, the landscape is of utmost cultural, historical, and spiritual significance. It covers approximately 8.39 miles and includes the confluence of Murrieta and Temecula Creeks, considered the origin place of the Pechanga Band (ICF 2023:2-42). Native American Contact Results Initial coordination letters were mailed on December 21, 2023, to all tribal entities with email addresses using the contact list provided by the NAHC. The purpose of the coordination letters were to request information from local Native American tribes and individuals regarding Native American land use, history, and knowledge of the Temecula area. More specifically, the coordination effort is seeking information on cultural resources that may exist in the vicinity of the CWPP project area. The letter is part of SWCA's scoping for the cultural resource background research effort; government -to -government consultation requirements as stipulated in AB 52 remains the responsibility of the City of Temecula. 22 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan The letters were sent via USPS certified mail and were delivered between December 26, 2023, and January 9, 2024; a copy of the coordination letter is included in Exhibit B. All correspondence between SWCA and local tribes is summarized below and in Table 3. Table 3. Native American Scoping Record for the City of Temecula Community Wildfire Protection Plan Project* Tribe/Individual Name Date Contact Was Initiated, Type and Method of Contact Date of Follow-up/ Method of Contact Results/Responses Agua Caliente Band of 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal 1/03/2024: responded to 1/03/2024: Email response Cahuilla Indians/Patricia Coordination/Outreach Letter email sent from contact received from Clarista Duarte Garcia -Plotkin, Director (sent via USPS — Certified Mail). representative. (Cultural Resources Analyst, on Delivered on or prior to behalf of Patricia Garcia -Plotkin — 1 /02/2024. Director). They "defer to the other tribes in the area. This letter shall conclude our consultation efforts." Agua Caliente Band of 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal 1/11/2024: Phone call 1/11/2024: Left voicemail at Cahuilla Indians/Reid Coordination/Outreach Letter 12:58 p.m. Milanovich, Chairperson (sent via USPS — Certified Mail). Delivered on or prior to 1/11/2024: Email received at 1/09/2024) 2:04 p.m. See email sent from Clarista Duarte. No further consultation for the project needed. Juaneno Band of Mission 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal 1/11/2024: Phone call 1/11/2024: Left voicemail at Indians Acjachemen Nation - Coordination/Outreach Letter 1:01 P.M. Belardes/Joyce Perry, (sent via USPS — Certified Mail) 1/17/2024: Email Cultural Resources Director 1117/2024: Email sent at 11:10 a.m. with digital copy of letter attached. No response as of 1/24/2024 Juaneno Band of Mission 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal 1/11/2024: Phone call 1/11/2024: Left voicemail at Indians Acjachemen Nation Coordination/Outreach Letter 1:04 p.m. 84A/Heidi Lucero, (sent via USPS — Certified Mail) 1/17/2024: Email Chairperson, THPO 1117/2024: Email sent at 11:17 a.m. with digital copy of letter attached. No response as of 1/24/2024 La Jolla Band of Luiseno 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal 1/11/2024: Phone call 1/11/2024: Left voicemail at Indians/Norma Contreras, Coordination/Outreach Letter 1:06 p.m. Chairperson (sent via USPS — Certified Mail). 1/17/2024: Phone call No email provided. 1117/2024: Left voicemail at 3:50 p.m. No response as of 1/24/2024 Pala Band of Mission 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal 1/11/2024: Phone call Ill1/2024: Left voicemail at Indians/Alexis Wallick, Coordination/Outreach Letter 1:09 P.M. Assistant THPO (sent via USPS — Certified Mail). 1/1712024: Email Delivered on 12/28/2023. 1/17/2024: Email sent at 11:23 a.m. with digital copy of letter attached. No response as of 1/24/2024 Pala Band of Mission 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal 1/11/2024: Phone call 1/11/2024: Left voicemail at Indians/Shasta , Gau hen g Coordination/Outreach Letter 1/1712024: Email 1:11 P.M. (sent via USPS — Certified Mail). Tribal Historic Preservation Delivered on 12/28/2023. 1/17/2024: Email sent at Officer 11:37 a.m. with digital copy of letter attached. No response as of 1/24/2024 23 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Tribe/Individual Name Date Contact Was Initiated, Type and Method of Contact Date of Follow-up/ Method of Contact Results/Responses Pauma Band of Luiseno 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal 1/11/2024: Phone call 1/11/2024: Spoke to the operator Indians/Temet Aguilar, Coordination/Outreach Letter (Annabelle Ramirez) at 1:13 p.m. Chairperson (sent via USPS — Certified Mail). 1/1712024: Email and left a voicemail for Temet Delivered on 12/26/2023. Aguilar. Annabelle Ramirez said the committee will be meeting this week and this project may be on the meeting agenda if there is time to review the project prior to the meeting. 1/17/2024: Email sent at 1:37 p.m. with digital copy of letter attached. No response as of 1/24/2024 Pechanga Band of 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal 1/1012024: Phone call 1/10/2024: Left voicemail at Indians/Paul Macarro, Coordination/Outreach Letter and email. 1:08 p.m. Paul Macarro returned Cultural Resources (sent via USPS — Certified Mail). call at 1:20 p.m. and said he did Coordinator Delivered on 12/26/2023. 1/23/2024: Phone call not receive the letter sent via USPS (may have been received by the tribe, but not by him). He requested that we send him an email today with digital version of letter. Email with digital copy sent to Paul Macarro on 1/10/2024. 1/23/2024: Left voicemail at 3:17 p.m. 1/27/2024: Received response letter to SWCA scoping letter (see Exhibit B). Pechanga Band of 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal 1/11/2024: Phone call 1111/2024: Left voicemail at Indians/Mark Macarro, Coordination/Outreach Letter 1:25 p.m. Chairperson (sent via USPS — Certified Mail). 1/25/2024: Phone call Delivered on 12/26/2023. 1/25/2024: Left voicemail at 1:45 p.m. No response as of 1/25/2024 Quechan Tribe of the Fort 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal 1/11/2024: Phone call 1/11/2024: Spoke to Manfred Yuma Reservation/Manfred Coordination/Outreach Letter Scott at 1:25 p.m. Scott, Acting Chairman (sent via USPS — Certified Mail) He indicated the tribe's decision Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee to defer to other tribes in the area, concluding their involvement. Was also informed that Jill McCormick no longer works for the tribe. Quechan Tribe of the Fort 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal See above See above Yuma Reservation/Jill Coordination/Outreach Letter McCormick, Historic (sent via USPS — Certified Mail) Preservation Officer Rincon Band of Luiseno 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal 1/11/2024: Phone call 1/11/2024: Left voicemail at Indians/Bo Mazzetti, Coordination/Outreach Letter 1:40 p.m. Chairperson (sent via USPS — Certified Mail) 24 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Tribe/Individual Name Date Contact Was Initiated, Type Date of Follow-up/ Results/Responses and Method of Contact Method of Contact Rincon Band of Luiseno 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal 1/11/2024: Phone call. 1/11/2024:Left voicemail at Indians/Cheryl Madrigal, Coordination/Outreach Letter 1:45 p.m. Tribal Historic Preservation (sent via USPS — Certified Mail). 1/1212024: Email reply Officer Delivered on or prior to from SWCA to Rincon 1/12/2024: Received email with 1/02/2024. Band at 9:18 a.m. letter at 8:58 a.m.; letter included recommendation to work "closely with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians as they may have pertinent information to provide," as well as to "please forward a final copy of the cultural resources study upon completion to the Rincon Band." The letter also stated that "the tribe has no further comments." San Luis Rey Band of See below (Carmen Mojado) Mission Indians San Luis Rey Band of 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal 1/11/2024: Phone call 1/11/2024: Spoke with Carmen Mission Indians/San Luis Coordination/Outreach Letter Mojado at 1:48 p.m., who Rey, Tribal Council (Carmen (sent via USPS — Certified Mail). informed SWCA to call her Mojado) Delivered on or prior to daughter Cami Mojado at (760) 1/02/2024 (no signature/date on 917-1736 regarding the tribe's delivery receipt) interest in the project. 1/11/2024: Called Cami Mojado at 2:12 p.m.: Spoke to Cami Mojado and the tribe prefers to defer to Pechanga. No further involvement with the project. Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal 1/1112024: Phone call 1/11/2024: Called at 1:55 p.m.: Indians/Lovina Redner, Tribal Coordination/Outreach Letter Administrative assistant Chair (sent via USPS — Certified Mail). 1/12/2024: Email to suggested to follow up via email Delivered on 12/23/2023. Lovina Redner rather than a phone call. 1/12/2024: Email sent to Lovina Redner at 9:19 a.m. with scoping letter attached. No response as of 1/24/2024 Soboba Band of Luiseno 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal 1/11/2024: Phone call 1111/2024: Left voicemail at Indians/Isaiah Vivanco, Coordination/Outreach Letter 2:00 p.m. Chairperson (sent via USPS — Certified Mail). Delivered on 12/26/2023. Soboba Band of Luiseno 12/21/2023 — Informational; Tribal 1/11/2024: Phone call 1/11/2024:Spoke with Joseph Indians/Joseph Ontiveros, Coordination/Outreach Letter Ontiveros at 2:07 p.m.: The tribe Cultural Resource (sent via USPS — Certified Mail). prefers to defer to Pechanga. Department Delivered on 12/26/2023. No further involvement with the project. *Indicated they wanted us to communicate their preference to Pechanga. Date NAHC Contact Initiated: 4/13/2023 Date NAHC Response Received: 4/27/2023 SWCA received a response letter from Paul Macarro, Cultural Coordinator for the Pechanga Band, on January 27, 2024. The letter pointed out that, "overall for any project, there is not a more culturally sensitive -span in our entire Ancestral Territory." Furthermore, the tribe's response letter indicates that the tribe reserves its "rights to participate in the formal environmental review process, including government - to -government consultation with the Lead Agency, and requests to be included in all correspondence regarding this Project" (Macarro 2024) (Exhibit B). 25 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan A response was received from Clarista Duarte on behalf of Director Patricia Garcia -Plotkin for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians on January 3, 2024, via email; the response indicated the tribe's preference to defer to other tribes in the area, effectively concluding their involvement in the project. On January 10, 2024, SWCA called Paul Macarro (Cultural Resources Coordinator, Pechanga Band) as a follow-up to the scoping letter as a means of verifying receipt of the letter and to confirm whether Pechanga plans to share TEK for the project. Mr. Macarro indicated he did not personally receive the letter and requested a digital copy to be sent; SWCA sent a digital copy of the scoping letter via email on January 10, 2024. No further comment has been received from Mr. Macarro since the email was sent, and a follow-up call will be made to verify receipt of the email. On January 11, 2024, SWCA contacted by phone the remaining tribes that had not responded to the initial scoping letter. Voicemails were left for individuals that did not immediately answer the phone calls. The administrative assistant for Lovina Redner (Tribal Chair, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians) indicated that email was a better way to coordinate with L. Redner, so an email was sent on January 12, 2024, and included a digital copy of the scoping letter. Manfred Scott (Acting Chairman Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee, Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation) stated that the tribe prefers to defer to other tribes in the area, concluding their involvement in the project. Carmen Mojado (San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians) indicated that she no longer handles project scoping inquiries for projects and SWCA was directed to contact Cami Mojado, who is now the person of contact. Cami Mojado indicated that the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians prefers to defer to Pechanga, ending their involvement in the project. SWCA received phone call responses on January 11, 2024, on behalf of Reid Milanovich (Chairperson, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians) and Joseph Ontiveros (Cultural Resources Department, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians), both of whom indicated their preference to defer to other tribes in the area. Shuuluk Linton (Tribal Historic Preservation Coordinator) responded via email on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, and recommended that SWCA work closely with the Pechanga Band over the course of the project. While the Rincon Band recommended SWCA coordinate directly with Pechanga during the project, they did request that a final copy of any cultural resources studies be shared with them upon completion of the project. As of January 17, 2024, no other responses to the certified letters sent via USPS or voicemails have been received. That being the case, emails including digital copies of the scoping letter were sent to Joyce Perry (Cultural Resources Director, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation — Belardes), Heidi Lucero (Chairperson/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer [THPO], Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 84A), Alexis Wallick (Assistant THPO, Pala Band of Mission Indians), Shasta Gaughen (THPO, Pala Band of Mission Indians), and Temet Aguilar (Chairperson, Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians). A second follow-up call was made to Norma Contreras (Chairperson, La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians) because no email was provided by the NAHC. SWCA left another voicemail, as Chairperson Contreras was not available to respond to the follow-up phone call. Consultation with local Native American tribes, in accordance with Senate Bill 18 and AB 52 for this CWPP has not yet been initiated by the City of Temecula. Information previously provided by culturally affiliated tribes in Riverside County have been incorporated into this report. Desktop Review A review of the BERD; listings of the NRHP, CRHR, California Historical Landmarks, and Points of Historical Interest; determinations of eligibility for the NRHP; and locally designated historical resources 0 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan did not identify any designated or eligible historical resources within or adjacent to the project area (City of Temecula 2005, 2011, 2023; National Park Service 2023a, 2023b; OHP 2023a, 2023b). Additionally, SWCA reviewed Riverside County Assessor data for parcels within and adjacent to the project area to assess the general age of development to ascertain the potential presence of unidentified built environment historical resources (properties generally need to be over 45 years old). The majority of the surrounding residential, commercial, and institutional properties were constructed between the 1980s and 2000s, with the exception of a portion of the Temecula Creek Inn golf course adjacent to the project area (44051 Rainbow Canyon Road, Assessor Parcel Number [APN] 922220002), which the county assessor identified as constructed in 1969 (Riverside County 2023). This desktop analysis indicates that the potential for unidentified built environment historical resources is relatively low for the areas immediately adjacent to the project area, aside from the golf course. SWCA reviewed aerial images and historic USGS topographic maps, available via the University of California, Santa Barbara Aerial Imagery Library (2023) and NETROnline Historic Aerials (2023) dating from 1901 to 2020. The settlement of Exva Temeeku (Temekkungna) is plotted by Johnston (1962) as approximately 3.0 miles west-northwest of the project area (Figure 4). The project area is mostly within the southern portion of Rancho Temecula and the very eastern portion of the project area is within the Apis Grant, which was also known as Rancho Little Temecula. The topographic maps depict the rural setting of the project area during the early twentieth century to the present. A 1901 topographic map depicts the project area along Temecula River within Temecula Valley and southeast of the town of Murrieta, which is now the present-day City of Temecula (Figure 5). The San Bernardino and Temecula Line of the Southern California Railroad, which roughly follows the route of present-day Interstate 15, is shown ending just north of the project area and southeast of Murrieta and the then called "Temecula Indian Reservation", is plotted directly south of Temecula Valley. At least nine roads are depicted as transecting or intersecting the project area, with most of the routes crossing Temecula Creek. Topographic maps from 1948 and 1949 show a "Gaging Sta[tion]" at the northwest corner of the project area along Temecula Creek with a cul-de-sac leading from the gauging station within the northern boundary of the project area to the east of the project area (Figure 6). Another road is depicted as ending near the confluence of Margarita River with Temecula Creek within the project area, and the road transects a narrow portion of the project area and is oriented northeast -southwest. Present-day Pechanga Parkway can be seen transecting the central portion of the project area (Figure 7). 27 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan r Af THE T1 E OF T K PIORTOLA DXPEDInON YSICl.IYA J WA731Arq-iNA wwAwSq �vA bn�M1 1 ■ ' �� -- 17b9, WHEN DON GASPAR R7RTQLA LIED THE FIRST SPANLSH EX - FIE DITI ON TO cROSS THP. LAND OF THE GABRIELINOS 111E VILLAbE5 of THESE fNDiANS DOTTED THE RIVER VAL1J_YS AND CLUSTCRED ALONG THE COAST. AN EXACT MAP SHOWING THESE SITES CAN NEVER 131= MADE 5UT ONE; CAN BE PROJECTF:R AS HAS SE$N DONE MERE, FROM A7tCH60LOGICAL DATA . HISThr?=AL RECORM ' / Ciu[sspe) ANE1 TfiADITION. 1. KNOWN ARCNEOLOGiCAL SATES. i APPR XIMATF_ LOCATIONS OF HISTORICAL SITE$ fii f 6 SITES LbR WHICH TRADITION AND AnCHEo LO ,C:AL INFOR- 'r' I MATION ARE IN APPARENT AOREWENT. CERTAIN VILLAGES qc sanoeRIN© TRaES. F-'40-- fiOUTEw.,.Ir 174E MRTDL.A LXPEDIT117N. N �J VANeNv) a Tj � gv}A6 AHAGHM41 �/ jJ + YC'"u`e�or r I r ' Project Area t HISTORICAL MAP E= Project Area Riverside County, CA NAP 1963 UTM Zane 11 N 33.7264°N 117.2143°W 1:625, 000 Si • 1r/� A 0 3 6 W■(�/l/ Updated: 11412024 Miles Project No. 0074976 �Ki1—tern Layout: Johnslon_1962 a S 10 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Figure 4. Project area plotted on a map of Native American and historical sites published by the Southwest Museum (1962) and re -printed in Johnston (1962). 28 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan _ B.M. - � f ti � �� _.......... � f / l a �ti-• } °e A B.M. 1^1 (I4 rJ �p� 6 tl � ullJ U, i• Ow' � •n � � � 'a 1n1 , t � i% n afii€J • �/ L TV!/ r y, a L `-yt•,•� Sri.• a 'r='ice Ak n q• aaa l V /'Q - j' a J -'• a {IS d I�U fit- ,r + 0 Project Boundary Riverside Caunty, CA US, 'S 30x30-minute 'Al Elsinore, U - 1901 San Luis Rey, CA- 1901 NAB 1963 UTM Zone 11N 3703926N m 468122E m Base Map: Esn AmGIS Online. ebs a �D—wersoz� �� UPdntea --- HoNo, 14. Leyau, 7497E T6mep KWPP_T,'IPO1 o zsoo soon Freer �Merers 0 6Bo r,3ze N A 1:62, 500 SWCA FNVIRONHENTnL CONSVLTANFS Figure 5. Project site plotted on 1901 USGS San Luis Rey and Lake Elsinore, California, 30-minute topographic quadrangles. 29 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan 39s � li y; Temecula y f l3M 1D061 I II ' II II T E ` E C U L A Pj6 Gagf a 1 j n IJ f! q h� II �g w6�2 J I / '398 24 f 1 r 25� Project Boundary Township/ Range Boundary — USGS Quadrangle Boundary L A� Ole ro67 P RI —1de C ..ty, CA p 1 NO 2,000 USGS 7Y Q-drangle. �Faat Temecula, CA - 1948 Pechanga, CA- 1949 o z5o 5�o T85 R3W Section 13,29 T85 R2W Section 17-21 N NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N 3703926N m 488122E m easeuap:Es AmGtsonrma_ 1:24,000 a Pssarroeca-202J cc Updated 122812023 SWCA Peeled 2 -.M Layout. 1E9]6 TemeculaCWPP topol Bh6 FHVIROHHlNTnL COHSYLTNI1a Figure 6. Project site plotted on 1948 USGS Temecula and 1949 USGS Pechanga, California, 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. 30 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan pyN la �i.• 1 7 E G- r, -,-�f �•• � \• - `. � �y � /\i`q W d � l�-� `� �c� �lJr-f -. � fH ��•_ 1 n 1 �L, � ��66 J� � 116 � • R G ,� �_ 9y4 1408 j` JIJ —o . ���.� riil��IM�`� \ .� `\� ` 0 jll !I '-mil /�� •� 3. \\C\ J? 7 4}S 1 lV v 07 ell / rkm ! O/f o 1 { fi s2 1093 ,(j�/ 1 /� a�•\' 1� i +�) � hrl � �' 2�rL`-\,, ry f>> f� (�r,�,l��+�+�lt � , �� � If` -�� Z� � � ✓ etc. R�xrsIE vaTIox Project Boundary Township 1 Range Boundary — USGS Quadrangle Boundary Riverside Ca Onty, CA 0 t000 2oa0 USGS 7.5' quadmngle: � Peaa 'F—"Ja, U - 1468 �dM-r, Pechanga, CA- 196R o 250 50o T85 R3 W Sect[an 13,24 Tay R2W Section 17-20 N NAN 1983 VTM Zone 11N 3703425N rn 488122E m riseuav:Es AaGJSGN?i— 1:24,000 a Pssaaoeca-2o2J �� Updated. 12R812023 (���� P,elacl No IY49 -t J a —A 7g9Tfi TemepelaCWPP Topol Bfi9 FHVIROHHFNTnL COHS6LTNIFS Figure 7. Project site plotted on 1968 USGS Temecula and Pechanga, California, 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. 31 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Aerial photographs from 1938 and 1947 (Figure 8) depict one area adjacent to the project area as partially developed with several residential structures and smaller outbuildings (no longer extant). These structures and cleared area are within APNs 961450005, 961410030, 961410046, 961410047, 961410048, and 961410049, and two parcels in the northern cleared area labeled as "RW", which most likely designates the parcels as the right-of-way for State Route 79/Temecula Parkway. The road along the eastern edge of this cleared area leads down to the Temecula Creek bed. Present-day Pechanga Parkway and several unpaved roads can be seen networking the project area. A 1947 aerial photograph depicts what looks like a residential parcel with a structure directly northwest of the project area (see Figure 8) within present-day APNs 922210057 and 922210057, as well as a portion of the present-day right-of-way ("RW") for State Route 79. A small strip of agricultural land is north of the creek and more extensively south of the creek. By 1962, additional agricultural fields appear further north of the creek (Figure 9), and by 1976, additional residential roads and residences are north and south of the creek (Figure 9). By 1976, Interstate 15 crossed through the western portion of the project area. 32 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan 4 oi?, 41 a 4 i ^ *0 r.. y 1 � 1 Figure 8. Project site plotted on aerial photographs from 1939 (top) and 1947 (bottom). 33 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan �z 119fi2 � j �• E- ` E r Hv ,iir r k 1976 _ Project Boundar 1 y Riverside County, CA NAD 1933 UTM Zone 11N o 780 1,500 �r- 3703926N m 466122E m M—i 0 150 NO N A use uav: es�ATc1s onwn.. 1:17, 500 a essed December 202J cc Updated. 1212812. ayout. ]q B]6 TemeculaCYVPP Agda11962-76 SWCA FHVIRONHENTnL COHEYLTANEE Figure 9. Project site plotted on aerial photographs from 1962 (top) and 1976 (bottom). 34 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Initial Sensitivity Assessment The results of the cultural resources analysis thus far indicate that the entire project area is within a highly sensitive area for pre -contact archaeological resources and a Native American TCR. Background and archival research identified the project area as being within one of the Luiseno peoples' most sacred spaces and the location of important events and ancestors related to the very beginning of the Luiseno people. Tribal members have previously indicated that the project area is sensitive not only for TCRs, but also for its spiritual significance to current tribal members as continuum with their past. According to ICF (2023:2-43, 2-44), tribal representatives specifically pointed out the confluence of Murrieta and Temecula Creeks and the surrounding canyons, including Rainbow Canyon and Pechanga Creek. The archaeological records search indicated that the western portion of the project area is within the NRHP-listed Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area. In addition to the archaeological resources that have been recorded, the project area is considered to be highly sensitive for potential archaeological resources, especially along the terraces above the creeks. Certain environmental features, such as water features, foothills, historic trails, and meadows, can indicate a higher sensitivity for pre -contact archaeological resources since these types of resources would have been useful for Native American peoples. Portions of Pechanga Creek, Temecula Creek, and Murrieta Creek cross the project area and would have provided useful resources to pre -contact peoples. While residential and commercial development occurs in the vicinity of the project, the project area itself has not been extensively developed. As such, it is possible that new surficial and buried archaeological resources associated with Native American land use is present in the project area. Based on these factors, SWCA considers the project area to have a very high sensitivity for the presence of pre -contact —era, Native American —affiliated archaeological resources. SWCA's current desktop review identified nine previously recorded cultural resources within the project area: six designated as pre -contact resources, one as a historic -age resource, and two with both pre - contact and historic -age components. Four of the resources within the project area identified through the records search are archaeological in nature and appear to be either listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP, the CRHR, or local listings. Twenty-one previously recorded resources are located outside of the project area but within a 0.5-mile radius of the project. A multicomponent site (RIV-3410H), which consists of both pre -contact and historic -era components, has a historic component that includes ranch buildings that were part of Vail Ranch and has not been evaluated for the NRHP, but according to site records, the site has likely been destroyed by construction activities (Dice et al. 2001). Archival research also identified at least nine roads that transected or intersected the project area during the early twentieth century, and additional roads and a gauging station at the northwest corner of the project area depicted on topographic maps dating to the late 1940s. Interstate 15, which crosses through the project area, was constructed in the 1970s but is likely exempt from evaluation (Property Type 6) under Attachment 4 of the First Amended Caltrans Section 106 Programmatic Agreement. The likelihood of encountering new historic -era archaeological resources such as trash deposits, privies, structural remains, etc., in the identified areas of historical interest is considered moderate. Outside these areas of historic interest, the project area remained vacant and undeveloped, and as such, the likelihood of encountering historic -era archaeological resources in remaining portions of the project area is considered low. Similarly, the project area has a low sensitivity for encountering built environment resources. Impacts to sensitive archaeological resources and TCRs (including the above -mentioned resources and any, as of yet, unidentified resources) have not been determined to date because focused surveys within the project were not authorized at this time, responses/input from interested tribes have not yet been fully captured, and a formal project description outlining specific CWPP fuel reduction activities has not yet been identified and approved. 35 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan Risk Category: Very high sensitivity for pre -contact archaeological resources and TCRs. Low sensitivity for historic -era archaeological resources in the project area. Low sensitivity for built environment resources and historic -era resources outside the project area. Given the very high sensitivity for pre -contact archaeological resources and TCRs, it is unlikely that the project would qualify for a CEQA Exemption (Statutory or Categorical Exemptions), and that cultural and tribal resources assessments/technical studies will be required under CEQA, NEPA, and/or Section 106 of the NHPA (should the project receive federal funding). These resource assessments/technical studies would be prepared and included as an addendum to the Ca1VTP PEIR. In addition, Caltrans encroachment permit(s) may be required if work occurs within Caltrans right-of-way along Interstate 15. The appropriate Caltrans district should be contacted to confirm whether encroachment permit(s) would be required. Recommendations: The CWPP-recommended fuels treatments are actions that must comply with CEQA. Although portions of the project area were previously surveyed for cultural resources, the most recent surveys were completed more than 10 years ago, and under current OHP guidelines and standards, a focused systematic archaeological survey, performed by qualified archaeologists and Native American tribal representatives, is recommended. The purpose of the archaeological survey is to identify previously unknown cultural resources, assess the current condition of previously recorded cultural resources, and assess recommended fuel reduction strategies and their potential impacts to NRHP-eligible or listed historic properties, cultural resources, and TCRs within the project area. An intensive archaeological survey will help provide the basis for the development of effective protection measures for cultural resources within the treatment area(s). Much of the project area could be covered in dense vegetation obscuring ground visibility. As such, it may be necessary to perform supplemental surveys and monitoring during fuels reduction activities associated with implementation of the CWPP. To date, all NAHC-listed tribal contacts responding to SWCA's coordination letter have indicated their preference to defer project participation to the Pechanga Band (Exhibit B). The project also requires an offer of tribal consultation from the City of Temecula under AB 52 (PRC 21080.3.1), as well as formal government -to -government consultation. The Pechanga Band has communicated their interest in participating in the project and have reserved their rights to engage in formal government -to -government consultation (Exhibit B). Tribal participation in any archaeological survey is anticipated, and tribal input and TEK should be incorporated in the development of any protection measures and taken into consideration prior to the removal of native species. Participation of and consultation with the Pechanga Band community is crucial to the effective identification and protection of cultural resources within the CWPP area (City of Temecula 2005). Native American participation is required for all levels of future investigations in the CWPP area, including those areas that have been previously developed, unless additional information can be provided to demonstrate that the property has been graded to a point where no cultural resources would be impacted. Areas that have not been previously developed should be surveyed to determine potential for historical resources to be encountered, and whether additional evaluation is required. All invasive and nonnative plant —removal methods should be designed to minimize potential impacts to cultural resources, and excavation of root mass is not recommended. Low -impact fuels reduction approaches should be designed with assistance from Pechanga Band members and should minimize ground disturbance to the extent possible. TEK should be integrated into the revegetation components of the fuels reduction efforts. Culturally significant plant species, such as yerba mansa (Anemopsis californica, Luiseno word is Chevnash), rush (Juncus sp., Luiseno word is Shoila), deer grass (Muhlenbergia rigens, Luiseno word is Yulalac), and others should be discussed with Pechanga Band .CT Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan members and be incorporated into project implementation plans. Should the project qualify for CEQA coverage by tiering from the Ca1VTP PEIR, or if a new EIR or IS/MND is required, it is recommended that cultural and tribal resources assessments/technical studies be prepared. Nevertheless, tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 would be required. A paleontological records search and desktop analysis should also be performed. Impacts to paleontological and cultural resources will be determined once a project description of sufficient detail to quantify impacts is available. Once a detailed project description is available, a paleontological assessment is performed, tribal input has been shared/received, and the surveys have been conducted, impacts can be adequately identified and quantified, and appropriate mitigation can be determined. 37 Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan REFERENCES Ashkar, S. 1999 Draft Cultural Resources Inventory Report for Williams Communication, Inc. Proposed Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project, Riverside to San Diego, California. Jones & Stokes, Sacramento, California. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Eastern Information Center, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. Bowden-Renna, Cheryl 2002 San Diego Gas and Electric Valley Rainbow Data Request 2 and 12, EDAW, Inc., San Diego, California. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Eastern Information Center, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. Bowles, Larry L. 1982 Archaeological Assessment for Tentative Parcel 18254. Colton, California. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Eastern Information Center, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. Brunzell, David 2011 Cultural Resources Assessment of the NewPath Networks, LLC DAS Project in the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula, Riverside County, California (BCR Consulting Project No. SYN0901). BCR Consulting, Claremont, California. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Eastern Information Center, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 2023a Built Environment Resources Directory for Riverside County. Available at https:Hohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338. Accessed December 2023. 2023b "California Historical Resources." Available at https:Hohp.parks.ca.gov/ ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=33. Accessed December 2023. City of Temecula 2005 General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element. Available at https://temeculaca.gov/345/General-Plan. Accessed December 2023. 2011 Old Town Specific Plan, p. III-14. Adopted by City Council May 25, 2010, revised August 11, 2010, April 26, 2011, and August 3, 2011. Available at https:Hlaserfiche.temeculaca.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=254402&dbid=2&repo=Teme cula&cr=1. Accessed December 2023. 2023 "Historical Places." Available at https://temeculaca.gov/153/Historical-Places. Accessed December 2023. Chartkoff, Joe, Kerry Chartkoff, and Laurie Kona 1965a University of California Archaeological Site Survey Record for Site CA-RIV-50. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Eastern Information Center, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan 1965b University of California, Los Angeles Archaeological Survey Archaeological Feature Record for Site CA-RIV-365. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Eastern Information Center, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. Clevenger, Joyce M., and Delman James 1996 Cultural Resource Assessment: Pala Road Bridge Sewer Realignment Project at Temecula Creek. Temecula Area of Riverside County, CA by Archaeological Research Unit in February 1992, and DRAFT Extended Phase I Investigation of CA-RIV-4707/H. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Eastern Information Center, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. de Barros, Philip, and Christopher E. Drover 1997 Phase II Evaluation of Archaeological Site CA-RIV-4707/H for Determination of Eligibility Temecula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge Project City of Temecula, Riverside County, California 08-RIV-CR-Pala Road. Professional Archaeological Services, San Diego, California. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Eastern Information Center, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. Dice, Michael, E. Bruce Lander, and Leslie Nay Irish 2001 A Phase I Archaeological Resource Survey and A Paleontological Records Review of the Temecula Marketplace Project, Located Near Highway 79 And Avenida De Missiones, City of Temecula, California. L&L Environmental, Inc., Report on file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Google Earth 1996 Aerial imagery depicting project area and vicinity, dated September 29, 1996. 2002 Aerial imagery depicting project area and vicinity, dated May 21, 2002. ICF International (ICF) 2023 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Temecula Creek Wildlife Corridor Project — Baseline Conditions and Opportunities and Constraints Report. Final Draft. July. Prepared by ICF (ICF 104134.0.001.01.001.05.) Irvine, California. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy, San Diego, California. Johnston, Bernice E. 1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund 8, Southwest Museum, Los Angeles, California. King, T.F. 1972 California Desert Archaeological Site Survey Form for Site CA-RIV-365. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Eastern Information Center, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. Macarro, Paul 2024 Letter in Response to Request for Information for the City of Temecula Wildfire Prevention Plan and Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. From Paul Macarro, Cultural Coordinator, Pechanga Cultural Resources, Pechanga Band of Indians. Temecula, California. Cultural Resources Critical Issues Analysis for the City of Temecula — Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan McCarthy, Daniel F. 1988 Archaeological Site Record for Site CA-RIV-365. Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Eastern Information Center, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. National Park Service 2023a National Register of Historic Places — listed properties. August 1, 2023. Available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm. Accessed December 2023. 2023b Federal Determinations of Eligibility. August 1, 2023. Available at https://www.nps.gov/ subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm. Accessed December 2023. NETROnline Historic Aerials 2023 Historic Aerials. Available at: https://www.historicaerials.com/. Accessed December 2023. Riverside County 2015 General Plan Multipurpose Open Space Element. Available at https: //planning.rctlma. org/sites/g/files/aldnop4 l 6/files/migrated/Portals- l 4-genplan- general-plan-2016-elements-Ch05-MOSE-120815.pdf. Accessed December 2023. 2023 Map My County GIS database. Riverside County Information Technology. Available at https:Hgisl.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer--MMC—Public. Accessed December 2023. Southwest Museum 1962 The Gabrielino Indians at the Time of the Portola Expedition. [Map] Los Angeles Public Library Online Map Collection. Call Number R 91.7941 L88Los. Stein, M. 1981 Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeological Site Survey Record for Site CA-RIV- 50. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Eastern Information Center, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. University of California, Santa Barbara Aerial Imagery Library 2023 FrameFinder. Available at: https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Accessed December 2023. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2023 USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer. Available at: https:Hlivingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.html. Accessed December 2023. Vader, Michael 2015 Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeological Site Survey Record for Site P-33- 025246. ESA, San Diego, California. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Eastern Information Center, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 40 EXHIBIT A California Historical Resources Information System Records Search Results CONFIDENTIAL —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION CONTENT FROM THIS SECTION HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM PUBLICLY CIRCULATED DRAFTS Archaeological and other heritage resources can be damaged or destroyed through uncontrolled public disclosure of information regarding their location. This document contains sensitive information regarding the nature and location of archaeological sites, which should not be disclosed to the general public or unauthorized persons pursuant to California Government Code 6254(r) and 6254.10. Information regarding the location, character, or ownership of a cultural resource is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act pursuant to 54 USC 307103 (National Historic Preservation Act) and 16 USC Section 470(h) (Archaeological Resources Protections Act) e E l 1a�� MeN �•. .�� �' �U� '� w wAl e - cic •� Q P-' 3/ 004949 ` �L ` �S\: �` r \ P1'33-023889— kf I I L P-33-011222 a } i _ I P-33-029407` • �� P-33-029766 s P-33-009753 P-33-025246— ' P-33-003410 P-33-000365 P-33-004707 P-33-000270-- - P-33-013135 1 P-33-0.00050� P-33-012520— P-33-003411 ! P-33-011443 l�G>txu .—P-33-012731 P-33-01100�' i —P-33-012732 T —P-33-024088 P 33-012517 h P-33-024090 P-33=0'12742 P-334024089 P-33-014928 P-33-001071 _ 49,30 P-33-024153 P-33-014929 �:• P --' Y 91a13095 � 4 dB1.4 BE§. vATIOW" \ � n Q Project Boundary Riverside County, CA uses 75' Quadrangle: 0 1.000 2000 Fee, Records Search 0.5 mile ) T roecuia, ea, 33117-02 Pechari CA, 33117 D1 �Ma,es 0 250 500 Previously Recorded Resource T8S R3W Section 13,24 TSS R2w section 17-20 N Township ! Range Boundary 37031326N m 48ES322E m — USGS Quadrangle Boundary - 1:24,000 ease uap: esdaJ-7 2024 acres5dlanuary2024 uaa�a, oIV2024 a,oigm No. yaws ���� ayau, Th9T6 Te�neculaCV•1PP RegoVETae FNVIIONMENTnL [ONSVLTANSS Figure A-1. CHRIS records search results: resources. A-1 Sacred Lands File Search Results and Native American Coordination CONFIDENTIAL —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION CONTENT FROM THIS SECTION HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM PUBLICLY CIRCULATED DRAFTS - STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Govemor ^IA 1 11 1 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION ' April 27, 2023 Oyu Aaron Elzinga SWCA Environmental Consultants CHAIRPERSON Laura Miranda Via Email to: aelzinaa@swca.com Lu isen o VICE CHAIRPERSON Re: City of Temecula Community Wildfire Protection Plan Project, Riverside County Reginald Pagaling Chum ash Dear Mr. Elzinga: SECRETARY Sara Dutschke A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) Miwok was completed for the information submitted for the above referenced project. The results were positive. Please contact the Pechanga Band of Indians on the attached list for COMMISSIONER information. Please note that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the SLF, nor are Isaac Bojorquez they required to do so. A SLF search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are ohbne-Costanoan traditionally and culturally affiliated with a project's geographic area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites, such COMMISSIONER as the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Bully McQuillen archaeological Information Center for the presence of recorded archaeological sites. Yokayo Pomc, Yuki, Nom faki Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential COMMISSIONER adverse impact within the proposed project area. Please contact all of those listed; if they Wayne Nelson Lu isen o cannot supply information, they may recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of Consloe notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to Stanley Rodriguez Kumeyaay ensure that the project information has been received. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify COMMISSIONER the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information. [Vacant] If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email COMMISSIONER address: Andrew.Green@nahc.ca.goy. [Vacant] Sincerely, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Raymond C. Hitchcock Miwok/Nisenan Andrew Green Cultural Resources Analyst NAHC HEADQUARTERS 1550 Harbor Boulevard Attachment Suite 100 West Sacramento, Caltomia 95691 (916) 373-3710 nahc@nahc.ca.aov NAHC.ca.gov Page 1 of 1 B-1 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Patricia Garcia -Plotkin, Director 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Palm Springs, CA, 92264 Phone: (760) 699 - 6907 Fax: (760) 699-6924 ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Reid Milanovich, Chairperson 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Palm Springs, CA, 92264 Phone: (760) 699 - 6800 Fax: (760) 699-6919 laviles@aguacaliente.net Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List Riverside County 4/27/2023 Pala Band of Mission Indians Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Cahuilla PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula Cupeno Road Luiseno Pala, CA, 92059 Phone: (760) 891 - 3515 Fax: (760) 742-3189 sgaughen@palatribe.com Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians Temet Aguilar, Chairperson Cahuilla P.O. Box 369 Luiseno Pauma Valley, CA, 92061 Phone: (760) 742 - 1289 Fax: (760) 742-3422 bennaecalac@aol.com Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation - Belardes Joyce Perry, Cultural Resource Director 4955 Paseo Segovia Juaneno Irvine, CA, 92603 Phone: (949) 293 - 8522 kaamalam@gmail.com Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 84A Heidi Lucero, Chairperson, THPO 31411-A La Matanza Street San Juan Capistrano, CA, 92675 Phone: (562) 879 - 2884 jbmian.chairwoman@gmail.com La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians Norma Contreras, Chairperson 22000 Highway 76 Pauma Valley, CA, 92061 Phone: (760) 742 - 3771 Pala Band of Mission Indians Alexis Wallick, Assistant THPO PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula Road Pala, CA, 92059 Phone: (760) 891 - 3537 awallick@palatribe.com Pechanga Band of Indians Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources Coordinator P.O. Box 1477 Luiseno Temecula, CA, 92593 Phone: (951) 770 - 6306 Fax: (951) 506-9491 pmacarro@pechanga-nsn.gov Pechanga Band of Indians Mark Macarro, Chairperson P.O. Box 1477 Luiseno Temecula, CA, 92593 Juaneno Phone: (951) 770 - 6000 Fax: (951) 695-1778 epreston@pechanga-nsn.gov Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee Luiseno P.O. Box 1899 Quechan Yuma, AZ, 85366 Phone: (928) 750 - 2516 scottmanfred@yahoo.com Cupeno Luiseno This list is current only as ofthe date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 ofthe Public Resource Section 5097.98 ofthe Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed City of Temecula Community Wildfire Protection Plan Project, Riverside County. PR03-2023- 04/27/2023 01:04 PM 1 of 2 002102 B-2 Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List Riverside County 4/27/2023 Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation Officer P.O. Box 1899 Quechan Yuma, AZ, 85366 Phone: (760) 572 - 2423 historicpreservation@quechantrib e. com Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson One Government Center Lane Valley Center, CA, 92082 Phone: (760) 749 - 1051 Fax: (760) 749-5144 bomazzetti@aol.com Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson P. O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA, 92581 Phone: (951) 654 - 5544 Fax: (951) 654-4198 ivivanco@soboba-nsn.gov Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Luiseno Resource Department P.O. BOX 487 San Jacinto, CA, 92581 Phone: (951) 663 - 5279 Fax: (951) 654-4198 jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer One Government Center Lane Luiseno Valley Center, CA, 92082 Phone: (760) 297 - 2635 crd@rincon-nsn.gov San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians 1889 Sunset Drive Luiseno Vista, CA, 92081 Phone: (760) 724 - 8505 Fax: (760) 724-2172 cjmojado@slrmissionindians.org San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians San Luis Rey, Tribal Council 1889 Sunset Drive Luiseno Vista, CA, 92081 Phone: (760) 724 - 8505 Fax: (760) 724-2172 cjmojado@slrmissionindians.org Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair P.O. Box 391820 Cahuilla Anza, CA, 92539 Phone: (951) 659 - 2700 Fax: (951) 659-2228 Isaul@santarosa-nsn.gov Cahuilla Luiseno Cahuilla Luiseno This list is current only as ofthe date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 ofthe Public Resource Section 5097.98 ofthe Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed City of Temecula Community Wildfire Protection Plan Project, Riverside County. PR03-2023- 04/27/2023 01:04 PM 2 of 2 002102 B-3 h 1 SWC.A ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Sound Science. Creative Solutions December 21, 2023 320 North Halstead Street, Suite 120 Pasadena, California 91107 Tel 626.240.0587 Fax 626.568.2958 www.swca.com Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources Coordinator Pechanga Band of Indians P.O. Box 1477 Temecula, CA, 92593 Subject: Scoping Letter for Cultural Resources for the City of Temecula Wildfire Prevention Plan and Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), City of Temecula, Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Macarro, The City of Temecula has contracted SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) to conduct a cultural resources constraints analysis as part of the development of a strategic, comprehensive Wildfire Prevention Plan and Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), in the city of Temecula, Riverside County, California (Project). The Project is immediately south of Temecula Parkway/State Route (SR) 79 and intersects with a portion of Interstate 15 (I-15) on the west. It is situated along sections of Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, and Pechanga Creek near the terminus of Temecula Parkway at the northwestern end to the Saint Thomas of Canterbury Episcopal Church at the east end. Several conservation easements are included within the Project area, and it is in proximity to other protected areas. Surrounding land use is mostly residential with a mix of commercial properties. The Project area itself remains mostly undeveloped. Specifically, the Project area is depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS's) 7.5-Minute Temecula, California Quadrangle at Township 8 South; Range 3 West; Sections 13 and 24 and the Pechanga, California Quadrangle at Township 8 South; Range 2 West; Sections 17-20. The CWPP focuses on the 177-acre Temecula Creek project site (please refer to attached maps) and its purpose is to reduce the risk of wildfire in an urban/wildlands interface area containing sensitive cultural and biological resources abutting residential and commercial developments within the city. This would occur through fuels reduction focused on removing non-native species with some removal of native vegetation where there is an especially high risk of wildfire. No development or earth -moving is proposed and the CWPP is being designed to maximize avoidance of sensitive resources to the greatest extent practicable. The CWPP is only in a preliminary phase of development, and there is currently no schedule for project implementation. The purpose of this letter is to request information from local Native American tribes and individuals regarding Native American land use, history, and knowledge of the Temecula area. More specifically, we are seeking information on cultural resources that may exist in the vicinity of the CWPP Project area. We are interested in any information you may choose to share with us. It is important to note that this letter is part of SWCA's scoping for the cultural resource background research effort; government -to - government consultation requirements as stipulated in Assembly Bill (AB) 52 remains the responsibility of the City of Temecula. Scoping Letter for Cultural Resources for the City of Temecula Wildfire Prevention Plan and Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), City of Temecula, Riverside County, California SWCA completed a record search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Eastern Information Center located on the campus of the University of California at Riverside and coordinated with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), including a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF), among other efforts. The results of the records search identified nine previously recorded cultural resources within the Project Area, including six designated as pre -contact resources, one historic -age resource, and two resources with both pre -contact and historic -age components. Twenty-five (25) additional previously recorded resources were identified within a 0.5-mile radius. The SLF search was returned by the NAHC on April 27, 2023, with positive results for the presence of Native American sacred sites in the vicinity of the Project, and a recommendation to contact the Pechanga Band of Indians for more information. Please contact me and we can discuss an appropriate means of incorporating any information you are willing to provide into the cultural resources constraints analysis and any future cultural resources assessment or technical study that may be required. All non -confidential information will be included in the cultural resource analysis and provided to the City of Temecula. Any information considered confidential will be redacted from versions of reports made available to the public. You can contact me directly via telephone at (661) 341-0001 or via email at aelzinga@swca.com. I would greatly appreciate a response within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. Sincerely, C- Aaron Elzinga, M.A., RPA Cultural Resources Team Lead SWCA Environmental Consultants Phone: (626) 240-0587 x6606 I Cell: (661) 341-0001 aelzinga@swca.com Attachment A: Project Vicinity Map, Project Location Map, and Project Overview Map ATTACHMENT A Scoping Letter for Cultural Resources for the City of Temecula Wildfire Prevention Plan and Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), City of Temecula, Riverside County, California LAKEVIEW % Soboba MOUNTAINS Reservation Hemet / r Sun City It ROUSE R _ La Elsinore NA N Wildomar 79 a Murrieta • �J z � O 3 PS' �0 i S� E� Temecula • �, 3 SAN MATEO .-- CANYON 5 A NT A ARGARITA � --� y 79 Pechanga Reservation RIVERS] DE OUNTAINS f 4342 ft SAfV UlEGO # IqaTicQR LF allbrook AGUA TIBIA r, MOUNTAIN Camp Pendleton Marine Carps �' ' PALOMAR M O U Ni A I M Base�,y,_. Pala y Reservation) �\ LaJ Ila rs;. 76 Reservation - Valley Center Oceanside • ista OAT HILLS s i Carlsbad _ Project Location Y6 I Riverside County, CA 11SGS 7.T Quadrangles. 0 io,0o0 20,000 freer ^ County Boundary ry TmculA33117D2 Pechaga, CA, 33117-D1 �Merers 0 3,000 a,000 TSS R3W Section 24 T85 RZW Section 04-09, ,,-,2,28-30 NAD 1983 UTM Za pJ A 3703926N m 488122E m N Base Map: esnan:cis omma, 1.300,000 e—Decemberz 23 e�c Vv"at. 1N. 74676 Pivlect No. -2023 A S A CA J V \\! ayaul. 74816_TamaculaCWPP_P,V [uvieoxmrxurroxsxrrnxrs Figure 1. Project Vicinity A-1 Scoping Letter for Cultural Resources for the City of Temecula Wildfire Prevention Plan and Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), City of Temecula, Riverside County, California ula I cr W= £ Ni L C itL /J �.�3 -sawn I E 1� l - • �k $13 � r C a � � ~• � - - a 0 r '' A ' o alo -69 men§ a f . Cdt WO coxw BM 20% 0 r ,- p 7 RES VA7lOfjJH` + ' v jxso Project Boundary 1 rY Ri—Ade coxrny, [A uSG5 7s' C2 ad ngle o 1,000 2.0" Fee, r — Township 1 Range Boundary Temecula, CA, 33117-t)2 Rechanga, [A. 33117-D1 Metes sx s9x — USGS Quadrangle Boundary T. R3W Section 13,24 Tes RM 5ealoo 17-20 NAD 1993 UTM Zone 11N N A 3703926N m 986122E m N Sase MaA' E.nArcGJS OM . accessed Dece '2023 _ 1:24,000 Updated-121202023 PEod b2g23 ®youl S ■ CA JWr4 ]99]6 TemeculaGWPP ProjLx fM'IROxryEn1AL COxSVETnx�S Figure 2. Project Location A-2 Scoping Letter for Cultural Resources for the City of Temecula Wildfire Prevention Plan and Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), City of Temecula, Riverside County, California •Itife ilk , L V; ��.' I.a�y�.'``y�F.�� ya '1 1 � f �. o�ep. i mot,,. Lr � qe 1 x! . .. • . 'i�' • la i/T '► _ J Yf e S At t - , Project Bounda 1 ry Riyer�ide [oxr,ty, CA uSGS 75' gaadrangle o wo t000 Temecula, CA33117-D2 P,0,2a, , CA, 33117-01 T8S R3W Section 24 T85 RZW Section 09-09, 15-22, Meters goo mo t4 A NAD 1983 UTM Zarce 11N 11N 3703926N m 988122E M N Base Map: E.m Am0l Online, accessetl Oecamber206 _ 1:16,500 (1, l }� J� llpdater112l192n23 PmlC No.T99]Ei Layout'. ]49]6 TemeculaCWPP Aerial JV`Yf ((-�. fM'IROxryEn1AL COxSVETnx.S Figure 3. Project Overview A-3 PECHANGA CULTURAL RESOURCES Pechanga Band of Indians VIA E-Mail and USPS Aaron Elzinga, M.A.,RPA Cultural Resources Team Lead SWCA Environmental Consultants aelzinga@swca.com Chairperson: Neal Ibanez Vice Chairperson: Bridgett Barcello Committee Members: Post Office. Box 2183 • Temecula, CA 92593 Darlene Miranda Telephone (951) 770-6300 • Fax (951) 506-9491 Richard B. Scearce, III Robert Villalobos Shevon Torres Juan Rodriguez Direcctor: January 27, 2024 Gary DuBois Coordinator: Paul Macarro Cultural Analyst: Tuba Ebru Ozdil RE: Request for Information for the City of Temecula Wildfire Prevention Plan and Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), City of Temecula, Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Elzinga, The Pechanga Band of Indians ("the Tribe") appreciates your request for information regarding the above referenced Project. After reviewing the provided maps and our internal documents we have determined that the Project area is not within Reservation land's but is located .75 of -a -mile away from our Reservation and the Project's central -portion is directly adjacent to Pechanga's Temecula Creek Inn Property. This Undertaking is located in the very heart of Our Ancestral Territory. We are interested in participating in this Project based upon our `Ayelkwish/Traditional Knowledge of the area and its location being entirely within two Traditional Cultural Properties, both encompassing the historic Village of Temecula. The first of these Sacred Lands Filings entails the Avenida de Missiones-to-Jedidiah Smith segment of the Project Oust west of J.Smith AKA the west portion of the In-N-Out parking lot), where our two mapped Sacred Land's Filings overlap. The Project's middle to west-northwest Area of Potential Effects, is situated completely within the Luiseno Ancestral Origin Area —which is a Listed Property on the National Register of Historic Places. Overall for any project, there is not a more culturally sensitive -span in our entire Ancestral Territory. The very flash -point for Creation of our Culture's World occurs at the confluence of the Murrieta and Temecula Creeks and both Creek's -ends are within this Undertaking's -sphere. There are 4 Ancestral Placenames within this Project's-APE and another 5 Placenames are located 1 mile from the Project. For over four decades the Tribe has been formally responsible for over two dozen Ancestral sacred site burials, within this Project's particular APE. Between 1979-2004 Ancestors were directly impacted by the construction of the 15 Freeway and Temecula Creek developments. Within this Project's-APE there are 11 recorded Ancestral -archaeological sites and another 42 sites located from 1 mile of the Project Boundary. The perennial Temecula and Murrieta Creeks once coursed through numerous Ancestral Communities, before becoming Taatamay/the Santa Margarita River, on its way to M6omat/the Pacific Ocean. Notably, NHD (National Hydrologic Dataset) bluelines representing the Temecula and Murrieta Creeks exist directly within this Project's-APE. As evidenced by more than 24 Ancestral burials and when considering Our Culture's burial -practices the immediate proximities of these Creeks to this Project are very concerning to the Tribe because, such an adjacency to these long-term waterways increases the likelihood for impacts to our Ancestral burial -areas. Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Because of this Project's immediate proximity to previously impacted Ancestral human remains, since this Project is entirely within our Traditional Cultural Landscape and the Project's-impacts within the TCL will be requiring a proper -assessment due to its National Register Listing. Because the project is situated within a second and distinct TCP, is surrounded by numerous Ancestral Placenames, considering the NHD-blueline's immediate proximities and impacts, in view of the 11 previously recorded culturally sensitive -sites in the APE and another 42 sites located only 1 mile away, and because of longstanding project experience within this Project's vicinity the Tribe therefore, is interested in participating in this Project. Pechanga believes that the possibility of recovering sensitive subsurface resources during ground -disturbing activities for this Project is extremely high. The Tribe is dedicated to providing comprehensive cultural information to you and your firm for inclusion in the archaeological study as well as to the Lead Agency for CEQA review. At this time, the Tribe requests the following so we may continue the consultation process and to provide adequate and appropriate recommendations for the Project: 1) Notification once the Project begins the entitlement process, if it has not already; 2) Copies of all applicable archaeological reports, site records, proposed grading plans and environmental documents (EA/IS/MND/EIR, etc); 3) Government -to -government consultation with the Lead Agency; and 4) The Tribe believes that monitoring by a Riverside County qualified archaeologist and a professional Pechanga Tribal Monitor may be required during earthmoving activities. Therefore, the Tribe reserves its right to make additional comments and recommendations once the environmental documents have been received and fully reviewed. 5) In the event that subsurface cultural resources are identified, the Tribe requests consultation with the Project proponent and Lead Agency regarding the treatment and disposition of all artifacts. As a Sovereign governmental entity, the Tribe is entitled to appropriate and adequate government -to -government consultation regarding the proposed Project. We would like you and your client to know that the Tribe does not consider initial inquiry letters from project consultants to constitute appropriate government -to -government consultation, but rather tools to obtain further information about the Project area. Therefore, the Tribe reserves its rights to participate in the formal environmental review process, including government -to -government consultation with the Lead Agency, and requests to be included in all correspondence regarding this Project. Please note that we are interested in participating in surveys within 'Ataaxum/Payomkawichum Ancestral Territory. Prior to conducting any surveys, please contact the Cultural Department to schedule specifics. If you have any additional questions or comments, please contact me at pmacarro@pechanga-nsn.gov or 951-770-6306. erely, au E. Macarro Cultural Coordinator Pechanga Cultural WA Aga PRFOY.W i1Wnd of Indians Post Office Box 2183 - Temecula, CA 92592 Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need APPENDIX C CEQA Resources C. CEQA STRATEGY FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE The Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) identifies various recommendations for creating fire -adapted communities in Table 4.2, some of which may require compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21065, a project subject to CEQA compliance means an activity that may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following: a) An activity directly undertaken by that public agency. b) An activity undertaken by a person that is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies. c) An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies. For activities identified in the CWPP that are determined to qualify as projects subject to CEQA compliance, the following levels of CEQA review may be applicable: • Statutory exemption pursuant to Article 18 of the State CEQA Guidelines • Categorical exemption pursuant to Article 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines • CEQA tiering documentation pursuant to the California Vegetation Treatment Program (Ca1VTP) Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) A CEQA process flowchart and descriptions of the various levels of CEQA review and associated activities are provided below to help facilitate the CEQA review decision -making process. C-1 Planned Project CEQA Process Prepare Project Description that includes Best Management Practices (Bill and Avoidance and Minimization Measures (Al Complete California Vegetation Management Treatment Program Project or some project (CaIVTP) Project Specific Analysis components qualify for 5EI or CU Al impacts fall At least one new Impact At least one new impact within the scope of At least one new from the CaIVTP EIR that from the CalVTP EIR the CafVTP impact from the less -than -significant with that potentially Environmental Cal EIR that mgigation significant Impact Report less -than -significant (EIR) Focused ND Focused i Focused EIR addressing impacts addressing impacts not addressing impacts not within the within the CalVTP EIR not within the Ca111TP EIR CaIVTP EIR Adept NDIMND or Certify EIR File Notice of Exemption Approved Project Implement Project Statutory Exemption (SE)that may apply is State Ci Guidelines Sect on 15289 SE for Emergency Projects, including e m e rgency re pails to pub] idy own e d service facilities necessary to maintain service essential tothe public health, safety, orwMTare andior s pecifi c acti ons n e ce ssa ry to prevent o r mitig ate an emergency 2 Cate goncal Exemptiona(Ci that mayapply indude State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Class 1 CE forthe operation, repair. maintenance, or mina r alteration of existin g faci I (ties involving negligide or no expansion ctan existing use a ndi'or State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 Class4 CE for minor pubic or private alteratiensin the condition ofland, water, andlorvegetatlonthat do not involveremoval of healthy. mature, or scenictrees exceptfor fo restryan d agricultural purposes, Class 6CE includesfuel management activities within 30 feet of structures to reduce the volume offlammatile vegetation providedthatthe activitieswill not re s u It in ih a talon g of enda ng erect, rare, or threatened pl art or an i mal species or significant erosion and sedimentation of se rvi ce waters. This exemption also appliesto fuel managemerd activities within 100 feet of a slrudure lithe public agency having fire protection responsibiityforthe area has dete rmi n ed th at 100 feet of fu e i clearance is requiiedduato extra hazardous fire conditions, C. CEQA Statutory Exemptions Pursuant to Article 18 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 21083 of the Public Resources Code), certain activities have been granted statutory exemptions from CEQA by the Legislature. Statutorily exempt activities that may be applicable to the recommendations identified in the CWPP include the following: CEQA Guidelines Section 1526Z Feasibility and Planning Studies A project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions that the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration but does require consideration of environmental factors. This section does not apply to the adoption of a plan that will have a legally binding effect on later activities. CEQA Guidelines Section 15269, Emergency Projects The following emergency projects are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. (a) Projects to maintain, repair, restore, demolish, or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster in a disaster stricken area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act, commencing with Section 8550 of the Government Code. This includes projects that will remove, destroy, or significantly alter an historical resource when that resource represents an imminent threat to the public of bodily harm or of damage to adjacent property or when the project has received a determination by the State Office of Historic Preservation pursuant to Section 5028(b) of Public Resources Code. (b) Emergency repairs to publicly or privately owned service facilities necessary to maintain service essential to the public health, safety or welfare. Emergency repairs include those that require a reasonable amount of planning to address an anticipated emergency. (c) Specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency. This does not include long-term projects undertaken for the purpose of preventing or mitigating a situation that has a low probability of occurrence in the short-term, but this exclusion does not apply (i) if the anticipated period of time to conduct an environmental review of such a long-term project would create a risk to public health, safety or welfare, or (ii) if activities (such as fire or catastrophic risk mitigation or modifications to improve facility integrity) are proposed for existing facilities in response to an emergency at a similar existing facility. (d) Projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to maintain, repair, or restore an existing highway damaged by fire, flood, storm, earthquake, land subsidence, gradual earth movement, or landslide, provided that the project is within the existing right of way of that highway and is initiated within one year of the damage occurring. This exemption does not apply to highways designated as official state scenic highways, nor any project undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to expand or widen a highway damaged by fire, flood, storm, earthquake, land subsidence, gradual earth movement, or landslide. (e) Seismic work on highways and bridges pursuant to Section 180.2 of the Streets and Highways Code, Section 180 et seq. C-3 C. CEQA Categorical Exemptions Pursuant to Article 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 21084 of the Public Resources Code), classes of projects have been identified that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and that are, therefore, exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Exceptions to the list of categorically excluded activities include the following, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2: (a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located — a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. (b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. (c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. (d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. (e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. (f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Categorically exempt activities that may be applicable to the recommendations identified in the CWPP include the following: CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.3, Revisions to List of Categorical Exemptions Pursuant to Section 15300.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a public agency may, at any time, request that a new class of categorical exemptions be added, or an existing one amended or deleted. This request must be made in writing to the Office of Planning and Research and shall contain detailed information to support the request. The granting of such request shall be by amendment to the State CEQA Guidelines. In response to SWCA's request made to the Office of Planning and Research on June 30, 2022, for specific steps required for this approach and examples of past requests that have been successful, the Office of Planning and Research indicated that no specific guidance or examples are available beyond the language provided above in Section 15300.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Office of Planning and Research would need to review the request made in writing and decide if the requested exemption should be forwarded to the California Natural Resources Agency to go through a formal rulemaking process to be included in the California Code of Regulations and the State CEQA Guidelines. C-4 C. CEQA It is SWCA's opinion that this approach is not often pursued because it can take years to work through the process and is unlikely to be successful. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of "existing facilities" itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. Examples include but are not limited to: (a) Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances; (b) Existing facilities of both investor and publicly owned utilities used to provide electric power, natural gas, sewerage, or other public utility services; (c) Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities (this includes road grading for the purpose of public safety), and other alterations such as the addition of bicycle facilities, including but not limited to bicycle parking, bicycle -share facilities and bicycle lanes, transit improvements such as bus lanes, pedestrian crossings, street trees, and other similar alterations that do not create additional automobile lanes); (d) Restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment to meet current standards of public health and safety, unless it is determined that the damage was substantial and resulted from an environmental hazard such as earthquake, landslide, or flood; (e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or (2) 10,000 square feet if: (A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. (f) Addition of safety or health protection devices for use during construction of or in conjunction with existing structures, facilities, or mechanical equipment, or topographical features including navigational devices; (g) New copy on existing on and off -premise signs; (h) Maintenance of existing landscaping, native growth, and water supply reservoirs (excluding the use of pesticides, as defined in Section 12753, Division 7, Chapter 2, Food and Agricultural Code); (i) Maintenance of fish screens, fish ladders, wildlife habitat areas, artificial wildlife waterway devices, streamflows, springs and waterholes, and stream channels (clearing of debris) to protect fish and wildlife resources; (j) Fish stocking by the California Department of Fish and Game; C-5 C. CEQA (k) Division of existing multiple family or single-family residences into common -interest ownership and subdivision of existing commercial or industrial buildings, where no physical changes occur which are not otherwise exempt; (1) Demolition and removal of individual small structures listed in this subdivision: (1) One single-family residence. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be demolished under this exemption. (2) A duplex or similar multifamily residential structure. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to duplexes and similar structures where not more than six dwelling units will be demolished. (3) A store, motel, office, restaurant, or similar small commercial structure if designed for an occupant load of 30 persons or less. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to the demolition of up to three such commercial buildings on sites zoned for such use. (4) Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. (m) Minor repairs and alterations to existing dams and appurtenant structures under the supervision of the Department of Water Resources. (n) Conversion of a single family residence to office use. (o) Installation, in an existing facility occupied by a medical waste generator, of a steam sterilization unit for the treatment of medical waste generated by that facility provided that the unit is installed and operated in accordance with the Medical Waste Management Act (Section 117600, et seq., of the Health and Safety Code) and accepts no offsite waste. (p) Use of a single-family residence as a small family day care home, as defined in Section 1596.78 of the Health and Safety Code. State CEQA Guidelines Section 153045 Minor Alterations to Land Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation that do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples include, but are not limited to: (a) Grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent, except that grading shall not be exempt in a waterway, in any wetland, in an officially designated (by federal, state, or local government action) scenic area, or in officially mapped areas of severe geologic hazard such as an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or within an official Seismic Hazard Zone, as delineated by the State Geologist. (b) New gardening or landscaping, including the replacement of existing conventional landscaping with water efficient or fire resistant landscaping. (c) Filling of earth into previously excavated land with material compatible with the natural features of the site; (d) Minor alterations in land, water, and vegetation on existing officially designated wildlife management areas or fish production facilities which result in improvement of habitat for fish and wildlife resources or greater fish production; (e) Minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees, etc.; (f) Minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored; C-6 C. CEQA (g) Maintenance dredging where the spoil is deposited in a spoil area authorized by all applicable state and federal regulatory agencies; (h) The creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights -of -way. (i) Fuel management activities within 30 feet of structures to reduce the volume of flammable vegetation, provided that the activities will not result in the taking of endangered, rare, or threatened plant or animal species or significant erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. (j) This exemption shall apply to fuel management activities within 100 feet of a structure if the public agency having fire protection responsibility for the area has determined that 100 feet of fuel clearance is required due to extra hazardous fire conditions. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15306, Information Collection Class 6 consists of basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities that do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. These may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action that a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15307, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources Class 7 consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to ensure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Examples include, but are not limited to, wildlife preservation activities of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Construction activities are not included in this exemption. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment Class 8 consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to ensure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption. CaIVTP CEQA Tiering For activities that do not qualify for a Statutory Exemption or Categorical Exemption, SWCA feels confident they will qualify for CEQA coverage by tiering from the Ca1VTP PEIR. The Ca1VTP PEIR provides a powerful CEQA compliance tool to expedite the implementation of wildfire resilience projects. For proposed activities to qualify for tiering using the Ca1VTP, the following conditions must apply: 1. Project Proponents: can be any local or state agency providing funding or with land ownership and/or land management, or other regulatory responsibility in the treatable landscape. 2. Project Areas: Determine if project is within the Ca1VTP Treatable Landscape • The project does not have to be entirely within the State Responsibility Area (SRA). SRA treatable landscape needs to be a substantial part of the project, but Local Responsibility Area C-7 C. CEQA (LRA) or Federal Responsibility Area (FRA) and potentially tribal land can be added via an addendum or supplement. • Applicable to projects on private land if they receive state or local government grants for vegetation treatment. As shown on Figure 2, portions of the Temecula Creek CWPP area are within the Ca1VTP Treatable Landscape, but it is not entirely located within the Ca1VTP Treatable Landscape; therefore, an Addendum will need to be prepared for any Ca1VTP tiering documentation. 3. Covered treatment types/activities include: Covered Treatment Types • Wildland-urban interface (WUI) fuel reduction: focused in WUI-designated areas and generally consist of treatments to reduce fuel loads and slow or prevent the spread of fire between wildlands and structures, and vice versa. • Fuel breaks: strategically placed vegetation treatment areas that actively support fire -control activities. • Ecological restoration projects: generally occur outside the WUI in areas that have departed from the natural fire regime as a result of fire exclusion, and would focus on restoring ecosystem processes, conditions, and resiliency. Covered Treatment Activities • Prescribed burning • Manual vegetation treatment • Mechanical vegetation treatment • Prescribed herbivory (targeted grazing) • Targeted ground application of herbicides 4. Activities/Areas Outside Scope of Ca1VTP PEIR • Activities solely within the FRA and/or LRA • Implementation of defensible space programs and building code creation/enforcement • Removal of trees for commercial purposes (timber harvesting) — subject to the Forest Protection Act. C-8 C. CEQA • ,. U� p � J) m t \�1 ♦ ��' TEFd£cu�CR��K .� r U` Q�a GAFiTA.GfYE `• 1. ,SPNSPMPP• _ � ai �OL y • c REFK CITY OF TENIECULA COMMUNITY 4MLOFIRE PROTECTION PLAN CAL VTP Treatable Landscapes — Highway Project Influence Zone (0.5 Mile Buffer) — Major Roadway Temecula Creek Project Boundary Roadway CAL VTP Treatable Landscape StreamlRiver Figure 2. CalVTP treatable landscape. C-9 Rl-de County CA NAU 1953 StatePlane California o g5 05 Miles �Kllonie.ere 0 025 05 — VI FIPS U406 Feet 33.4717'N 117. 1278°W N CredRs Ga of Forestry, CAL FIRE 4 FI REE FR ea,a Map: esRr—Os onrna. - 1:24,000 rerto�en,ee.zozs e �piam ihl s¢ s 'g r+� ■ rCA eu.1 Layoul:ca IVTP SWCA 74878 basemays .uvivoumEnrn�corvsuinrv.s C. CEQA How to Tier Using the CaIVTP PEIR 1. Tiering: First, determine whether the proposed project is suitable to tier from Ca1VTP PEIR based on the project proponent, project area (within treatable landscape), funding source, and proposed treatment types/activities. 2. Ca1VTP PEIR SPRs and MMs: Confirm that the Ca1VTP PEIR Standard Project Requirements (SPRs) and Mitigation Measures (MMs) included in the Ca1VTP PEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) can be implemented for the proposed project (see Attachment C.1). Determine whether avoidance of all sensitive resources would be feasible or whether avoidance would be infeasible for any resources. 3. Project Specific Analysis (PSA): If the City confirms Ca1VTP PEIR SPRs and MMs can be implemented for the project and there are no known potential impacts outside the scope of the Ca1VTP PEIR, the appropriate approach will be to prepare a Project Specific Analysis (PSA), which is the Ca1VTP PEIR CEQA equivalent of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Preparation of a PSA generally includes the following steps: a. Prepare Project Description b. SPR AD-7 (Planned Project): While the project description is being prepared, it will be important to complete the Planned Project CAL FIRE notification step required by SPR AD-7 (see Ca1VTP PEIR MMRP). i. For projects planning to prepare a PSA, complete the SPR AD-7 Form and submit it to Ca1VTPprojects(kfire.ca.gov at least 15 days prior to filing the Notice of Determination for the project. Submit Planned Project Form and Project Map. c. PSA: Use Ca1VTP PSA template (see Attachment C.2) and MMRP template to prepare for the proposed project. i. Use PSA to determine whether the project qualifies as within the scope of the Ca1VTP PEIR or requires additional environmental documentation or its own independent environmental review. If the project would (1) cause any new type of impact, (2) cause any substantially more severe significant impact than was addressed in the PEIR, or (3) reveal a mitigation measure or alternative that is substantially different from those in the PEIR or found infeasible in the PEIR, but that is now feasible, and that the project proponent declines to implement, additional environmental documentation would be required (see Figure 1). If none of those outcomes are determined, and the effects on the environment were covered in the PEIR, no additional environmental documentation would be required. ii. PSA Addendum: A PSA Addendum may be appropriate if necessary to add treatment areas that are outside the treatable landscape, if an herbicide not considered in the PEIR is proposed, or for other minor changes in scope. The schedule for preparing a PSA/Addendum is the same as a PSA and the templates are the same, but additional approval language needs to be added to the PSA/Addendum, Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and NOD. No new public review is required for a PSA/Addendum. iii. Project Approval: Once the PSA and Project -Specific MMRP have been prepared and approved by the lead agency, the lead agency can follow its own agency -specific procedures for project approval (CAL FIRE approval and public circulation are not required). As part of project approval, the lead agency adopts CEQA Findings, C-10 C. CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations, and MMRP. PSA or PSA/Addendum provides substantial evidence supporting adoption of CEQA Findings. iv. NOD: Lead Agency files NOD with the State Clearinghouse within 5 days of project approval. Use CaIVTP PEIR CDFW CEQA Filing Fee Receipt (see Attachment C.3) when filing NOD. d. SPR AD-7 (Approved Project): Once the NOD has been filed, it will be important to complete the Approved Project CAL FIRE notification step required by SPR AD-7; see CaIVTP PEIR MMRP (Attachment C.1). i. Submit final PSA, project MMRP, and GIS package of project areas. ii. Once the PSA has been approved, use the CaIVTP Project Data Entry Guide and the CaIVTP Project Template to send the project boundary to CaIVTPprojectskfire.ca.gov. This template requires input of the project boundary into the geodatabase and filling in the required attributes. e. Project Implementation: Once the NOD has been filed and the Approved Project CAL FIRE notification step has been completed, the lead agency can move forward with project implementation. Note: there are many SPRs and MMs that need to be implemented before project implementation. The City will also be required to submit a Post Project Implementation Report (or Completion Report) that includes the following information following project implementation: • Size of treated area (typically acres) • Treatment types and activities • Dates of work • A list of the SPRs and MMs that were implemented • Any explanations regarding implementation if required by SPRs and MMs (e.g., explanation for feasibility determination required by SPR BIO-12; explanation for reduction of a no -disturbance buffer below the general minimum size described in Mitigation Measures BIO-la and BIO-2b) The Fire Board does not have a template for the completion report. The format is up to the project proponent so long as it includes the information identified in SPR AD-7. The MMRP table could be adapted to meet the requirements of SPR AD-7. Non-CalVTP CEQA Compliance If project activities are determined not to qualify for a Statutory Exemption, Categorical Exemption, or tiering from the Ca1VTP PEIR, the City should prepare an Initial Study using Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on the impact determinations identified, either a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report should be prepared and compliance with State CEQA Guidelines Articles 5, 6, and/or 7 should be followed as appropriate. C-11 ATTACHMENT C.1 CaIVTP MMRP Appendix B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (PRC Section 21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091[d] and 15097) require public agencies "to adopt a reporting and monitoring program for changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required for approval of the proposed CaIVTP, because the PEIR identifies potential significant adverse impacts and all feasible mitigation measures have been adopted. Standard project requirements (SPRs), which are part of the program description, have been defined to avoid or minimize adverse effects. Where potentially significant impacts remain after application of SPRs, mitigation measures have been identified to further reduce and/or compensate for those impacts. While only mitigation measures are required to be covered in an MMRP, both SPRs and mitigation are included in the CaIVTP MMRP to assist in implementation of all environmental protection features of later activities consistent with the CaIVTP. PROGRAM -LEVEL MMRP AND LATER TREATMENT PROJECTS This program -level MMRP for the CaIVTP PEIR will be adopted by the Board when it approves the CaIVTP. This program -level MMRP provides a comprehensive list of all SPRs and mitigation measures identified in the PEIR, which have been adopted or made a condition of project approval to avoid or mitigate significant effects on the environment resulting from implementation of the CaIVTP. For each later vegetation treatment project implemented under the CaIVTP, a project -specific MMRP will be completed along with the Project -Specific Analysis (PSA) (see Attachment A to the PSA). The initial step in CEQA compliance for later vegetation treatment projects under the CaIVTP (which are "later activities" pursuant to Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines) is completion of the PSA by the project proponent. The PSA will document the determination of whether the proposed later vegetation treatment project qualifies as within the scope of the PEIR. Under this CEQA compliance approach, a project proponent must incorporate from the PEIR into the later vegetation treatment project all SPRs relevant to the proposed activity and all feasible mitigation measures in response to significant impacts caused by the later vegetation treatment project. Some SPRs and mitigation measures would apply to all projects, while others would only apply to projects that include specific treatment types or treatment activities, would affect certain resources, or result in certain potentially significant impacts. The project -specific MMRP will identify all SPRs and mitigation measures that are applicable to the later vegetation treatment project evaluated in the PSA, the timing for the implementation of each (e.g., prior to or during initial treatment and/or maintenance activities), and the entity(ies) responsible for implementation of the SPRs and mitigation measures. The project proponent for each treatment will be responsible for implementation of the SPRs and mitigation measures pursuant to Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines. For the purposes of this PEIR, SPRs are intended to be implemented and enforced in the same way as mitigation measures consistent with Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines. If a later vegetation treatment project is not within the scope of the PEIR and additional CEQA documentation is needed, it may be a Negative Declaration (ND), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or an EIR, depending on the environmental impact differences encountered. If additional CEQA documentation is needed for a later vegetation treatment project, a project -specific MMRP will be prepared by the project proponent as part of the additional CEQA documentation if SPRs and/or mitigation measures are required to avoid or mitigate significant effects on the environment resulting from the later vegetation treatment project. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This MMRP has been prepared to monitor the implementation of SPRs and mitigation measures in connection with the approval of the CaIVTP and its use by project proponents. The attached table presents the text of each SPR and mitigation measure, the timing of its planned implementation, the implementing entity, and the entity with monitoring responsibility. The numbering of SPRs and mitigation measures follows the numbering used in the PEIR. SPRs and mitigation measures that are referenced more than once in the PEIR are not duplicated in the MMRP. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Board is the lead agency for adoption of the program -level MMRP. The project proponent for each later treatment project would prepare a project -specific MMRPs in connection with its PSA and approval of the project, as described above. Unless otherwise specified herein, the project proponent is responsible for taking all actions necessary to implement the mitigation measures under its jurisdiction according to the specifications provided for each measure and for demonstrating that the action has been successfully completed. The project proponent for each treatment will be responsible for implementation of mitigation measures pursuant to Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project proponent is responsible for overall administration of the project -specific MMRP and for verifying that staff members or contractors have completed the necessary actions for each measure (i.e., appropriate amendments to the proposed ordinance). REPORTING The project proponent shall document and describe the compliance of the later treatment project with the required SPRs and mitigation measures either by adapting the project -specific MMRP table or preparing a separate post - project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report). The categories identified in the attached MMRP table are described below. ► SPRs and Mitigation Measures — This column provides the verbatim text of the applicable SPR or adopted mitigation measure. ► Timing — This column identifies the time frame in which the SPR or mitigation measure will be implemented. ► Implementing Entity — This column identifies the party responsible for implementing the SPR or mitigation measure. ► Verifying/Monitoring Entity — This column identifies the party responsible for verifying and monitoring implementation of the SPR or mitigation measure. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 2 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Program -Level Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENTS (SPRS) Administrative Standard Project Requirements SPR AD-1 Project Proponent Coordination: For treatments coordinated with CAL FIRE, Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent CAL FIRE will meet with the project proponent to discuss all natural and environmental resources that must be protected using SPRS and any applicable mitigation measures; identify any sensitive resources onsite; and discuss resource protection measures. For any prescribed burn treatments, CAL FIRE will also discuss the details of the burn plan in the incident action plan (IAP). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AD-2 Delineate Protected Resources: The project proponent will clearly define the Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent boundaries of the treatment area and protected resources on maps for the treatment area and with highly -visible flagging or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway) prior to beginning any treatment to avoid disturbing the resource. "Protected Resources" refers to environmentally sensitive places within or adjacent to the treatment areas that would be avoided or protected to the extent feasible during planned treatment activities to sustain their natural qualities and processes. This work will be performed by a qualified person, as defined for the specific resource (e.g., qualified Registered Professional Forester or biologist). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AD-3 Consistency with Local Plans, Policies, and Ordinances: The project proponent Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent will design and implement the treatment in a manner that is consistent with applicable local plans (e.g., general plans, Community Wildfire Protection Plans, CAL FIRE Unit Fire Plans), policies, and ordinances to the extent the project is subject to them. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AD-4 Public Notifications for Prescribed Burning: At least three days prior to the At least three days prior to Project Proponent Project Proponent commencement of prescribed burning operations, the project proponent will:1) post prescribed burn activities signs along the closest public roadway to the treatment area describing the activity and timing, and requesting persons in the area to contact a designated representative of the project proponent (contact information will be provided with the notice) if they have questions or smoke concerns; 2) publish a public interest notification in a local newspapers or other widely distributed media source describing the activity, timing, and contact information; 3) send the local county supervisor and county administrative officer (or equivalent official responsible for distribution of public information) a notification letter describing the activity, its necessity, timing, and measures being taken to protect the environment and prevent prescribed burn escape. This SPR applies only to prescribed burn treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity SPR AD-5 Maintain Site Cleanliness: If trash receptacles are used on -site, the project During treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent proponent will use fully covered trash receptacles with secure lids (wildlife proof) to contain all food, food scraps, food wrappers, beverages, and other worker generated miscellaneous trash. Remove all temporary non -biodegradable flagging, trash, debris, and barriers from the project site upon completion of project activities. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AD-6 Public Notifications for Treatment Projects. One to three days prior to the One to three days prior to the Project Proponent Project Proponent commencement of a treatment activity, the project proponent will post signs in a prescribed burn activities conspicuous location near the treatment area describing the activity and timing, and requesting persons in the area to contact a designated representative of the project proponent (contact information will be provided with the notice) if they have questions or concerns. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Prescribed burning is subject to the additional notification requirements of SPR AD-4. SPR AD-7 Provide Information on Proposed, Approved, and Completed Treatment Prior to, during, and following Project Proponent Project Proponent Projects. For any vegetation treatment project using the CaIVTP PEIR for CEQA treatment projects compliance, the project proponent will provide the information listed below to the Board or CAL FIRE during the proposed, approved, and completed stages of the project. The Board or CAL FIRE will make this information available to the public via an online database or other mechanism. Information on proposed projects (PSA in progress): ► GIS data that include project location (as a point); ► project size (typically acres); ► treatment types and activities; and ► contact information for a representative of the project proponent. The project proponent will provide information on the proposed project to the Board or CAL FIRE as early as feasible in the planning phase. The project proponent will provide this information to the Board or CAL FIRE with sufficient lead time to allow those agencies to make the information available to the public at least two weeks prior to project approval. The project proponent may also make information available to the public via other mechanisms (e.g., the proponent's own website). Information on approved projects (PSA complete): ► A completed PSA Environmental Checklist; ► A completed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (using Attachment A to the Environmental Checklist); December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 4 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► GIS data that include a polygon(s) of the project area, showing the extent of each treatment type included in the project (ecological restoration, fuel break, WUI fuel reduction) Information on completed projects: ► GIS data that include a polygon(s) of the treated area, showing the extent of each treatment type implemented (ecological restoration, fuel break, WUI fuel reduction) ► A post -project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report) that includes ■ Size of treated area (typically acres); ■ Treatment types and activities; ■ Dates of work; ■ A list of the SPRs and mitigation measures that were implemented ■ Any explanations regarding implementation if required by SPRs and mitigation measures (e.g., explanation for feasibility determination required by SPR BIO-12; explanation for reduction of a no -disturbance buffer below the general minimum size described in Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and 13I0-2b). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AD-8 Request Access for Post -Treatment Assessment. For CAL FIRE projects, during Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent contract development, CAL FIRE will include access to the treated area over a prescribed period (usually up to three years) to assess treatment effectiveness in achieving desired fuel conditions and other CaIVTP objectives as well as any necessary maintenance, as a contract term for consideration by the landowner. For public landowners, access to the treated area over a prescribed period will be a requirement of the executed contract. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AD-9: Obtain a Coastal Development Permit for Proposed Treatment Within the Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent Coastal Zone Where Required. When planning a treatment project within the Coastal Zone, the project proponent will contact the local Coastal Commission district office, or applicable local government to determine if the project area is within thejurisdiction of the Coastal Commission, a local government with a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), or both. All treatment projects in the Coastal Zone will be reviewed by the local Coastal Commission district office or local government with a certified LCP (in consultation with the local Coastal Commission district office regarding whether a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required). If a CDP is required, the treatment project will be designed to meet the following conditions: i. The treatment project will be designed in compliance with applicable provisions of the Coastal Act that provide substantive performance standards for the protection of Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity potentially affected coastal resources, if the treatment activity will occur within the original jurisdiction of the Commission or an area of a local coastal government without a certified LCP; and ii. The treatment project will be designed in compliance with the applicable provisions of the certified LCP, specifically the substantive performance standards for the protection of potentially affected coastal resources, if the treatment activity will occur within the jurisdiction of a local coastal government with a certified LCP. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Aesthetic and Visual Resource Standard Project Requirements SPR AES-1 Vegetation Thinning and Edge Feathering: The project proponent will thin and During mechanical and manual Project Proponent Project Proponent feather adjacent vegetation to break up or screen linear edges of the clearing and mimic treatment activities forms of natural clearings as reasonable or appropriate for vegetation conditions. In general, thinning and feathering in irregular patches of varying densities, as well as a gradation of tall to short vegetation at the clearing edge, will achieve a natural transitional appearance. The contrast of a distinct clearing edge will be faded into this transitional band. This SPR only applies to mechanical and manual treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AES-2 Avoid Staging within Viewsheds: The project proponent will store all During treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent treatment -related materials, including vehicles, vegetation treatment debris, and equipment, outside of the viewshed of public trails, parks, recreation areas, and roadways to the extent feasible. The project proponent will also locate materials staging and storage areas outside of the viewshed of public trails, parks, recreation areas, and roadways to the extent feasible. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AES-3 Provide Vegetation Screening: The project proponent will preserve sufficient During design of treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent vegetation within, at the edge of, or adjacent to treatment areas to screen views from projects public trails, parks, recreation areas, and roadways as reasonable or appropriate for vegetation conditions. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Air Quality Standard Project Requirements SPR AQ-1 Comply with Air Quality Regulations: The project proponent will comply with During treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent the applicable air quality requirements of air districts within whose jurisdiction the project is located. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 6 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity SPR AQ-2 Submit Smoke Management Plan: The project proponent will submit a smoke Prior to prescribed burn Project Proponent Project Proponent management plan for all prescribed burns to the applicable air district, in accordance treatment activities with 17 CCR Section 80160. Pursuant to this regulation a smoke management plan will not be required for burns less than 10 acres that also will not be conducted near smoke sensitive areas, unless otherwise directed by the air district. Burning will only be conducted in compliance with the burn authorization program of the applicable air district(s) having jurisdiction over the treatment area. Example of a smoke management plan is in Appendix PD-2. This SPR applies only to prescribed burning treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AQ-3 Create Burn Plan: The project proponent will create a burn plan using the CAL Prior to prescribed burn Project Proponent Project Proponent FIRE burn plan template for all prescribed burns. The burn plan will include a fire treatment activities behavior model output of First Order Fire Effects Model and BEHAVE or other fire behavior modeling simulation and that is performed by a qualified fire behavior technical specialist that predicts fire behavior, calculates consumption of fuels, tree mortality, predicted emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and soil heating. The project proponent will minimize soil burn severity from broadcast burning to reduce the potential for runoff and soil erosion. The burn plan will be created with input from a qualified technician or certified State burn boss. This SPR applies only to prescribed burning treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AQ-4 Minimize Dust: To minimize dust during treatment activities, the project During treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent proponent will implement the following measures: ► Limit the speed of vehicles and equipment traveling on unpaved areas to 15 miles per hour to reduce fugitive dust emissions, in accordance with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Fugitive Dust protocol. ► If road use creates excessive dust, the project proponent will wet appurtenant, unpaved, dirt roads using water trucks or treat roads with a non -toxic chemical dust suppressant (e.g., emulsion polymers, organic material) during dry, dusty conditions. Any dust suppressant product used will be environmentally benign (i.e., non -toxic to plants and will not negatively impact water quality) and its use will not be prohibited by ARB, EPA, or the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The project proponent will not over -water exposed areas such that the water results in runoff. The type of dust suppression method will be selected by the project proponent based on soil, traffic, site -specific conditions, and air quality regulations. P. Remove visible dust, silt, or mud tracked -out on to public paved roadways where sufficient water supplies and access to water is available. The project proponent will remove dust, silt, and mud from vehicles at the conclusion of each workday, or at a Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program 7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures IIIII Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity minimum of every 24 hours for continuous treatment activities, in accordance with Vehicle Code Section 23113. ► Suspend ground -disturbing treatment activities, including land clearing and bulldozer lines, when there is visible dust transport (particulate pollution) outside the treatment boundary, if the particulate emissions may "cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any of those persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property," per Health and Safety Code Section 41700. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AQ-5 Avoid Naturally Occurring Asbestos: The project proponent will avoid ground- During treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent disturbing treatment activities in areas identified as likely to contain naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) per maps and guidance published by the California Geological Survey, unless an Asbestos Dust Control Plan (17 CCR Section 93105) is prepared and approved by the air district(s) with jurisdiction over the treatment area. Any NOA-related guidance provided by the applicable air district will be followed. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AQ-6: Prescribed Burn Safety Procedures. Prescribed burns planned and managed During prescribed burn treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent by non -CAL FIRE crews will follow all safety procedures required of CAL FIRE crew, activities including the implementation of an approved Incident Action Plan (IAP). The IAP will include the burn dates; burn hours; weather limitations; the specific burn prescription; a communications plan; a medical plan; a traffic plan; and special instructions such as minimizing smoke impacts to specific local roadways. The IAP will also assign responsibilities for coordination with the appropriate air district, such as conducting onsite briefings, posting notifications, weather monitoring during burning, and other burn related preparations. This SPR applies only to prescribed burning treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Standard Project Requirements SPR CUL-1 Conduct Record Search: An archaeological and historical resource record Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent search will be conducted per the applicable state or local agency procedures. Instead of conducting a new search, the project proponent may use recent record searches containing the treatment area requested by a landowner or other public agency in accordance applicable agency guidance. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR CUL-2 Contact Geographically Affiliated Native American Tribes: The project Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent proponent will obtain the latest Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) provided December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 8 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity Native Americans Contact List. Using the appropriate Native Americans Contact List, the project proponent will notify the California Native American Tribes in the counties where the treatment activity is located. The notification will contain the following: ► A written description of the treatment location and boundaries. ► Brief narrative of the treatment objectives. ► A description of the activities used (e.g., prescribed burning, mastication) and associated acreages. ► A map of the treatment area at a sufficient scale to indicate the spatial extent of activities. ► A request for information regarding potential impacts to cultural resources from the proposed treatment. ► A detailed description of the depth of excavation, if ground disturbance is expected. In addition, the project proponent will contact the NAHC for a review of their Sacred Lands File. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR-CUL-3 Pre -field Research: The project proponent will conduct research prior to Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent implementing treatments as part of the cultural resource investigation. The purpose of this research is to properly inform survey design, based on the types of resources likely to be encountered within the treatment area, and to be prepared to interpret, record, and evaluate these findings within the context of local history and prehistory. The qualified archaeologist and/or archaeologically -trained resource professional will review records, study maps, read pertinent ethnographic, archaeological, and historical literature specific to the area being studied, and conduct other tasks to maximize the effectiveness of the survey. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR CUL-4 Archaeological Surveys: The project proponent will coordinate with an Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent archaeologically -trained resource professional and/or qualified archaeologist to conduct a site -specific survey of the treatment area. The survey methodology (e.g., pedestrian survey, subsurface investigation) depends on whether the area has a low, moderate, or high sensitivity for resources, which is based on whether the records search, pre -field research, and/or Native American consultation identifies archaeological or historical resources near or within the treatment area. A survey report will be completed for every cultural resource survey completed. The specific requirements will comply with the applicable state or local agency procedures. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR CUL-5 Treatment of Archaeological Resources: If cultural resources are identified Prior to and during treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent within a treatment area, and cannot be avoided, a qualified archaeologist will notify the projects Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program 9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity culturally affiliated tribe(s) based on information provided by NAHC and assess, whether an archaeological find qualifies as a unique archaeological resource, an historical resource, or in coordination with said tribe(s), as a tribal cultural resource. The project proponent, in consultation with culturally affiliated tribe(s), will develop effective protection measures for important cultural resources located within treatment areas. These measures may include adjusting the treatment location or design to entirely avoid cultural resource locations or changing treatment activities so that damaging effects to cultural resources will not occur. These protection measures will be written in clear, enforceable language, and will be included in the survey report in accordance with applicable state or local agency procedures. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR CUL-6 Treatment of Tribal Cultural Resources: The project proponent, in consultation Prior to and during treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent with the culturally affiliated tribe(s), will develop effective protection measures for projects important tribal cultural resources located within treatment areas. These measures may include adjusting the treatment location or design to entirely avoid cultural resource locations or changing treatment activities so that damaging effects to cultural resources will not occur. The project proponent will provide the tribe(s) the opportunity to submit comments and participate in consultation to resolve issues of concern. The project proponent will defer implementing the treatment until the tribe approves protection measures, or if agreement cannot be reached after a good -faith effort, the proponent determines that any or all feasible measures have been implemented, where feasible, and the resource is either avoided or protected. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR CUL-7 Avoid Built Historical Resources: If the records search identifies built historical Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent resources, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project proponent will avoid these resources. Within a buffer of 100 feet of the built historical resource, there will be no prescribed burning or mechanical treatment activities Buffers less than 100 feet for built historical resources will only be used after consultation with and receipt of written approval from a qualified archaeologist. If the records search does not identify known historical resources in the treatment area, but structures (i.e., buildings, bridges, roadways) over 50 years old that have not been evaluated for historic significance are present in the treatment area, they will similarly be avoided. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR CUL-8 Cultural Resource Training: The project proponent will train all crew members Prior to and during treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent and contractors implementing treatment activities on the protection of sensitive projects archaeological, historical, or tribal cultural resources. Workers will be trained to halt work if archaeological resources are encountered on a treatment site and the treatment December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 10 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity method consists of physical disturbance of land surfaces (e.g., soil disturbance). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Biological Resources Standard Project Requirements SPR BIO-1: Review and Survey Project -Specific Biological Resources. The project Conduct data review and Project Proponent Project Proponent proponent will require a qualified RPF or biologist to conduct a data review and reconnaissance -level survey prior reconnaissance -level survey prior to treatment, no more than one year prior to the to treatment projects and no submittal of the PSA, and no more than one year between completion of the PSA and more than 1 year prior to implementation of the treatment project. The data reviewed will include the biological submittal of the PSA for each resources setting, species and sensitive natural communities tables, and habitat treatment project information in this PEIR for the ecoregion(s) where the treatment will occur. It will also include review of the best available, current data for the area, including vegetation mapping data, species distribution/range information, CNDDB, California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, relevant BIOS queries, and relevant general and regional plans. Reconnaissance -level biological surveys will be general surveys that include visual and auditory inspection for biological resources to help determine the environmental setting of a project site. The qualified surveyor will 1.) identify and document sensitive resources, such as riparian or other sensitive habitats, sensitive natural community, wetlands, or wildlife nursery site or habitat (including bird nests), and 2.) assess the suitability of habitat for special -status plant and animal species. The surveyor will also record any incidental wildlife observations. For each treatment project, habitat assessments will be completed at a time of year that is appropriate for identifying habitat and no more than one year prior to the submittal of the PSA, unless it can be demonstrated in the PSA that habitat assessments older than one year remain valid (e.g., site conditions are unchanged and no treatment activity has occurred since the assessment). If more than one year passes between completion of the PSA and initiation of the treatment project, the project proponent will verify the continued accuracy of the PSA prior to beginning the treatment project by reviewing for any data updates and/or visiting the site to verify conditions. Based on the results of the data review and reconnaissance -level survey, the project proponent, in consultation with a qualified RPF or biologist, will determine which one of the following best characterizes the treatment: 1. Suitable Habitat Is Present but Adverse Effects Can Be Clearly Avoided. If, based on the data review and reconnaissance -level survey, the qualified RPF or biologist determines that suitable habitat for sensitive biological resources is present but adverse effects on the suitable habitat can clearly be avoided through one of the following methods, the avoidance mechanism will be implemented prior to initiating treatment and will remain in effect throughout the treatment: a. by physically avoiding the suitable habitat, or Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity b. by conducting treatment outside of the season when a sensitive resource could be present within the suitable habitat or outside the season of sensitivity (e.g., outside of special -status bird nesting season, during dormant season of sensitive annual or geophytic plant species, or outside of maternity and rearing season at wildlife nursery sites). Physical avoidance will include flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway) to delineate the boundary of the avoidance area around the suitable habitat. For physical avoidance, a buffer may be implemented as determined necessary by the qualified RPF or biologist. 2. Suitable Habitat is Present and Adverse Effects Cannot Be Clearly Avoided. Further review and surveys will be conducted to determine presence/absence of sensitive biological resources that may be affected, as described in the SPRs below. Further review may include contacting USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, CDFW, CNPS, or local resource agencies as necessary to determine the potential for special -status species or other sensitive biological resources to be affected by the treatment activity. Focused or protocol -level surveys will be conducted as necessary to determine presence/absence. If protocol surveys are conducted, survey procedures will adhere to methodologies approved by resource agencies and the scientific community, such as those that are available on the CDFW webpage at: https://www.wildIife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols. Specific survey requirements are addressed for each resource type in relevant SPRs (e.g., additional survey requirements are presented for special -status plants in SPR 3I0-7). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR BIO-2: Require Biological Resource Training for Workers. The project proponent will Conduct biological resource Project Proponent Project Proponent, CDFW, and require crew members and contractors to receive training from a qualified RPF or biologist training for crew members and USFWS, as appropriate prior to beginning a treatment project. The training will describe the appropriate work contractors prior to treatment practices necessary to effectively implement the biological SPRs and mitigation measures projects; contact CDFW or and to comply with the applicable environmental laws and regulations. The training will USFWS, as appropriate, if any include the identification, relevant life history information, and avoidance of pertinent wildlife protected by CESA or ESA special -status species; identification and avoidance of sensitive natural communities and is encountered and cannot leave habitats with the potential to occur in the treatment area; impact minimization procedures; the site on its own (without being and reporting requirements. The training will instruct workers when it is appropriate to stop handled) during treatment work and allow wildlife encountered during treatment activities to leave the area unharmed projects and when it is necessary to report encounters to a qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician. The qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician will immediately contact CDFW or USFWS, as appropriate, if any wildlife protected by the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) is encountered and cannot December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 12 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity leave the site on its own (without being handled). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Sensitive Natural Communities and Other Sensitive Habitats SPR BIO-3: Survey Sensitive Natural Communities and Other Sensitive Habitats. If SPR Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent 13I0-1 determines that sensitive natural communities or sensitive habitats may be present and adverse effects cannot be avoided, the project proponent will: P. require a qualified RPF or biologist to perform a protocol -level survey following the CDFW "Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities" (current version dated March 20, 2018) of the treatment area prior to the start of treatment activities for sensitive natural communities and sensitive habitats. Sensitive natural communities will be identified using the best means possible, including keying them out using the most current edition of A Manual of California Vegetation (including updated natural communities data at http://vegetation.cnps.org/), or referring to relevant reports (e.g., reports found on the VegCAMP website). ► map and digitally record, using a Global Positioning System (GPS), the limits of any potential sensitive habitat and sensitive natural community identified in the treatment area. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR BIO-4: Design Treatment to Avoid Loss or Degradation of Riparian Habitat Function. During design of treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent Project proponents, in consultation with a qualified RPF or qualified biologist, will design projects treatments in riparian habitats to retain or improve habitat functions by implementing the following within riparian habitats: ► Retain at least 75 percent of the overstory and 50 percent of the understory canopy of native riparian vegetation within the limits of riparian habitat identified and mapped during surveys conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-3. Native riparian vegetation will be retained in a well distributed multi -storied stand composed of a diversity of species similar to that found before the start of treatment activities. ► Treatments will be limited to removal of uncharacteristic fuel loads (e.g., removing dead or dying vegetation), trimming/limbing of woody species as necessary to reduce ladder fuels, and select thinning of vegetation to restore densities that are characteristic of healthy stands of the riparian vegetation types characteristic of the region. This includes hand removal (or mechanized removal where topography allows) of dead or dying riparian trees and shrubs, invasive plant removal, selective thinning, and removal of encroaching upland species. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► Removal of large, native riparian hardwood trees (e.g., willow, ash, maple, oak, alder, sycamore, cottonwood) will be minimized to the extent feasible and 75 percent of the pretreatment native riparian hardwood tree canopy will be retained. Because tree size varies depending on vegetation type present and site conditions, the tree size retention parameter will be determined on a site -specific basis depending on vegetation type present and setting; however, live, healthy, native trees that are considered large for that type of tree and large relative to other trees in that location will be retained. A scientifically -based, project -specific explanation substantiating the retention size parameter for native riparian hardwood tree removal will be provided in the Biological Resources Discussion of the PSA. Consideration of factors such as site hydrology, erosion potential, suitability of wildlife habitat, presence of sufficient seed trees, light availability, and changes in stream shading may inform the tree size retention requirements. ► Removed trees will be felled away from adjacent streams or waterbodies and piled outside of the riparian vegetation zone (unless there is an ecological reason to do otherwise that is approved by applicable regulatory agencies, such as adding large woody material to a stream to enhance fish habitat, e.g., see Accelerated Wood Recruitment and Timber Operations: Process Guidance from the California Timber Harvest Review Team Agencies and National Marine Fisheries Service). ► Vegetation removal that could reduce stream shading and increase stream temperatures will be avoided. ► Ground disturbance within riparian habitats will be limited to the minimum necessary to implement effective treatments. This will consist of the minimum disturbance area necessary to reduce hazardous fuels and return the riparian community to a natural fire regime (i.e., Condition Class 1) considering historic fire return intervals, climate change, and land use constraints. ► Only hand application of herbicides approved for use in aquatic environments will be allowed and only during low -flow periods or when seasonal streams are dry. ► The project proponent will notify CDFW when required b�LpufYaaAt4e-California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 prior to implementing any treatment activities in riparian habitats. Notification will identify the treatment activities, map the vegetation to be removed, identify the impact avoidance identification methods to be used (e.g., flagging), and appropriate protections for the retention of shaded riverine habitat, including buffers and other applicable measures to prevent erosion into the waterway. ► In consideration of spatial variability of riparian vegetation types and condition and consistent with California Forest Practice Rules Section 916.9(v) (February 2019 version), a different set of vegetation retention standards and protection measures from those specified in the above bullets may be implemented on a site -specific basis December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 14 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity if the qualified RPF and the project proponent demonstrate through substantial evidence that alternative design measures provide a more effective means of achieving the treatment objectives and would result in effects to the Beneficial Functions of Riparian Zones equal or more favorable than those expected to result from application of the above measures. Deviation from the above design specifications, different protection measures and design standards will only be approved when the treatment plan incorporates an evaluation of beneficial functions of the riparian habitat and with written concurrence from CDFW. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR BIO-5: Avoid Environmental Effects of Type Conversion and Maintain Habitat During design of treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent Function in Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub. The project proponent will design projects treatment activities to avoid type conversion where native coastal sage scrub and chaparral are present. An ecological definition of type conversion is used in the CalVTP PEIR for assessment of environmental effects: a change from a vegetation type dominated by native shrub species that are characteristic of chaparral and coastal sage scrub vegetation alliances to a vegetation type characterized predominantly by weedy herbaceous cover or annual grasslands. For the PEIR, type conversion is considered in terms of habitat function, which is defined here as the arrangement and capability of habitat features to provide refuge, food source, and reproduction habitat to plants and animals, and thereby contribute to the conservation of biological and genetic diversity and evolutionary processes (de Groot et al.2002). Some modification of habitat characteristics may occur provided habitat function is maintained (i.e., the location, essential habitat features, and species supported are not substantially changed). During the reconnaissance -level survey required in SPR BIO-1, a qualified RPF or biologist will identify chaparral and coastal sage scrub vegetation to the alliance level and determine the condition class and fire return interval departure of the chaparral and/or coastal sage scrub present in each treatment area. For all treatment types in chaparral and coastal sage scrub, the project proponent, in consultation with a qualified RPF or qualified biologist will: P. Develop a treatment design that avoids environmental effects of type conversion in chaparral and coastal sage scrub vegetation alliances, which will include evaluating and determining the appropriate spatial scale at which the proponent would consider type conversion, and substantiating its appropriateness. The project proponent will demonstrate with substantial evidence that the habitat function of chaparral and coastal sage scrub would be at least maintained within the identified spatial scale at which type conversion is evaluated for the specific treatment project. Consideration of factors such as site hydrology, erosion potential, suitability of wildlife habitat, spatial Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 15 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures IIIII Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity needs of sensitive species, presence of sufficient seed plants and nurse plants, light availability, and edge effects may inform the determination of an appropriate spatial scale. ► The treatment design will maintain a minimum percent cover of mature native shrubs within the treatment area to maintain habitat function; the appropriate percent cover will be identified by the project proponent in the development of treatment design and be specific to the vegetation alliances that are present in the identified spatial scale used to evaluate type conversion. Mature native shrubs that are retained will be distributed contiguously or in patches within the stand. If the stand consists of multiple age classes, patches representing a range of middle to old age classes will be retained to maintain and improve heterogeneity, to the extent needed to avoid type conversion. These SPR requirements apply to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Additional measures will be applied to ecological restoration treatment types: ► For ecological restoration treatment types, complete removal of the mature shrub layer will not occur in native chaparral and coastal sage scrub vegetation types. ► Ecological restoration treatments will not be implemented in vegetation types that are within their natural fire return interval (i.e., time since last burn is less than the average time listed as the fire return interval range in Table 3.6-1) unless the project proponent demonstrates with substantial evidence that the habitat function of chaparral and coastal sage scrub would be improved. ► A minimum of 35 percent relative cover of existing shrubs and associated native vegetation will be retained at existing densities in patches distributed in a mosaic pattern within the treated area or the shrub canopy will be thinned by no more than 20 percent from baseline density (i.e., if baseline shrub canopy density is 60 percent, post treatment shrub canopy density will be no less than 40 percent). A different percent relative cover can be retained if the project proponent demonstrates with substantial evidence that alternative treatment design measures would result in effects on the habitat function of chaparral and coastal sage scrub that are equal or more favorable than those expected to result from application of the above measures. Biological considerations that may inform a deviation from the minimum 35 percent relative cover retention include but are not limited to soil moisture requirements, increased soil temperatures, changes in light/shading, presence of sufficient seed plants and nurse plants, erosion potential, and site hydrology. ► If the stand within the treatment area consists of multiple age classes, patches representing a range of middle to old age classes will be retained to maintain and improve heterogeneity. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 16 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity These SPR requirements apply to all treatment activities and only the ecosystem restoration treatment type, including treatment maintenance. A determination of compliance with the SB 1260 prohibition of type conversion in chaparral and coastal sage scrub is a statutory issue separate from CEQA compliance that may involve factors additional to the ecological definition and habitat functions presented in the PER, such as geographic context. It is beyond the legal scope of the PER to define SB 1260 type conversion and statutory compliance. The project proponent, acting as lead agency for the proposed later treatment project, will be responsible for defining type conversion in the context of the project and making the finding that type conversion would not occur, as required by SB 1260. The project proponent will determine its criteria for defining and avoiding type conversion and, in making its findings, may draw upon information presented in this PER SPR BIO-6: Prevent Spread of Plant Pathogens. When working in sensitive natural During treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent communities, riparian habitats, or oak woodlands that are at risk from plant pathogens (e.g., lone chaparral, blue oak woodland), the project proponent will implement the following best management practices to prevent the spread of Phytopthora and other plant pathogens (e.g., pitch canker (Fusarium), goldspotted oak borer, shot hole borer, bark beetle): ► clean and sanitize vehicles, equipment, tools, footwear, and clothes before arriving at a treatment site and when leaving a contaminated site, or a site in a county where contamination is a risk; ► include training on Phytopthora diseases and other plant pathogens in the worker awareness training; ► minimize soil disturbance as much as possible by limiting the number of vehicles, avoiding off -road travel as much as possible, and limiting use of mechanized equipment; ► minimize movement of soil and plant material within the site, especially between areas with high and low risk of contamination; ► clean soil and debris from equipment and sanitize hand tools, buckets, gloves, and footwear when moving from high risk to low risk areas or between widely separated portions of a treatment area; and ► follow the procedures listed in Guidance for plant pathogen prevention when working at contaminated restoration sites or with rare plants and sensitive habitat (Working Group for Phytoptheras in Native Habitats 2016). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 17 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity Special -Status Plants SPR BIO-7: Survey for Special -Status Plants. If SPR BIO-1 determines that suitable habitat Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent for special -status plant species is present and cannot be avoided, the project proponent will require a qualified RPF or botanist to conduct protocol -level surveys for special -status plant species with the potential to be affected by a treatment prior to initiation of the treatment. The survey will follow the methods in the current version of CDFW's "Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities." Surveys to determine the presence or absence of special -status plant species will be conducted in suitable habitat that could be affected by the treatment and timed to coincide with the blooming or other appropriate phenological period of the target species (as determined by a qualified RPF or botanist), or all species in the same genus as the target species will be assumed to be special -status. If potentially occurring special -status plants are listed under CESA or ESA, protocol -level surveys to determine presence/absence of the listed species will be conducted in all circumstances, unless determined otherwise by CDFW or USFWS. For other special -status plants not listed under CESA or ESA, as defined in Section 3.6.1 of this PER, surveys will not be required under the following circumstances: ► If protocol -level surveys, consisting of at least two survey visits (e.g., early blooming season and later blooming season) during a normal weather year, have been completed in the 5 years before implementation of the treatment project and no special -status plants were found, and no treatment activity has occurred following the protocol -level survey, treatment may proceed without additional plant surveys. ► If the target special -status plant species is an herbaceous annual, stump -sprouting, or geophyte species, the treatment may be carried out during the dormant season for that species or when the species has completed its annual lifecycle without conducting presence/absence surveys provided the treatment will not alter habitat or destroy seeds, stumps, or roots, rhizomes, bulbs and other underground parts in a way that would make it unsuitable for the target species to reestablish following treatment. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas SPR BIO-8: Identify and Avoid or Minimize Impacts in Coastal Zone ESHAs. When Prior to and during treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent and California planning a treatment project within the Coastal Zone, the project proponent will, in projects Coastal Commission or a local consultation with the Coastal Commission or a local government with a certified Local government with a certified LCP Coastal Program (LCP) (as applicable), identify the habitat types and species present to (as applicable) determine if the area qualifies as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). If the December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 18 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity area is an ESHA, the treatment project may be allowed pursuant to this PER, if it meets the following conditions. If a project requires a CDP by the Coastal Commission or a local government with a certified LCP (as applicable), the CDP approval may require modification to these conditions to further avoid and minimize impacts: ■ The treatment will be designed, in compliance with the Coastal Act or LCP if a site is within a certified LCP area, to protect the habitat function of the affected ESHA, protect habitat values, and prevent loss or type conversion of habitat and vegetation types that define the ESHA, or loss of special -status species that inhabit the ESHA. ■ Treatment actions will be limited to eradication or control of invasive plants, removal of uncharacteristic fuel loads (e.g., removing dead, diseased, or dying vegetation), trimming/limbing of woody species as necessary to reduce ladder fuels, and select thinning of vegetation to restore densities that are characteristic of healthy stands of the vegetation types present in the ESHA. ■ A qualified biologist or RPF familiar with the ecology of the treatment area will monitor all treatment activities in ESHAs. ■ Appropriate no -disturbance buffers will be developed in compliance with the Coastal Act or relevant LCP policies for treatment activities in the vicinity of ESHAs to avoid adverse direct and indirect effects to ESHAs. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Invasive Plants and Wildlife SPR BIO-9: Prevent Spread of Invasive Plants, Noxious Weeds, and Invasive Wildlife. The During treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent project proponent will take the following actions to prevent the spread of invasive plants, noxious weeds, and invasive wildlife (e.g., New Zealand mudsnail): ■ clean clothing, footwear, and equipment used during treatments of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, other debris or seed -bearing material, or water (e.g., rivers, streams, creeks, lakes) before entering the treatment area or when leaving an area with infestations of invasive plants, noxious weeds, or invasive wildlife; ■ for all heavy equipment and vehicles traveling off road, pressure wash, if feasible, or otherwise appropriately decontaminate equipment at a designated weed -cleaning station prior to entering the treatment area from an area with infestations of invasive plants, noxious weeds, or invasive wildlife. Anti -fungal wash agents will be specified if the equipment has been exposed to any pathogen that could affect native species; P. inspect all heavy equipment, vehicles, tools, or other treatment -related materials for sand, mud, or other signs that weed seeds or propagules could be present prior to Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity use in the treatment area. If the equipment is not clean, the qualified RPF or biological technician will deny entry to the work areas; ► stage equipment in areas free of invasive plant infestations unless there are no uninfested areas present within a reasonable proximity to the treatment area; ► identify significant infestations of invasive plant species (i.e., those rated as invasive by Cal-IPC or designated as noxious weeds by California Department of Food and Agriculture) during reconnaissance -level surveys and target them for removal during treatment activities. Treatment methods will be selected based on the invasive species present and may include herbicide application, manual or mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, and/or herbivory, and will be designed to maximize success in killing or removing the invasive plants and preventing reestablishment based on the life history characteristics of the invasive plant species present. Treatments will be focused on removing invasive plant species that cause ecological harm to native vegetation types, especially those that can alter fire cycles; ► treat invasive plant biomass onsite to eliminate seeds and propagules and prevent reestablishment or dispose of invasive plant biomass offsite at an appropriate waste collection facility (if not kept on site); transport invasive plant materials in a closed container or bag to prevent the spread of propagules during transport; and ► implement Fire and Fuel Management BMPs outlined in the "Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants: Best Management Practices for Land Mangers" (Cal-IPC 2012, or current version). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Wildlife SPR BIO-10: Survey for Special -Status Wildlife and Nursery Sites. If SPR BIO-1 determines No more than 14 days prior to Project Proponent Project Proponent, CDFW, and/or that suitable habitat for special -status wildlife species or nurseries of any wildlife species treatment projects USFWS is present and cannot be avoided, the project proponent will require a qualified RPF or biologist to conduct focused or protocol -level surveys for special -status wildlife species or nursery sites (e.g., bat maternity roosts, deer fawning areas, heron or egret rookeries, monarch overwintering sites) with potential to be directly or indirectly affected by a treatment activity. The survey area will be determined by a qualified RPF or biologist based on the species and habitats and any recommended buffer distances in agency protocols. The qualified RPF or biologist will determine if following an established protocol is required, and the project proponent may consult with CDFW and/or USFWS for technical information regarding appropriate survey protocols. Unless otherwise specified in a protocol, the survey will be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the beginning of December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 20 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity treatment activities. Focused or protocol surveys for a special -status species with potential to occur in the treatment area may not be required if presence of the species is assumed. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR BIO-11. Install Wildlife -Friendly Fencing (Prescribed Herbivory). If temporary fencing Prior to and during treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent is required for prescribed herbivory treatment, a wildlife -friendly fencing design will be projects used. The project proponent will require a qualified RPF or biologist to review and approve the design before installation to minimize the risk of wildlife entanglement. The fencing design will meet the following standards: P. Minimize the chance of wildlife entanglement by avoiding barbed wire, loose or broken wires, or any material that could impale or snag a leaping animal; and, if feasible, keeping electric netting -type fencing electrified at all times or laid down while not in use. ► Charge temporary electric fencing with intermittent pulse energizers; continuous output fence chargers will not be permitted. ► Allow wildlife tojump over easily without injury by installing fencing that can flex as animals pass over it and installing the top wire low enough (no more than approximately 40 inches high on flat ground) to allow adult ungulates tojump over it. The determination of appropriate fence height will consider slope, as steep slopes are more difficult for wildlife to pass. ► Be highly visible to birds and mammals by using high -visibility tape or wire, flagging, or other markers. This SPR applies only to prescribed herbivory and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR BIO-12. Protect Common Nesting Birds, Including Raptors. The project proponent Conduct a survey for common Project Proponent Project Proponent will schedule treatment activities to avoid the active nesting season of common native nesting birds (if needed) at a time bird species, including raptors, that could be present within or adjacent to the treatment that balances the effectiveness of site, if feasible. Common native birds are species not otherwise treated as special status detecting nests and the in the CalVTP PER The active nesting season will be defined by the qualified RPF or reasonable consideration of biologist. potential avoidance strategies If active nesting season avoidance is not feasible, a qualified RPF or biologist will conduct (typically, up to 3 weeks before a survey for common nesting birds, including raptors. Existing records (e.g., CNDDB, treatment); if an active nest is eBird database, State Wildlife Action Plan) should be reviewed in advance of the survey observed, implement avoidance to identity the common nesting birds, including raptors, that are known to occur in the strategies prior to and during vicinity of the treatment site. The survey area will encompass reasonably accessible areas treatment projects of the treatment site and the immediately surrounding vicinity viewable from the treatment site. The survey area will be determined by a qualified RPF or biologist, based Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program 21 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity on the potential species in the area, location of suitable nesting habitat, and type of treatment. For vegetation removal or project activities that would occur during the nesting season, the survey will be conducted at a time that balances the effectiveness of detecting nests and the reasonable consideration of potential avoidance strategies. Typically, this timeframe would be up to 3 weeks before treatment. The survey will occur in a single survey period of sufficient duration to reasonably detect nesting birds, including raptors, typically one day for most treatment projects (depending on the size, configuration, and vegetation density in the treatment site), and conducted during the active time of day for target species, typically close to dawn and/or dusk. The survey may be conducted concurrently with other biological surveys, if they are required by other SPRs. Survey methods will be tailored by the qualified RPF or biologist to site and habitat conditions, typically involving walking throughout the survey area, visually searching for nests and birds exhibiting behavior that is typical of breeding (e.g., delivering food). If an active nest is observed (i.e., presence of eggs and/or chicks) or determined to likely be present based on nesting bird behavior, the project proponent will implement a feasible strategy to avoid disturbance of active nests, which may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following: ► Establish Buffer. The project proponent will establish a temporary, species -appropriate buffer around the nest sufficient to reasonably expect that breeding would not be disrupted. Treatment activities will be implemented outside of the buffer. The buffer location will be determined by a qualified RPF or biologist. Factors to be considered for determining buffer location will include: presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography, nest height above ground, baseline levels of noise and human activity, species sensitivity, and expected treatment activities. Nests of common birds within the buffer need not be monitored during treatment. However, buffers will be maintained until young fledge or the nest becomes inactive, as determined by the qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician. ► Modify Treatment. The project proponent will modify the treatment in the vicinity of an active nest to avoid disturbance of active nests (e.g., by implementing manual treatment methods, rather than mechanical treatment methods). Treatment modifications will be determined by the project proponent in coordination with the qualified RPF or biologist. ► Defer Treatment. The project proponent will defer the timing of treatment in the portion(s) of the treatment site that could disturb the active nest. If this avoidance strategy is implemented, treatment activity will not commence until young fledge or the nest becomes inactive, as determined by the qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 22 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity Feasible actions will be taken by the project proponent to avoid loss of common native bird nests. The feasibility of implementing the avoidance strategies will be determined by the project proponent based on whether implementation of this SPR will preclude completing the treatment project within the reasonable period of time necessary to meet CaIVTP program objectives, including, but not limited to, protection of vulnerable communities. Considerations may include limitations on the presence of environmental and atmospheric conditions necessary to execute treatment prescriptions (e.g., the limited seasonal windows during which prescribed burning can occur when vegetation moisture, weather, wind, and other physical conditions are suitable). If it is infeasible to avoid loss of common bird nests (not including raptor nests), the project proponent will document the reasons implementation of the avoidance strategies is infeasible in the PSA. After completion of the PSA and prior to or during treatment implementation, if there is any change in the feasibility of avoidance strategies from those explained in the PSA, this will be documented in the post -project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report). The following avoidance strategies may also be considered together with or in lieu of other actions for implementation by a project proponent to avoid disturbance to raptor nests: ► Monitor Active Raptor Nest During Treatment. A qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician will monitor an active raptor nest during treatment activities to identify signs of agitation, nest defense, or other behaviors that signal disturbance of the active nest is likely (e.g., standing up from a brooding position, flying off the nest). If breeding raptors are showing signs of nest disturbance, one of the other avoidance strategies (establish buffer, modify treatment or defer treatment) will be implemented or a pause in the treatment activity will occur until the disturbance behavior ceases. ► Retention of Raptor Nest Trees. Trees with visible raptor nests, whether occupied or not, will be retained. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Geology, Soils, Paleontology, and Mineral Resource Standard Project Requirements SPR GEO-1 Suspend Disturbance during Heavy Precipitation: The project proponent will During treatment projects if there Project Proponent Project Proponent suspend mechanical, prescribed herbivory, and herbicide treatments if the National is a "chance" (30 percent or more) Weather Service forecast is a "chance" (30 percent or more) of rain within the next 24 of rain within the next 24 hours hours. Activities that cause mechanical soil disturbance may resume when precipitation stops and soils are no longer saturated (i.e., when soil and/or surface material pore spaces are filled with water to such an extent that runoff is likely to occur). Indicators of saturated soil conditions may include, but are not limited to: (1) areas of ponded water, (2) pumping of fines from the soil or road surfacing, (3) loss of bearing strength resulting in the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 23 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity deflection of soil or road surfaces under a load, such as the creation of wheel ruts, (4) spinning or churning of wheels or tracks that produces a wet slurry, or (5) inadequate traction without blading wet soil or surfacing materials. This SPR applies only to mechanical, prescribed herbivory, and herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR GEO-2 Limit High Ground Pressure Vehicles: The project proponent will limit heavy During treatment projects if there Project Proponent Project Proponent equipment that could cause soil disturbance or compaction to be driven through is a "chance" (30 percent or more) treatment areas when soils are wet and saturated to avoid compaction and/or damage to of rain within the next 24 hours soil structure. Saturated soil means that soil and/or surface material pore spaces are filled with water to such an extent that runoff is likely to occur. If use of heavy equipment is required in saturated areas, other measures such as operating on organic debris, using low ground pressure vehicles, or operating on frozen soils/snow covered soils will be implemented to minimize soil compaction. Existing compacted road surfaces are exempted as they are already compacted from use. This SPR applies only to mechanical treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR GEO-3 Stabilize Disturbed Soil Areas: The project proponent will stabilize soil During mechanical, prescribed Project Proponent Project Proponent disturbed during mechanical, prescribed herbivory treatments, and prescribed burns that herbivory, and prescribed burn result in exposure of bare soil over 50 percent or more of the treatment area with mulch activities that result in exposure of or equivalent immediately after treatment activities, to the maximum extent practicable, bare soil over 50 percent or more to minimize the potential for substantial sediment discharge. If mechanical, prescribed of the treatment area herbivory, or prescribed burn treatment activities could result in substantial sediment discharge from soil disturbed by machinery, animal hooves, or being bare, organic material from mastication or mulch will be incorporated onto at least 75 percent of the disturbed soil surface where the soil erosion hazard is moderate or high, and 50 percent of the disturbed soil surface where soil erosion hazard is low to help prevent erosion. Where slash mulch is used, it will be packed into the ground surface with heavy equipment so that it is sufficiently in contact with the soil surface. This SPR only applies to mechanical, prescribed herbivory, and prescribed burns that result in exposure of bare soil over 50 percent of the project area treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR GEO-4 Erosion Monitoring: The project proponent will inspect treatment areas for Inspect treatment areas for the Project Proponent Project Proponent the proper implementation of erosion control SPRs and mitigations prior to the rainy proper implementation of erosion season. If erosion control measures are not properly implemented, they will be control SPRs and mitigations prior remediated prior to the first rainfall event per SPR GEO-3 and GEO-8. Additionally, the to the rainy season; if erosion project proponent will inspect for evidence of erosion after the first large storm or rainfall control measures are not properly event (i.e., >_ 1.5 inches in 24 hours) as soon as is feasible after the event. Any area of implemented, remediate prior to erosion that will result in substantial sediment discharge will be remediated within 48 the first rainfall event; inspect for hours per the methods stated in SPRs GEO-3 and GEO-8. This SPR applies only to evidence of erosion after the first December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 24 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity mechanical, prescribed herbivory, and prescribed burning treatment activities and all large storm or rainfall event (i.e., >_ treatment types, including treatment maintenance. 1.5 inches in 24 hours) as soon as is feasible after the event, any area of erosion that will result in substantial sediment discharge will be remediated within 48 hours SPR GEO-5 Drain Stormwater via Water Breaks: The project proponent will drain During mechanical, manual, and Project Proponent Project Proponent compacted and/or bare linear treatment areas capable of generating storm runoff via prescribed burn treatment water breaks using the spacing and erosion control guidelines contained in Sections activities 914.6, 934.6, and 954.6(c) of the California Forest Practice Rules (February 2019 version). Where waterbreaks cannot effectively disperse surface runoff, including where waterbreaks cause surface run-off to be concentrated on downslopes, other erosion controls will be installed as needed to maintain site productivity by minimizing soil loss. This SPR applies only to mechanical, manual, and prescribed burn treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR GEO-6 Minimize Burn Pile Size: The project proponent will not create burn piles that During mechanical, manual, and Project Proponent Project Proponent exceed 20 feet in length, width, or diameter, except when on landings, road surfaces, or prescribed burn treatment on contour to minimize the spatial extent of soil damage. In addition, burn piles will not activities occupy more than 15 percent of the total treatment area (Busse et al. 2014). The project proponent will not locate burn piles in a Watercourse and Lake Protection Zone as defined in SPR HYD-4. This SPR applies to mechanical, manual, and prescribed burning treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR GEO-7 Minimize Erosion: To minimize erosion, the project proponent will: During treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent (1) Prohibit use of heavy equipment where any of the following conditions are present: (i) Slopes steeper than 65 percent. (ii) Slopes steeper than 50 percent where the erosion hazard rating is high or extreme. (iii) Slopes steeper than 50 percent that lead without flattening to sufficiently dissipate water flow and trap sediment before it reaches a watercourse or lake. (2) On slopes between 50 percent and 65 percent where the erosion hazard rating is moderate, and all slope percentages are for average slope steepness based on sample areas that are 20 acres, or less, heavy equipment will be limited to: (i) Existing tractor roads that do not require reconstruction, or (ii) New tractor roads flagged by the project proponent prior to the treatment activity. (3) Prescribed herbivory treatments will not be used in areas with over 50 percent slope. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 25 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity SPR GEO-8 Steep Slopes: The project proponent will require a Registered Professional Prior to and during treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent Forester (RPF) or licensed geologist to evaluate treatment areas with slopes greater than projects with slopes greater than 50 percent for unstable areas (areas with potential for landslide) and unstable soils (soil 50 percent with moderate to high erosion hazard). If unstable areas or soils are identified within the treatment area, are unavoidable, and will be potentially directly or indirectly affected by the treatment, a licensed geologist (P.G. or C.E.G.) will determine the potential for landslide, erosion, of other issue related to unstable soils and identity measures (e.g., those in SPR GEC-7) that will be implemented by the project proponent such that substantial erosion or loss of topsoil would not occur. This SPR applies only to mechanical treatment activities and WUI fuel reduction, non -shaded fuel breaks, and ecological restoration treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Greenhouse Gas Emission Standard Project Requirements SPR GHG-1 Contribute to the AB 1504 Carbon Inventory Process: The project proponent During treatment projects subject Project Proponent Project Proponent and U.S. Forest of treatment projects subject to the AB 1504 process will provide all necessary data about to the AB 1504 process Service the treatment that is needed by the U.S. Forest Service and FRAP to fulfill requirements of the AB 1504 carbon inventory, and to aid in the ongoing research about the long-term net change in carbon sequestration resulting from treatment activity. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Hazardous Materials and Public Health and Safety Standard Project Requirements SPR HAZ-1 Maintain All Equipment: The project proponent will maintain all diesel- and Inspect all equipment for leaks Project Proponent Project Proponent gasoline -powered equipment per manufacturer's specifications, and in compliance with prior to treatment projects; all state and federal emissions requirements. Maintenance records will be available for inspect everyday thereafter until verification. Prior to the start of treatment activities, the project proponent will inspect all equipment is removed from the equipment for leaks and inspect everyday thereafter until equipment is removed from site; promptly remove any leaking the site. Any equipment found leaking will be promptly removed. This SPR applies to all equipment; maintain all diesel - treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. and gasoline -powered equipment per manufacturer's specifications and in compliance with all state and federal emissions requirements during treatment projects SPR HAZ-2 Require Spark Arrestors: The project proponent will require mechanized hand During manual treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent tools to have federal- or state -approved spark arrestors. This SPR applies only to manual activities treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HAZ-3 Require Fire Extinguishers: The project proponent will require tree cutting During manual treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent crews to carry one fire extinguisher per chainsaw. Each vehicle would be equipped with activities December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 26 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity one long -handled shovel and one axe or Pulaski consistent with PRC Section 4428. This SPR applies only to manual treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HAZ-4 Prohibit Smoking in Vegetated Areas: The project proponent will require that During treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent smoking is only permitted in designated smoking areas barren or cleared to mineral soil at least 3 feet in diameter (PRC Section 4423.4). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HAZ-5 Spill Prevention and Response Plan: The project proponent or licensed Pest Prepare SPRP prior to beginning Project Proponent Project Proponent Control Advisor (PCA) will prepare a Spill Prevention and Response Plan (SPRP) prior to any herbicide treatment activities; beginning any herbicide treatment activities to provide protection to onsite workers, the implement measures during public, and the environment from accidental leaks or spills of herbicides, adjuvants, or herbicide treatment activities other potential contaminants. The SPRP will include (but not be limited to): ► a map that delineates staging areas, and storage, loading, and mixing areas for herbicides; ► a list of items required in an onsite spill kit that will be maintained throughout the life of the activity; ► procedures for the proper storage, use, and disposal of any herbicides, adjuvants, or other chemicals used in vegetation treatment. This SPR applies only to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HAZ-6 Comply with Herbicide Application Regulations: The project proponent will Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent and applicable coordinate pesticide use with the applicable County Agricultural Commissioner(s), and all County Agricultural required licenses and permits will be obtained prior to herbicide application. The project Commissioner(s) proponent will prepare all herbicide applications to do the following: ► Be implemented consistent with recommendations prepared annually by a licensed PCA. ► Comply with all appropriate laws and regulations pertaining to the use of pesticides and safety standards for employees and the public, as governed by the EPA, DPR, and applicable local jurisdictions. ► Adhere to label directions for application rates and methods, storage, transportation, mixing, container disposal, and weather limitations to application such as wind speed, humidity, temperature, and precipitation. ► Be applied by an applicator appropriately licensed by the State. This SPR applies only to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 27 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity SPR HAZ-7 Triple Rinse Herbicide Containers: The project proponent will triple rinse all During herbicide treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent herbicide and adjuvant containers with clean water at an approved site, and dispose of activities rinsate by placing it in the batch tank for application per 3 CCR Section 6684. The project proponent will puncture used containers on the top and bottom to render them unusable, unless said containers are part of a manufacturer's container recycling program, in which case the manufacturer's instructions will be followed. Disposal of non - recyclable containers will be at legal dumpsites. Equipment will not be cleaned, and personnel will not be washed in a manner that would allow contaminated water to directly enter any body of water within the treatment area or adjacent watersheds. Disposal of all herbicides will follow label requirements and waste disposal regulations. This SPR applies only to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HAZ-8 Minimize Herbicide Drift to Public Areas: The project proponent will employ During herbicide treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent the following herbicide application parameters during herbicide application to minimize activities drift into public areas: ► application will cease when weather parameters exceed label specifications or when sustained winds at the site of application exceeds 7 miles per hour (whichever is more conservative); ► spray nozzles will be configured to produce the largest appropriate droplet size to minimize drift; ► low nozzle pressures (30-70 pounds per square inch) will be utilized to minimize drift; and ► spray nozzles will be kept within 24 inches of vegetation during spraying. This SPR applies only to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HAZ-9 Notification of Herbicide Use in the Vicinity of Public Areas: For herbicide During herbicide treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent applications occurring within or adjacent to public recreation areas, residential areas, activities occurring within or schools, or any other public areas within 500 feet, the project proponent will post signs at adjacent to public recreation each end of herbicide treatment areas and any intersecting trails notifying the public of areas, residential areas, schools, the use of herbicides. The signs will include the signal word (i.e., Danger, Warning or or any other public areas within Caution), product name, and manufacturer; active ingredient; EPA registration number, 500 feet target pest; treatment location; date and time of application; restricted entry interval, if applicable per the label requirements; date which notification sign may be removed; and a contact person with a telephone number. Signs will be posted prior to the start of treatment and notification will remain in place for at least 72 hours after treatment ceases. This SPR applies only to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 28 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity Hydrology and Water Quality Standard Project Requirements SPR HYD-1 Comply with Water Quality Regulations: Project proponents must also During treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent conduct proposed vegetation treatments in conformance with appropriate RWQCB timber, vegetation and land disturbance related Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and/or related Conditional Waivers of Waste Discharge Requirements (Waivers), and appropriate Basin Plan Prohibitions. Where these regulatory requirements differ, the most restrictive will apply. If applicable, this includes compliance with the conditions of general waste discharge requirements (WDR) and waste discharge requirement waivers for timber or silviculture activities where these waivers are designed to apply to non- commercial fuel reduction and forest health projects. In general, WDR and Waivers of waste discharge requirements for fuel reduction and forest health activities require that wastes, including but not limited to petroleum products, soil, silt, sand, clay, rock, felled trees, slash, sawdust, bark, ash, and pesticides must not be discharged to surface waters or placed where it may be carried into surface waters; and that Water Board staff must be allowed reasonable access to the property in order to determine compliance with the waiver conditions. The specifications for each WDR and Waiver vary by region. Regions 2 (San Francisco Bay), 4 (Los Angeles), 8 (Santa Ana), and 7 (Colorado River) are highly urban or minimally forested and do not offer WDRs or Waivers for fuel reduction or vegetation management activities. The current applicable WDRs and Waivers for timber and vegetation management activities are included in Appendix HYD-1. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HYD-2 Avoid Construction of New Roads: The project proponent will not construct Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent or reconstruct (i.e., cutting or filling involving less than 50 cubic yards/0.25 linear road miles) any new roads (including temporary roads). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HYD-3 Water Quality Protections for Prescribed Herbivory: The project proponent Prior to prescribed herbivory Project Proponent Project Proponent will include the following water quality protections for all prescribed herbivory treatment activities treatments: ► Environmentally sensitive areas such as waterbodies, wetlands, or riparian areas will be identified in the treatment prescription and excluded from prescribed herbivory project areas using temporary fencing or active herding. A buffer of approximately 50 feet will be maintained between sensitive and actively grazed areas. ► Water will be provided for grazing animals in the form of an on -site stock pond or a portable water source located outside of environmentally sensitive areas. ► Treatment prescriptions will be designed to protect soil stability. Grazing animals will be herded out of an area if accelerated soil erosion is observed. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 29 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity This SPR applies to prescribed herbivory treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HYD-4 Identify and Protect Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones: The project Establish WLPZs during design of Project Proponent Project Proponent proponent will establish Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones (WLPZs) on either side treatment projects; implement of watercourses as defined in the table below, which is based on 14 CCR Section 916.5 of WLPZ protections during the California Forest Practice Rules (February 2019 version). WLPZ's are classified based treatment projects on the uses of the stream and the presence of aquatic life. Wider WLPZs are required for steep slopes. Procedures for Determining Watercourse and Lake Protection Zone (WLPZ) widths Water Class Class I Class II Class III Class IV Water Class 1) Domestic 1) Fish always or No aquatic life Man-made Characteristics supplies, seasonally present, watercourses, or Key including present offsite watercourse usually Indicator springs, on site within 1000 feet showing evidence of downstream, Beneficial Use and/or within downstream being capable of established 100 feet and/or sediment transport domestic, downstream of 2) Aquatic to Class I and II agricultural, the operations habitat for waters under hydroelectric area and/or nonfish aquatic normal high-water supply or 2) Fish always or species. flow conditions after other seasonally 3) Excludes Class completion of beneficial present onsite, III waters that timber operations. use. includes habitat are tributary to to sustain fish Class I waters. migration and spawning. WLPZ Width (ft) — Distance from top of bank to the edge of WLPZ < 30 % Slope 75 50 Sufficient to prevent the degradation of 30-50 % Slope 100 75 downstream beneficial uses of >50 % Slope 150 100 water. Determined on a site -specific basis. Source: 14 CCR Section 916.5 [936.5, 956.5] (February 2019 version) December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 30 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity The following WLPZ protections will be applied for all treatments: ► Treatment activities with WLPZs will retain at least 75 percent surface cover and undisturbed area to act as a filter strip for raindrop energy dissipation and for wildlife habitat. If this percentage is reduced a qualified RPF will provide the project proponent with a site- and/or treatment activity -specific explanation for the percent surface cover reduction, which will be included in the PSA. After completion of the PSA and prior to or during treatment implementation, if there is any deviation (e.g., further reduction) from the reduced percent as explained in the PSA, this will be documented in the post -project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report). This requirement is based on 14 CCR Section 916.4 [936.4, 956.41 Subsection (b)(6) (February 2019 version) and 14 CCR Section 916.5 (February 2019 version). ► Equipment, including tractors and vehicles, must not be driven in wet areas or WLPZs, except over existing roads or watercourse crossings where vehicle tires or tracks remain dry. ► Equipment used in vegetation removal operations will not be serviced in WLPZs, within wet meadows or other wet areas, or in locations that would allow grease, oil, or fuel to pass into lakes, watercourses, or wet areas. ► WLPZs will be kept free of slash, debris, and other material that harm the beneficial uses of water. Accidental deposits will be removed immediately. ► Burn piles will be located outside of WLPZs. ► No fire ignition (nor use of associated accelerants) will occur within WLPZs however low intensity backing fires may be allowed to enter or spread into WLPZs. ► Within Class I and Class II WLPZs, locations where project operations expose a continuous area of mineral soil 800 square feet or larger shall be treated for reduction of soil loss. Treatment shall occur prior to October 15th and disturbances that are created after October 15th shall be treated within 10 days. Stabilization measures shall be selected that will prevent significant movement of soil into water bodies and may include but are not limited to mulching, rip -rap, grass seeding, or chemical soil stabilizers. ► Where mineral soil has been exposed by project operations on approaches to watercourse crossings of Class I, II, or III within a WLPZ, the disturbed area shall be stabilized to the extent necessary to prevent the discharge of soil into watercourses or lakes in amounts that would adversely affect the quality and beneficial uses of the watercourse. ► Where necessary to protect beneficial uses of water from project operations, protection measures such as seeding, mulching, or replanting shall be used to retain and improve the natural ability of the ground cover within the WLPZ to filter sediment, minimize soil erosion, and stabilize banks of watercourses and lakes. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program 31 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► Equipment limitation zones (ELZs) will be designated adjacent to Class III and Class IV watercourses with minimum widths of 25 feet where side -slope is less than 30 percent and 50 feet where side -slope is 30 percent or greater. An RPF will describe the limitations of heavy equipment within the ELZ and, where appropriate, will include additional measures to protect the beneficial uses of water. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HYD-5 Protect Non -Target Vegetation and Special -status Species from Herbicides: During herbicide treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent The project proponent will implement the following measures when applying herbicides: activities ► Locate herbicide mixing sites in areas devoid of vegetation and where there is no potential of a spill reaching non -target vegetation or a waterway. ► Use only herbicides labeled for use in aquatic environments when working in riparian habitats or other areas where there is a possibility the herbicide could come into direct contact with water. Only hand application of herbicides will be allowed in riparian habitats and only during low -flow periods or when seasonal streams are dry. ► No terrestrial or aquatic herbicides will be applied within WLPZs of Class I and II watercourses, if feasible. If this is not feasible, hand application of herbicides labeled for use in aquatic environments may be used within the WLPZ provided that the project proponent notifies the applicable regional water quality control board no fewer than 15 days prior to herbicide application. The feasibility of avoiding herbicide application within WLPZ of Class I and II watercourses will be determined by the project proponent and may be based on whether doing so will preclude achieving CaIVTP program objectives, including, but not limited to, protection of vulnerable communities. The reasons for infeasibility will be documented in the PSA. ► No herbicides will be applied within a 50-foot buffer of ESA or CESA listed plant species or within 50 feet of dry vernal pools. ► For spray applications in and adjacent to habitats suitable for special -status species, use herbicides containing dye (registered for aquatic use by DPR, if warranted) to prevent overspray. ► Application will cease when weather parameters exceed label specifications or when sustained winds at the site of application exceeds 7 miles per hour (whichever is more conservative). ► No herbicide will be applied during precipitation events or if precipitation is forecast 24 hours before or after project activities. This SPR applies to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 32 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity SPR HYD-6 Protect Existing Drainage Systems: If a treatment activity is adjacent to a Mark existing stormwater drainage Project Proponent Project Proponent roadway with stormwater drainage infrastructure, the existing stormwater drainage infrastructure prior to ground infrastructure will be marked prior to ground disturbing activities. If a drainage structure or disturbing activities; if a drainage infiltration system is inadvertently disturbed or modified during project activities, the project structure or infiltration system is proponent will coordinate with owner of the system or feature to repair any damage and inadvertently disturbed or restore pre -project drainage conditions. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and modified during treatment, treatment types, including treatment maintenance. coordinate with owner to repair damage and restore pre -project drainage conditions Noise Standard Project Requirements SPR NO1-1 Limit Heavy Equipment Use to Daytime Hours: The project proponent will During treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent require that operation of heavy equipment associated with treatment activities (heavy off -road equipment, tools, and delivery of equipment and materials) will occur during daytime hours if such noise would be audible to receptors (e.g., residential land uses, schools, hospitals, places of worship). Cities and counties in the treatable landscape typically restrict construction -noise (which would apply to vegetation treatment noise) to particular daytime hours. If the project proponent is subject to local noise ordinance, it will adhere to those to the extent the project is subject to them. If the applicable jurisdiction does not have a noise ordinance or policy restricting the time -of -day when noise -generating activity can occur noise -generating vegetation treatment activity will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sunday and federal holidays. If the project proponent is not subject to local ordinances (e.g., CAL FIRE), it will adhere to the restrictions stated above or may elect to adhere to the restrictions identified by the local ordinance encompassing the treatment area. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR NO1-2 Equipment Maintenance: The project proponent will require that all powered During treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent treatment equipment and power tools will be used and maintained according to manufacturer specifications. All diesel- and gasoline -powered treatment equipment will be properly maintained and equipped with noise -reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations. This SPR applies to all activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR NO1-3 Engine Shroud Closure: The project proponent will require that engine During treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent shrouds be closed during equipment operation. This SPR applies only to mechanical treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 33 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity SPR NOI-4 Locate Staging Areas Away from Noise -Sensitive Land Uses: The project During treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent proponent will locate treatment activities, equipment, and equipment staging areas away from nearby noise -sensitive land uses (e.g., residential land uses, schools, hospitals, places of worship), to the extent feasible, to minimize noise exposure. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR NO1-5 Restrict Equipment Idle Time: The project proponent will require that all During treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent motorized equipment be shut down when not in use. Idling of equipment and haul trucks will be limited to 5 minutes. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR NO1-6 Notify Nearby Off -Site Noise -Sensitive Receptors: For treatment activities Prior to mechanical treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent utilizing heavy equipment, the project proponent will notify noise -sensitive receptors activities within 1,500 feet of (e.g., residential land uses, schools, hospitals, places of worship) located within 1,500 feet noise -sensitive receptors of the treatment activity. Notification will include anticipated dates and hours during which treatment activities are anticipated to occur and contact information, including a daytime telephone number, of the project representative. Recommendations to assist noise -sensitive land uses in reducing interior noise levels (e.g., closing windows and doors) will also be included in the notification. This SPR applies only to mechanical treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Recreation Standard Project Requirements SPR REC-1 Notify Recreational Users of Temporary Closures. If a treatment activity would Approximately 2 weeks prior to Project Proponent Project Proponent and require temporary closure of a public recreation area or facility, the project proponent to treatment projects requiring Administrative Officer (or will coordinate with the owner/manager of that recreation area or facility. If temporary temporary closure of public equivalent official responsible for closure of a recreation area or facility is required, the project proponent will work with recreation areas or facilities distribution of public information) the owner/manager to post notifications of the closure at least 2 weeks prior to the of the county(ies) in which the commencement of the treatment activities. Additionally, notification of the treatment affected recreation area or facility activity will be provided to the Administrative Officer (or equivalent official responsible is located for distribution of public information) of the county(ies) in which the affected recreation area or facility is located. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Transportation Standard Project Requirements SPR TRAN-1 Implement Traffic Control during Treatments: Prior to initiating vegetation If needed, prepare TMP prior to Project Proponent Project Proponent and agency(ies) treatment activities the project proponent will work with the agency(ies) with jurisdiction treatment projects and implement with jurisdiction over affected over affected roadways to determine if a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is needed. A during project treatments roadways TMP will be needed if traffic generated by the project would result in obstructions, hazards, or delays exceeding applicable jurisdictional standards along access routes for individual vegetation treatments. If needed, a TMP will be prepared to provide measures December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 34 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity to reduce potential traffic obstructions, hazards, and service level degradation along affected roadway facilities. The scope of the TMP will depend on the type, intensity, and duration of the specific treatment activities under the CaIVTP. Measures included in the TMP could include (but are not be limited to) construction signage to provide motorists with notification and information when approaching or traveling along the affected roadway facilities, flaggers for lane closures to provide temporary traffic control along affected roadway facilities, treatment schedule restrictions to avoid seasons or time periods of peak vehicle traffic, haul -trip, delivery, and/or commute time restrictions that would be implemented to avoid peak traffic days and times along affected roadway facilities. If the TMP identifies impacts on transportation facilities outside of the jurisdiction of the project proponent, the TMP will be submitted to the agency with jurisdiction over the affected roadways prior to commencement of vegetation treatment projects. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Smoke generated during prescribed burn operations could potentially affect driver visibility and traffic operations along nearby roadways. Direct smoke impacts to roadway visibility and indirect impacts related to driver distraction will be considered during the planning phase of burning operations. Smoke impacts and smoke management practices specific to traffic operations during prescribed fire operations will be identified and addressed within the TMP. The TMP will include measures to monitor smoke dispersion onto public roadways, and traffic control operations will be initiated in the event burning operations could affect traffic safety along any roadways. This SPR applies only to prescribed burn treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Public Services and Utilities Standard Project Requirements SPR UTIL-1: Solid Organic Waste Disposition Plan. For projects requiring the disposal of Prepare an Organic Waste Project Proponent Project Proponent material outside of the treatment area, the project proponent will prepare an Organic Waste Disposition Plan prior to Disposition Plan prior to initiating treatment activities. The Solid Organic Waste Disposition mechanical or manual treatment Plan will include the amount (e.g., tons) of solid organic waste to be managed onsite (i.e., activities; implement plan during scattering of wood materials, generating unburned piles, and pile burning) and transported mechanical or manual treatment offsite for processing (i.e., biomass power plant, wood product processing facility, activities composting). If the project proponent intends to transport solid organic waste offsite, the Solid Organic Waste Disposition Plan will clearly identify the location and capacity of the intended processing facility, consistent with local and state regulations to demonstrate that adequate capacity exists to accept the treated materials. This SPR applies only to mechanical and manual treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 35 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity MITIGATION MEASURES Aesthetics Mitigation Measure AES-3: Conduct Visual Reconnaissance for Non -Shaded Fuel Breaks Prior to and during non -shaded Project Proponent Project Proponent and Relocate or Feather and Screen Publicly Visible Non -Shaded Fuel Breaks fuel break treatment projects The project proponent will conduct a visual reconnaissance of the treatment area prior to implementing non -shaded fuel breaks to observe the surrounding landscape and determine if public viewing locations, including scenic vistas, public trails, and state scenic highways, have views of the proposed treatment area. If none are identified, the non - shaded fuel break may be implemented without additional visual mitigation. If the project proponent identifies public viewing points, including heavily used scenic vistas, public trails, recreation areas, and state scenic highways with lengthy views (i.e., longer than a few seconds) of a proposed non -shaded fuel break treatment area, the project proponent will, prior to implementation, attempt to identify any feasible change in location of the fuel break to reduce its visibility from public viewpoints. If no feasible location changes exist that would reduce impacts to public viewers and achieve the intended wildfire risk reduction objectives of the proposed non -shaded fuel break, the project proponent will implement, where feasible, a shaded fuel break rather than a non -shaded fuel break, if the shaded fuel break would achieve the intended wildfire risk reduction objectives. With the shaded fuel break, the project proponent will thin and feather adjacent vegetation to break up the linear edges of the fuel break and strategically preserve vegetation at the edge of the fuel break, as feasible, to help screen public views and minimize the contrast between the fuel break and surrounding vegetation. Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement On -Road Vehicle and Off -Road Equipment Exhaust During treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent Emission Reduction Techniques Where feasible, project proponents will implement emission reduction techniques to reduce exhaust emissions from off -road equipment. It is acknowledged that due to cost, availability, and the limits of current technology, there may be circumstances where implementation of certain emission reduction techniques will not feasible. The project proponent will document the emission reduction techniques that will be applied and will explain the reasons other techniques that could reduce emissions are infeasible. Techniques for reducing emissions may include, but are not limited to, the following: ► Diesel -powered off -road equipment used in construction will meet EPA's Tier 4 emission standards as defined in 40 CFR 1039 and comply with the exhaust emission test procedures and provisions of 40 CFR Parts 1065 and 1068. Tier 3 models can be used if a Tier 4 version of the equipment type is not yet produced by manufacturers. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 36 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity!Mmw Verifying/Monitoring Entity This measure can also be achieved by using battery -electric off -road equipment as it becomes available. Prior to implementation of treatment activities, the project proponent will demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant equipment. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification or model year specification and operating permit (if applicable) will be available upon request at the time of mobilization of each unit of equipment. ► Use renewable diesel fuel in diesel -powered construction equipment. Renewable diesel fuel must meet the following criteria: ■ meet California's Low Carbon Fuel Standards and be certified by CARB Executive Officer; ■ be hydrogenation -derived (reaction with hydrogen at high temperatures) from 100 percent biomass material (i.e., non -petroleum sources), such as animal fats and vegetables; ■ contain no fatty acids or functionalized fatty acid esters; and ■ have a chemical structure that is identical to petroleum -based diesel and complies with American Society for Testing and Materials D975 requirements for diesel fuels to ensure compatibility with all existing diesel engines. ► Electric- and gasoline -powered equipment will be substituted for diesel -powered equipment. ► Workers will be encouraged to carpool to work sites, and/or use public transportation for their commutes. ► Off -road equipment, diesel trucks, and generators will be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM. Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Protect Inadvertent Discoveries of Unique Archaeological During ground -disturbing activities Project Proponent Project Proponent Resources or Subsurface Historical Resources If any prehistoric or historic -era subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including locally darkened soil ("midden"), that could conceal cultural deposits, are discovered during ground -disturbing activities, all ground -disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources will be halted and a qualified archaeologist will assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist will work with the project proponent to develop a primary records report that will comply with applicable state or local agency procedures. If the archaeologist determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, a data recovery plan will be prepared. If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist (i.e., because the find constitutes a unique archaeological resource, subsurface historical resource, or tribal cultural resource), the archaeologist will work with the project proponent to develop appropriate procedures to Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 37 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity protect the integrity of the resource. Procedures could include preservation in place (which is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites), archival research, subsurface testing, or recovery of scientifically consequential information from and about the resource. Any find will be recorded standard DPR Primary Record forms (Form DPR 523) will be submitted to the appropriate regional information center. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Avoid Loss of Special -Status Plants Listed under ESA or CESA Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent If listed plants are determined to be present through application of SPR BIO-1 and SPR BIO-7, the project proponent will avoid and protect these species by establishing a no - disturbance buffer around the area occupied by listed plants and marking the buffer boundary with high -visibility flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway), exceptions to this requirement are listed later in this measure. The no -disturbance buffers will generally be a minimum of 50 feet from listed plants, but the size and shape of the buffer zone may be adjusted if a qualified RPF or botanist determines that a smaller buffer will be sufficient to avoid killing or damaging listed plants or that a larger buffer is necessary to sufficiently protect plants from the treatment activity. The appropriate buffer size will be determined based on plant phenology at the time of treatment (e.g., whether the plants are in a dormant, vegetative, or flowering state), the individual species' vulnerability to the treatment method being used, and environmental conditions and terrain. For example, paint -on or wicking application of herbicides to invasive plants may be implemented within 50 feet of listed plant species without posing a risk, especially if the listed plants are dormant at the time of application. Consideration of factors such as site hydrology, changes in light, edge effects, and potential introduction of invasive plants and noxious weeds may inform the determination of buffer width. If a no -disturbance buffer is reduced below 50 feet from a listed plant, a qualified RPF or botanist will provide the project proponent with a site - and/or treatment activity -specific explanation for the buffer reduction, which will be included in the PSA. After completion of the PSA and prior to or during treatment implementation, if there is any deviation (e.g., further reduction) from the reduced buffer as explained in the PSA, this will be documented in the post -project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report) with a science -based justification for the deviation. No fire ignition (and associated use of accelerants) will occur within 50 feet of listed plants. For species listed under ESA or CESA, if the project proponent cannot avoid loss by implementing no -disturbance buffers, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1c. The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or botanist, in consultation with CDFW and USFWS, as appropriate depending December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 38 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity!WMW Verifying/Monitoring Entity on species status and location, that the listed plants would benefit from treatment in the occupied habitat area even though some of the listed plants may be lost during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to listed special -status plants, the qualified RPF or botanist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the species (or similar species) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced competition for resources), and the substantial evidence will be included in the PSA. If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to listed plants, no compensatory mitigation for loss of individuals will be required. Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Avoid Loss of Special -Status Plants Not Listed Under ESA or Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent CESA If non -listed special -status plant species (i.e., species not listed under ESA or CESA, but meeting the definition of special -status as stated in Section 3.6.1 of the Program EIR) are determined to be present through application of SPR BIO-1 and SPR BIO-7, the project proponent will implement the following measures to avoid loss of individuals and maintain habitat function of occupied habitat: ► Physically avoid the area occupied by the special -status plants by establishing a no - disturbance buffer around the area occupied by species and marking the buffer boundary with high -visibility flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway). The no -disturbance buffers will generally be a minimum of 50 feet from special -status plants, but the size and shape of the buffer zone may be adjusted if a qualified RPF or botanist determines that a smaller buffer will be sufficient to avoid loss of or damaging to special -status plants or that a larger buffer is necessary to sufficiently protect plants from the treatment activity. The appropriate size and shape of the buffer zone will be determined by a qualified RPF or botanist and will depend on plant phenology at the time of treatment (e.g., whether the plants are in a dormant, vegetative, or flowering state), the individual species' vulnerability to the treatment method being used, and environmental conditions and terrain. Consideration of factors such as site hydrology, changes in light, edge effects, and potential introduction of invasive plants and noxious weeds may inform an appropriate buffer size and shape. ► Treatments may be conducted within this buffer if the potentially affected special - status plant species is a geophytic, stump -sprouting, or annual species, and the treatment can be conducted outside of the growing season (e.g., after it has completed its annual life cycle) or during the dormant season using only treatment activities that would not damage the stump, root system or other underground parts of special -status plants or destroy the seedbank. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 39 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental an Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity P. Treatments will be designed to maintain the function of special -status plant habitat. For example, for a fuel break proposed in treatment areas occupied by special -status plants, if the removal of shade cover would degrade the special -status plant habitat despite the requirement to physically or seasonally avoid the special -status plant itself, habitat function would be diminished and the treatment would need to be modified or precluded from implementation. ► No fire ignition (and associated use of accelerants) will occur within the special -status plant buffer. A qualified RPF or botanist with knowledge of the special -status plant species habitat and life history will review the treatment design and applicable impact minimization measures (potentially including others not listed above) to determine if the anticipated residual effects of the treatment would be significant under CEQA because implementation of the treatment would not maintain habitat function of the special -status plant habitat (i.e., the habitat would be rendered unsuitable) or because the loss of special -status plants would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a special -status plant species. If the project proponent determines the impact on special -status plants would be less than significant, no further mitigation will be required. If the project proponent determines that the loss of special -status plants or degradation of occupied habitat would be significant under CEQA after implementing feasible treatment design alternatives and impact minimization measures, then Mitigation Measure BIO-1c will be implemented. The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or botanist that the special -status plants would benefit from treatment in the occupied habitat area even though some of the non -listed special -status plants may be killed during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to non -listed special -status plants, the qualified RPF or botanist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the species (or similar species) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced competition for resources), and the substantial evidence will be included in the PSA. If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to special -status plants, no compensatory mitigation will be required. Mitigation Measure BIO-1c: Compensate for Unavoidable Loss of Special -Status Plants Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent If significant impacts on listed or non -listed special -status plants cannot feasibly be avoided as specified under the circumstances described under Mitigation Measures 13I0- 1a and 1b, the project proponent will prepare a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that identifies the residual significant impacts that require compensatory mitigation and describes the compensatory mitigation strategy being implemented and how unavoidable losses of special -status plants will be compensated. The project proponent December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 40 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity!WMW Verifying/Monitoring Entity will consult with CDFW and/or any other applicable responsible agency prior to finalizing the Compensatory Mitigation Plan to satisfy that responsible agency's requirements (e.g., permits, approvals) within the plan. If the special -status plant taxa are listed under ESA or CESA, the plan will be submitted to CDFW and/or USFWS (as appropriate) for review and comment. The first priority for compensatory mitigation will be preserving and enhancing existing populations outside of the treatment area in perpetuity, or if that is not an option because existing populations that can be preserved in perpetuity are not available, one of the following mitigation options will be implemented by the project proponent instead: ► creating populations on mitigation sites outside of the treatment area through seed collection and dispersal (annual species) or transplantation (perennial species); ► purchasing mitigation credits from a CDFW- or USFWS-approved conservation or mitigation bank in sufficient quantities to offset the loss of occupied habitat; and ► if the affected special -status plants are not listed under ESA or CESA, compensatory mitigation may include restoring or enhancing degraded habitats so that they are made suitable to support special -status plant species in the future. If relocation efforts are part of the Compensatory Mitigation Plan, the plan will include details on the methods to be used, including collection, storage, propagation, receptor site preparation, installation, long-term protection and management, monitoring and reporting requirements, success criteria, and remedial action responsibilities should the initial effort fail to meet long-term monitoring requirements. The following performance standards will be applied for relocation: ► the extent of occupied area will be substantially similar to the affected occupied habitat and will be suitable for self -producing populations. Re-located/re-established populations will be considered suitable for self -producing when: ► habitat conditions allow for plants to reestablish annually for a minimum of 5 years with no human intervention, such as supplemental seeding; and ► reestablished habitats contain an occupied area comparable to existing occupied habitat areas in similar habitat types in the region. If preservation of existing populations or creation of new populations is part of the mitigation plan, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a summary of the proposed compensation lands and actions (e.g., the number and type of credits, location of mitigation bank or easement, restoration or enhancement actions), parties responsible for the long-term management of the land, and the legal and funding mechanisms (e.g., holder of conservation easement or fee title). The project proponent will submit evidence that the necessary mitigation has been implemented or that the project proponent has Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program 41 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity entered into a legal agreement to implement it and that compensatory plant populations will be preserved in perpetuity. If mitigation includes dedication of conservation easements, purchase of mitigation credits, or other offsite conservation measures, the details of these measures will be included in the mitigation plan, including information on responsible parties for long- term management, conservation easement holders, long-term management requirements, funding assurances, and success criteria such as those listed above and other details, as appropriate to target the preservation of long term viable populations. If mitigation includes restoring or enhancing habitat within the treatment area or outside of the treatment area, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a description of the proposed habitat improvements, success criteria that demonstrate the performance standard of maintained habitat function has been met, legal and funding mechanisms, and parties responsible for long-term management and monitoring of the restored habitat. If the loss of occupied habitat cannot be offset (e.g., if preservation of existing populations or creation of new populations through relocation efforts are not available for a certain species), and as a result treatment activities would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of listed plant species, then the treatment will not qualify as within the scope of this PEIR. Compensatory mitigation may be satisfied through compliance with permit conditions, or other authorizations obtained by the project proponent (e.g., incidental take permit for state -listed plants), if these requirements are equally or more effective than the mitigation identified above. Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Prior to and during treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent, CDFW, and/or Function for Listed Wildlife Species and California Fully Protected Species (All Treatment projects USFWS/NOAA Fisheries Activities) If California Fully Protected Species or species listed under ESA or CESA are observed during reconnaissance surveys (conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-1) or focused or protocol -level surveys (conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-10), the project proponent will avoid adverse effects to the species by implementing the following. Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance of Individuals The project proponent will implement one of the following 2 measures to avoid mortality, injury, or disturbance of individuals: 1. Treatment will not be implemented within the occupied habitat. Any treatment activities outside occupied habitat will be a sufficient distance from the occupied habitat such that mortality, injury, or disturbance of the species will not occur, as determined by a qualified RPF or biologist using the most current and commonly - accepted science and considering published agency guidance; OR December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 42 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity 2. Treatment will be implemented outside the sensitive period of the species' life history (e.g., outside the breeding or nesting season) during which the species may be more susceptible to disturbance, or disturbance could result in loss of eggs or young. For species present year-round, CDFW and/or USFWS/NOAA Fisheries will be consulted to determine if there is a period of time within which treatment could occur that would avoid mortality, injury, or disturbance of the species. ► For species listed under ESA or CESA, if the project proponent cannot avoid mortality, injury or disturbance by implementing one of the two options listed above, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure 131O-2c. ► Injury or mortality of California Fully Protected Species is prohibited pursuant to Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code and will be avoided. Maintain Habitat Function ► The project proponent will design treatment activities to maintain the habitat function, by implementing the following: ■ While performing review and surveys for SPR 131O-1 and SPR 131O-10, a qualified RPF or biologist will identify any habitat features that are necessary for survival (e.g., habitat necessary for breeding, foraging, shelter, movement) of the affected wildlife species (e.g., trees with complex structure, trees with large cavities, trees with nesting platforms; dens; tree snags; large raptor nests [including inactive nests]; downed woody debris; food sources). These habitat features will be marked and treatments applied to the features will be designed to minimize or avoid the loss or degradation of suitable habitat for listed species during treatments. Identification and treatment of these features will be based on the life history and habitat requirements of the affected species and the most current, commonly accepted science. ■ If it is determined during implementation of SPR BIO-1 and SPR BIO-10 that listed or fully protected wildlife with specific requirements for high canopy cover (e.g., Humboldt marten, fisher, spotted owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, riparian woodrat) are present within a treatment area, then tree or shrub canopy cover within existing suitable areas will be retained at the percentage preferred by the species (as determined by expert opinion, published habitat association information, or other documented standards that are commonly accepted [e.g., 50 percent for coastal California gnatcatcher]) such that habitat function is maintained. ► A qualified RPF or biologist will determine if, after implementation of the impact avoidance measures listed above, the habitat function will remain for the affected species after implementation of the treatment. Because this measure pertains to species listed under CESA or ESA or are fully protected, the qualified RPF or biologist Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 43 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental JL Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity will consult with CDFW and/or USFWS/NOAA Fisheries regarding the determination that habitat function is maintained. If consultation determines that the treatment will not maintain habitat function for the special -status species, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c. Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Prior to and during treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent, CDFW, and/or Function for Other Special -Status Wildlife Species (All Treatment Activities) projects USFWS If other special -status wildlife species (i.e., species not listed under CESA or ESA or California Fully Protected, but meeting the definition of special status as stated in Section 3.6.1 of the Program EIR) are observed during reconnaissance surveys (conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-1) or focused or protocol -level surveys (conducted pursuant to SPR 13I0-10), the project proponent will avoid or minimize adverse effects to the species by implementing the following. Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance of Individuals ► The project proponent will implement the following to avoid mortality, injury, or disturbance of individuals: For all treatment activities except prescribed burning, the project proponent will establish a no -disturbance buffer around occupied sites (e.g., nests, dens, roosts, middens, burrows, nurseries). Buffer size will be determined by a qualified RPF or biologist using the most current, commonly accepted science and will consider published agency guidance; however, buffers will generally be a minimum of 100 feet, unless site conditions indicate a smaller buffer would be sufficient for protection or a larger buffer would be needed. Factors to be considered in determining buffer size will include, but not be limited to, the species' tolerance to disturbance; the presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography, nest height; locations of foraging territory; baseline levels of noise and human activity; and treatment activity. Buffer size may be adjusted if the qualified RPF or biologist determines that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect (i.e., cause mortality, injury, or disturbance to) the species within the nest, den, burrow, or other occupied site. If a no -disturbance buffer is reduced below 100 feet from an occupied site, a qualified RPF or biologist will provide the project proponent with a site- and/or treatment activity -specific explanation for the buffer reduction, which will be included in the PSA. After completion of the PSA and prior to or during treatment implementation, if there is any deviation (e.g., further reduction) from the reduced buffer as explained in the PSA, this will be documented in the post -project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report). ■ No -disturbance buffers will be marked with high -visibility flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway). No activity will occur within the buffer areas until the qualified RPF or biologist has determined that the young have fledged or dispersed; the nest, den, or other occurrence is no December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 44 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity!Mmw Verifying/Monitoring Entity longer active; or reducing the buffer would not likely result in disturbance, mortality, or injury. A qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician will be required to monitor the effectiveness of the no -disturbance buffer around the nest, den, burrow, or other occurrence during treatment. If treatment activities cause agitated behavior of the individual(s), the buffer distance will be increased, or treatment activities modified until the agitated behavior stops. The qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician will have the authority to stop any treatment activities that could result in mortality, injury or disturbance to special -status species. ■ For prescribed burning, the project proponent will implement the treatment outside the sensitive period of the species' life history (e.g., outside the breeding or nesting season) during which the species may be more susceptible to disturbance, or disturbance could result in loss of eggs or young. For species present year- round, the qualified RPF or biologist will determine the period of time within which prescribed burning could occur that will avoid or minimize mortality, injury, or disturbance of the species. The project proponent may consult with CDFW and/or USFWS for technical information regarding appropriate limited operating periods. Maintain Habitat Function ► For all treatment activities, the project proponent will design treatment activities to maintain the habitat function by implementing the following: ■ While performing review and surveys for SPR BIO-1 and SPR BIO-10, a qualified RPF or biologist will identify any habitat features that are necessary for survival (e.g., habitat necessary for breeding, foraging, shelter, movement) of the affected wildlife species (e.g., trees with complex structure, trees with large cavities, trees with nesting platforms; tree snags; large raptor nests [including inactive nests]; downed woody debris). These habitat features will be marked and treatments applied to the features will be designed to minimize or avoid the loss or degradation of suitable habitat for listed species during treatments. Identification and treatment of these features will be based on the life history and habitat requirements of the affected species and the most current, commonly accepted science. ■ If it is determined during implementation of SPR BIO-1 and SPR BIO-10 that special - status wildlife with specific requirements for high canopy cover (e.g., northern goshawk, Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare) are present within a treatment area, then tree or shrub canopy cover within existing suitable areas will be retained at the percentage preferred by the species (as determined by expert opinion, published habitat association information, or other documented standards that are commonly accepted) such that the habitat function is maintained. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 45 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► A qualified RPF or biologist will determine if, after implementation of the impact avoidance measures listed above, the habitat function will remain for the affected species after implementation of the treatment. The qualified RPF or biologist may consult with CDFW and/or USFWS for technical information regarding habitat function. A qualified RPF or biologist with knowledge of the special -status wildlife species habitat and life history will review the treatment design and applicable impact minimization measures (potentially including others not listed above) to determine if the anticipated residual effects of the treatment would be significant under CEQA because implementation of the treatment will not maintain habitat function of the special -status wildlife species' habitat or because the loss of special -status wildlife would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a special -status wildlife species. If the project proponent determines the impact on special -status wildlife would be less than significant, no further mitigation will be required. If the project proponent determines that the loss of special -status wildlife or degradation of occupied habitat would be significant under CEQA after implementing feasible treatment design alternatives and impact minimization measures, then Mitigation Measure BIO-2c will be implemented. The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or biologist that the non -listed special -status wildlife would benefit from treatment in the occupied habitat area even though some of the non -listed special -status wildlife may be killed, injured, or disturbed during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to non -listed special -status wildlife, the qualified RPF or biologist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the species (or similar species) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced competition for resources), and the substantial evidence will be included in the PSA. If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to special -status wildlife, no compensatory mitigation will be required. The qualified RPF or biologist may consult with CDFW and/or USFWS for technical information regarding the determination that a non - listed special -status species would benefit from the treatment. Mitigation Measure BIO-2c: Compensate for Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Loss of Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent, CDFW, and/or Habitat Function for Special -Status Wildlife if Applicable (All Treatment Activities) any other applicable responsible If the provisions of Mitigation Measure BIO-2a, B1O-2b, 131O-2d, 131O-2e, 131O-2f, or BIO- agency 2g cannot be implemented and the project proponent determines that additional mitigation is necessary to reduce significant impacts, the project proponent will compensate for such impacts to species or habitat by acquiring and/or protecting land that provides (or will provide in the case of restoration) habitat function for affected December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 46 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity!WMW Verifying/Monitoring Entity species that is at least equivalent to the habitat function removed or degraded as a result of the treatment. Compensation may include: 1. Preserving existing habitat outside of the treatment area in perpetuity; this may entail purchasing mitigation credits and/or lands from a CDFW- or USFWS-approved entity in sufficient quantity to offset the residual significant impacts, generally at a ratio of 1:1 for habitat; and 2. Restoring or enhancing existing habitat within the treatment area or outside of the treatment area (including decommissioning roads, adding perching structures, removing existing perching structures, or removing existing movement barriers or other existing features that are adversely affecting the species). The project proponent will prepare a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that identifies the residual significant effects that require compensatory mitigation and describes the compensatory mitigation strategy being implemented to reduce residual effects, and: 1. For preserving existing habitat outside of the treatment area in perpetuity, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a summary of the proposed compensation lands (e.g., the number and type of credits, location of mitigation bank or easement), parties responsible for the long-term management of the land, and the legal and funding mechanisms for long-term conservation (e.g., holder of conservation easement or fee title). The project proponent will submit evidence that the necessary mitigation has been implemented or that the project proponent has entered into a legal agreement to implement it and that compensatory habitat will be preserved in perpetuity. 2. For restoring or enhancing habitat within the treatment area or outside of the treatment area, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a description of the proposed habitat improvements, success criteria that demonstrate the performance standard of maintained habitat function has been met, legal and funding mechanisms, and parties responsible for long-term management and monitoring of the restored habitat. Review requirements are as follows: ► The project proponent will consult with CDFW and/or any other applicable responsible agency prior to finalizing the Compensatory Mitigation Plan in order to satisfy that responsible agency's requirements (e.g., permits, approvals) within the plan. ► For species listed under ESA or CESA or a California Fully Protected Species, the project proponent will submit the mitigation plan to CDFW and/or USFWS/NOAA Fisheries for review and comment. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 47 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► For other special -status wildlife species the project proponent may consult with CDFW and/or USFWS regarding the availability and applicability of compensatory mitigation and other related technical information. Compensatory mitigation may be satisfied through compliance with permit conditions, or other authorizations obtained by the project proponent (e.g., incidental take permit), if these requirements are equally or more effective than the mitigation identified above. Mitigation Measure BIO-2d: Implement Protective Measures for Valley Elderberry Prior to and during treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent, CDFW, and/or Longhorn Beetle (All Treatment Activities) project any other applicable responsible If elderberry shrubs within the documented range of valley elderberry longhorn beetle are agency identified during review and surveys for SPR BIO-1, and valley elderberry longhorn beetle or likely occupied suitable elderberry habitat (e.g., within riparian, within historic riparian, containing exit holes) is confirmed to be present during protocol -level surveys following the protocol outlined in USFWS Framework for Assessing Impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS 2017) per SPR 3I0-10, the following protective measures will be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle: ► If elderberry shrubs are 165 feet or more from the treatment area, and treatment activities would not encroach within this distance, direct or indirect impacts are not expected and further mitigation is not required. ► If elderberry shrubs are located within 165 feet of the treatment area, the following measures will be implemented: ■ A minimum avoidance area of at least 20 feet from the dripline of each elderberry plant will be fenced or flagged and maintained to avoid direct impacts (e.g., damage to root system) that could damage or kill the plant, with the exception of the following activities: ■ Manual trimming of elderberry shrubs will only occur between November and February and will avoid removal of any branches or stems that are greater than or equal to 1 inch in diameter to avoid and minimize adverse effects on valley elderberry longhorn beetle. ■ Manual or mechanical vegetation treatment within the drip -line of any elderberry shrub will be limited to the season when adults are not active (August - February), will be limited to methods that do not cause ground disturbance, and will avoid damaging the elderberry. ■ A qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician familiar with valley elderberry longhorn beetle and its life history will monitor the work area to verify the avoidance and minimization measures are implemented. The qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician will have the authority to stop any treatment activities that could result in potential adverse effects to valley elderberry longhorn beetle. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 48 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity!WMW Verifying/Monitoring Entity If the project proponent cannot implement the measures above to avoid mortality, injury, or disturbance of VELB or degradation of occupied habitat such that its function would not be maintained, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c. Mitigation Measure BIO-2e: Design Treatment to Retain Special -Status Butterfly Host Prior to and during treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent, CDFW, and/or Plants (All Treatment Activities) projects any other applicable responsible If federally listed butterflies are identified as occurring or having potential to occur during agency review and surveys for SPR 131O-1 and confirmed during protocol -level surveys per SPR BIO-10, then the following measures will be implemented: ► Treatment areas within the range of these species will be surveyed for the host plant for each species (Table 3.6-34). ► Host plants for federally listed butterflies within the occupied habitat will be marked with high -visibility flagging, fencing, or stakes, and no treatment activities will occur within 10 feet of these plants. ► Because prescribed herbivory could result in the indiscriminate removal of the host plants for federally listed butterflies, this treatment type will not be used within occupied habitat of any federally listed butterfly species, unless it is known that the host plant is unpalatable to the herbivore. ► Treatment areas that are not occupied but are within the range of the federally listed butterfly will be divided into as many treatment units as feasible such that the entirety of the habitat is not treated within the same year. ► Treatments will be conducted in a patchy pattern to the extent feasible in areas that are not occupied but are within the range of the federally listed butterfly, such that the entirety of the habitat is not burned or removed and untreated portions of suitable habitat are retained. If the project proponent cannot implement the measures above to avoid mortality, injury, or disturbance of federally listed butterflies or degradation of occupied habitat (host plants) such that its function would not be maintained, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c. CESA and ESA Listed Species. A qualified RPF or biologist will determine if, after implementation of any feasible impact avoidance measures (potentially including others not listed above), the treatment will result in mortality, injury, or disturbance, or if after implementation of the treatment, habitat function will remain for the affected species. For species listed under CESA or ESA or that are fully protected, the qualified RPF or biologist will consult with CDFW and/or USFWS regarding this determination. If consultation determines that mortality, injury, or disturbance of listed butterflies or degradation of occupied habitat such that its function would not be maintained would occur, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 49 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Table 3.6-34 Special -status Butterflies and Associated Host Plants Butterfly Species Host Plants bay checkerspot butterfly dwarf plantain (Plantogo virginico), purple owl's clover (Costillejo exserto) Behren's silverspot butterfly blue violet (Viola adunco) callippe silverspot butterfly California golden violet (Viola pedunculata) Carson wandering skipper salt grass (Distichlis spicato) El Segundo blue butterfly seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium) Hermes copper butterfly spiny redberry (Rhamnus crocea) Kern primrose sphinx moth plains evening -primrose (Camissonia contorto), field primrose (Camissonia compestris) Laguna Mountains skipper Cleveland's horkelia (Horkelia clevelandit), sticky cinquefoil (Drymocallis glandulosa) Lange's metalmark butterfly naked -stemmed buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum) lotis blue butterfly seaside bird's foot trefoil (Hosockia gracilis) Mission blue butterfly lupine (Lupinus spp.) Myrtle's silverspot butterfly blue violet Oregon silverspot butterfly blue violet Palos Verdes blue butterfly Santa Barbara milkvetch (Astragalus trichopodus), common deerweed (Acmispon glaber) San Bruno elfin butterfly broadleaf stonecrop (Sedum spathulifolium), manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), huckleberry (Vaccinuum spp.) Smith's blue butterfly seacliff buckwheat, seaside buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium) Quino checkerspot butterfly dwarf plantain, purple owl's clover December 2019 50 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity!WMW Verifying/Monitoring Entity Other Special -status Species. A qualified RPF or biologist with knowledge of the special - status species' habitat and life history will review the treatment design and applicable impact minimization measures (potentially including others not listed above) to determine if the anticipated residual effects of the treatment would be significant under CEQA, because implementation of the treatment will not maintain habitat function of the special -status species' habitat or because the loss of special -status individuals would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a special -status species. If the project proponent determines the impact on special -status butterflies would be less than significant, no further mitigation will be required. If the project proponent determines that the loss of special -status butterflies or degradation of occupied habitat would be significant under CEQA after implementing feasible treatment design alternatives and impact minimization measures, then Mitigation Measure BIO-2c will be implemented. The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or biologist that the special -status butterfly species would benefit from treatment in the occupied habitat area even though some may be killed, injured or disturbed during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to special -status butterfly species, the qualified RPF or biologist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the species (or similar species) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced competition for resources). If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to special -status butterflies, no compensatory mitigation will be required. Mitigation Measure BIO-2f: Avoid Habitat for Special -Status Beetles, Flies, Grasshoppers, Prior to and during treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent, CDFW, and/or and Snails (All Treatment Activities) projects any other applicable responsible If treatment activities would occur within the limited range of any state or federally listed agency beetle, fly, grasshopper, or snail, and these species are identified as occurring or having potential to occur due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat during review and surveys for SPR BIO-1 and surveys for SPR BIO-10, then the following measures will be implemented: ► To avoid and minimize impacts to Mount Hermon June beetle and Zayante band - winged grasshopper, treatment activities will not occur within "Sandhills" habitat in Santa Cruz County, the only suitable habitat for these species. ► To avoid and minimize impacts to Casey's June beetle, Delhi Sands flower -loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis), Delta green ground beetle (Elaphrus virisis), Morro shoulderband snail, Ohlone tiger beetle (Cicindela ohlone), and Trinity bristle snail, treatment activities will not occur within habitat in the range of these species that is deemed suitable by a qualified RPF or biologist with familiarity of the species. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program 51 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity Mitigation Measure BIO-2g: Design Treatment to Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance Prior to and during treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent, CDFW, and/or and Maintain Habitat Function for Special -Status Bumble Bees (All Treatment Activities) projects USFWS If special -status bumble bees are identified as occurring during review and surveys under SPR BIO-1 and confirmed during protocol -level surveys per SPR BIO-10, or if suitable habitat for special -status bumble bees is identified during review and surveys under SPR BIO-1 (e.g., wet meadow, forest meadow, riparian, grassland, or coastal scrub habitat containing sufficient floral resources within the range of the species), then the project proponent will implement the following measures, as feasible: ► Prescribed burning within occupied or suitable habitat for special -status bumble bees will occur from October through February to avoid the bumble bee flight season. ► Treatment areas in occupied or suitable habitat will be divided into a sufficient number of treatment units such that the entirety of the habitat is not treated within the same year; the objective of this measure is to provide refuge for special -status bumble bees during treatment activities and temporary retention of suitable floral resources proximate to the treatment area. ► Treatments will be conducted in a patchy pattern to the extent feasible in occupied or suitable habitat, such that the entirety of the habitat is not burned or removed and untreated portions of occupied or suitable habitat are retained (e.g., fire breaks will be aligned to allow for areas of unburned floral resources for special -status bumble bees within the treatment area). ► Herbicides will not be applied to flowering native plants within occupied or suitable habitat to the extent feasible during the flight season (March through September). CESA and ESA Listed Species. A qualified RPF or biologist will determine if, after implementation of feasible avoidance measures (potentially including others not listed above), the treatment will result in mortality, injury, or disturbance to the species, or if after implementation of the treatment, habitat function will remain for the affected species. For species listed under CESA or ESA or that are fully protected, the qualified RPF or biologist will consult with CDFW and/or USFWS regarding this determination. If consultation determines that mortality, injury, or disturbance of listed bumble bees (in the event the Candidate listing is confirmed) or degradation of occupied (or assumed to be occupied) habitat such that its function would not be maintained would occur, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c. Other Special -status Species. A qualified RPF or biologist with knowledge of the special - status species' habitat and life history will review the treatment design and applicable impact minimization measures (potentially including others not listed above) to determine if the anticipated residual effects of the treatment would be significant under CEQA because implementation of the treatment will not maintain habitat function of the special -status species' habitat or because the loss of special -status individuals would December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 52 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program EMMMME Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity!Mmw Verifying/Monitoring Entity substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a special -status species. If the project proponent determines the impact on special -status bumble bees would be less than significant, no further mitigation will be required. If the project proponent determines that the loss of special -status bumble bees or degradation of occupied (or assumed to be occupied) habitat would be significant under CEQA after implementing feasible treatment design alternatives and impact minimization measures, then Mitigation Measure BIO-2c will be implemented. The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or biologist that the special -status bumble bee species would benefit from treatment in the occupied (or assumed to be occupied) habitat area even though some of the non -listed special -status bumble bees may be killed, injured, or disturbed during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to special -status bumble bee species, the qualified RPF or biologist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the species (or similar species) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced competition for resources), and the substantial evidence will be included in the PSA. If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to special -status bumble bees, no compensatory mitigation will be required. Mitigation Measure BIO-2h: Avoid Potential Disease Transmission Between Domestic During prescribed herbivory Project Proponent Project Proponent Livestock and Special -Status Ungulates (Prescribed Herbivory) activities The project proponent will implement the following measure if treatment activities are planned within the range of desert bighorn sheep, peninsular bighorn sheep, Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, or pronghorn: ► Prescribed herbivory activities will be prohibited within a 14-mile buffer around suitable habitat for any species of bighorn sheep within the range of these species consistent with the more stringent recommendations in the Recovery Plan for Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (USFWS 2007). ► Prescribed herbivory activities will be avoided within the range of pronghorn where feasible (where this range does not overlap with the range of any species of bighorn sheep). Mitigation Measure BIO-3a: Design Treatments to Avoid Loss of Sensitive Natural Prior to and during treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent Communities and Oak Woodlands projects The project proponent will implement the following measures when working in treatment areas that contain sensitive natural communities identified during surveys conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-3: Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 53 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► Reference the Manual of California Vegetation, Appendix 2, Table A2, Fire Characteristics (Sawyer et al. 2009 or current version, including updated natural communities data at http://vegetation.cnps.org/) or other best available information to determine the natural fire regime of the specific sensitive natural community type (i.e., alliance) present. The condition class and fire return interval departure of the vegetation alliances present will also be determined. ► Design treatments in sensitive natural communities and oak woodlands to restore the natural fire regime and return vegetation composition and structure to their natural condition to maintain or improve habitat function of the affected sensitive natural community. Treatments will be designed to replicate the fire regime attributes for the affected sensitive natural community or oak woodland type including seasonality, fire return interval, fire size, spatial complexity, fireline intensity, severity, and fire type as described in Fire in California's Ecosystems (Van Wagtendonk et al. 2018) and the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009 or current version, including updated natural communities data at http://vegetation.cnps.org/). Treatments will not be implemented in sensitive natural communities that are within their natural fire return interval (i.e., time since last burn is less than the average time required for that vegetation type to recover from fire) or within Condition Class 1. ► To the extent feasible, no fuel breaks will be created in sensitive natural communities with rarity ranks of S1 (critically imperiled) and S2 (imperiled). ► To the extent feasible, fuel breaks will not remove more than 20 percent of the native vegetation relative cover from a stand of sensitive natural community vegetation in sensitive natural communities with a rarity rank of S3 (vulnerable) or in oak woodlands. In forest and woodland sensitive natural communities with a rarity rank of S3, and in oak woodlands, only shaded fuel breaks will be installed, and they will not be installed in more than 20 percent of the stand of sensitive natural community or oak woodland vegetation (i.e., if the sensitive natural community covers 100 acres, no more than 20 acres will be converted to create the fuel break). ► Use prescribed burning as the primary treatment activity in sensitive natural communities that are fire dependent (e.g., closed -cone forest and woodland alliances, chaparral alliances characterized by fire -stimulated, obligate seeders), to the extent feasible and appropriate based on the fire regime attributes as described in Fire in California's Ecosystems (Van Wagtendonk et al. 2018) and the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009 or current version, including updated natural communities data at http://vegetation.cnps.org/). ► Time prescribed herbivory to occur when non -target vegetation is not susceptible to damage (e.g. non -target vegetation is dormant or has completed its reproductive cycle for the year). For example, use herbivores to control invasive plants growing in sensitive habitats or sensitive natural communities when sensitive vegetation is December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 54 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity!WMW Verifying/Monitoring Entity dormant but invasive plants are growing. Timing of herbivory to avoid non -target vegetation will be determined by a qualified botanist, RPF, or biologist based on the specific vegetation alliance being treated, the life forms and life conditions of its characteristic plant species, and the sensitivity of the non -target vegetation to the effects of herbivory. The feasibility of implementing the avoidance measures will be determined by the project proponent based on whether implementation of this mitigation measure will preclude completing the treatment project within the reasonable period of time necessary to meet CaIVTP program objectives, including, but not limited to, protection of vulnerable communities. If the avoidance measures are determined by the project proponent to be infeasible, the project proponent will document the reasons implementation of the avoidance strategies are infeasible in the PSA. After completion of the PSA and prior to or during treatment implementation, if there is any change in the feasibility of avoidance strategies from those explained in the PSA, this will be documented in the post -project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report). A qualified RPF or botanist with knowledge of the affected sensitive natural community will review the treatment design and applicable impact minimization measures (potentially including others not listed above) to determine if the anticipated residual effects of the treatment would be significant under CEQA because implementation of the treatment will not maintain habitat functions of the sensitive natural community or oak woodland. If the project proponent determines the impact on sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands would be less than significant, no further mitigation will be required. If the project proponent determines that the loss or degradation of sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands would be significant under CEQA after implementing feasible treatment design alternatives and impact minimization measures, then Mitigation Measure BIO-31b will be implemented. The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or botanist that the sensitive natural community or oak woodland would benefit from treatment in the occupied habitat area even though some loss may occur during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to a sensitive natural community or oak woodland, the qualified RPF or botanist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the community (or similar community) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced competition for resources), and the substantial evidence will be included in the PSA. If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands, no compensatory mitigation will be required. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 55 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity Mitigation Measure BIO-3b: Compensate for Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities and Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent, CDFW, and/or Oak Woodlands any other applicable responsible If significant impacts on sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands cannot feasibly agency be avoided or reduced as specified under Mitigation Measure BIO-3a, the project proponent will implement the following actions: ► Compensate for unavoidable losses of sensitive natural community and oak woodland acreage and function by: ■ restoring sensitive natural community or oak woodland functions and acreage within the treatment area; ■ restoring degraded sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands outside of the treatment area at a sufficient ratio to offset the loss of acreage and habitat function; or ■ preserving existing sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands of equal or better value to the sensitive natural community lost through a conservation easement at a sufficient ratio to offset the loss of acreage and habitat function. ► The project proponent will prepare a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that identifies the residual significant effects on sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands that require compensatory mitigation and describes the compensatory mitigation strategy being implemented to reduce residual effects, and: 1. For preserving existing habitat outside of the treatment area in perpetuity, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a summary of the proposed compensation lands (e.g., the number and type of credits, location of mitigation bank or easement), parties responsible for the long-term management of the land, and the legal and funding mechanism for long-term conservation (e.g., holder of conservation easement or fee title). The project proponent will submit evidence that the necessary mitigation has been implemented or that the project proponent has entered into a legal agreement to implement it and that compensatory habitat will be preserved in perpetuity. 2. For restoring or enhancing habitat within the treatment area or outside of the treatment area, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a description of the proposed habitat improvements, success criteria that demonstrate the performance standard of maintained habitat function has been met, legal and funding mechanisms, and parties responsible for long-term management and monitoring of the restored or enhanced habitat. The project proponent will consult with CDFW and/or any other applicable responsible agency prior to finalizing the Compensatory Mitigation Plan in order to satisfy that responsible agency's requirements (e.g., permits, approvals) within the plan. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 56 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity Mitigation Measure BIO-3c: Compensate for Unavoidable Loss of Riparian Habitat Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent/CDFW If, after implementation of SPR BIO-4, impacts to riparian habitat remain significant under CEQA, the project proponent will implement the following: ► Compensate for unavoidable losses of riparian habitat acreage and function by: ■ restoring riparian habitat functions and acreage within the treatment area; ■ restoring degraded riparian habitat outside of the treatment area; ■ purchasing riparian habitat credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank; or ■ preserving existing riparian habitat of equal or better value to the riparian habitat lost through a conservation easement at a sufficient ratio to offset the loss of riparian habitat function and value. ► The project proponent will prepare a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that identifies the residual significant effects on riparian habitat that require compensatory mitigation and describes the compensatory mitigation strategy being implemented to reduce residual effects, and: 1. For preserving existing riparian habitat outside of the treatment area in perpetuity, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a summary of the proposed compensation lands (e.g., the number and type of credits, location of mitigation bank or easement), parties responsible for the long-term management of the land, and the legal and funding mechanism for long-term conservation (e.g., holder of conservation easement or fee title). The project proponent will submit evidence that the necessary mitigation has been implemented or that the project proponent has entered into a legal agreement to implement it and that compensatory plant populations will be preserved in perpetuity. 2. For restoring or enhancing riparian habitat within the treatment area or outside of the treatment area, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a description of the proposed habitat improvements, success criteria that demonstrate the performance standard of maintained habitat function has been met, legal and funding mechanisms, and parties responsible for long-term management and monitoring of the restored or enhanced habitat. The project proponent will consult with CDFW and/or any other applicable responsible agency prior to finalizing the Compensatory Mitigation Plan to satisfy that responsible agency's requirements (e.g., permits, approvals) within the plan. Compensatory mitigation may be satisfied through compliance with permit conditions, or other authorizations obtained by the project proponent (e.g., Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement), if these requirements are equally or more effective than the mitigation identified above. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 57 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Avoid State and Federally Protected Wetlands Prior to and during treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent Impacts to wetlands will be avoided using the following measures: projects ► The qualified RPF or biologist will delineate the boundaries of federally protected wetlands according to methods established in the USACE wetlands delineation manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the appropriate regional supplement for the ecoregion in which the treatment is being implemented. ► The qualified RPF or biologist will delineate the boundaries of wetlands that may not meet the definition of waters of the United States, but would qualify as waters of the state, according to the state wetland procedures (California Water Boards 2019 or current procedures). ► A qualified RPF or biologist will establish a buffer around wetlands and mark the buffer boundary with high -visibility flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway). The buffer will be a minimum width of 25 feet but may be larger if deemed necessary. The appropriate size and shape of the buffer zone will be determined in coordination with the qualified RPF or biologist and will depend on the type of wetland present (e.g., seasonal wetland, wet meadow, freshwater marsh, vernal pool), the timing of treatment (e.g., wet or dry time of year), whether any special -status species may occupy the wetland and the species' vulnerability to the treatment activities, environmental conditions and terrain, and the treatment activity being implemented. ► A qualified RPF or biological technician will periodically inspect the materials demarcating the buffer to confirm that they are intact and visible, and wetland impacts are being avoided. ► Within this buffer, herbicide application is prohibited. ► Within this buffer, soil disturbance is prohibited. Accordingly, the following activities are not allowed within the buffer zone: mechanical treatments, prescribed herbivory, equipment and vehicle access or staging. ► Only prescribed (broadcast) burning may be implemented in wetland habitats if it is determined by a qualified RPF or biologist that: ■ No special -status species are present in the wetland habitat ■ The wetland habitat function would be maintained. ■ The prescribed burn is within the normal fire return interval for the wetland vegetation types present ■ Fire containment lines and pile burning are prohibited within the buffer ■ No fire ignition (and associated use of accelerants) will occur within the wetland buffer December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 58 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Retain Nursery Habitat and Implement Buffers to Avoid Prior to and during treatment Project Proponent Project Proponent Nursery Sites projects The project proponent will implement the following measures while working in treatment areas that contain nursery sites identified in surveys conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-10: ► Retain Known Nursery Sites. A qualified RPF or biologist will identify the important habitat features of the wildlife nursery and, prior to treatment activities, will mark these features for avoidance and retention during treatment. ► Establish Avoidance Buffers. The project proponent will establish a non -disturbance buffer around the nursery site if activities are required while the nursery site is active/occupied. The appropriate size and shape of the buffer will be determined by a qualified RPF or biologist, based on potential effects of project -related habitat disturbance, noise, visual disturbance, and other factors. No treatment activity will commence within the buffer area until a qualified RPF or biologist confirms that the nursery site is no longer active/occupied. Monitoring of the effectiveness of the non - disturbance buffer around the nursery site by a qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician during and after treatment activities will be required. If treatment activities cause agitated behavior of the individual(s), the buffer distance will be increased, or treatment activities modified until the agitated behavior stops. The qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician will have the authority to stop any treatment activities that could result in potential adverse effects to special -status species. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation Measure GHG-2. Implement GHG Emission Reduction Techniques During Prior to and during prescribed Project Proponent Project Proponent Prescribed Burns burn activities When planning for and conducting a prescribed burn, project proponents implementing a prescribed burn will incorporate feasible methods for reducing GHG emissions, including the following, which are identified in the National Wildfire Coordinating Group Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed Fire (NWCG 2018): ► reduce the total area burned by isolating and leaving large fuels (e.g., large logs, snags) unburned; ► reduce the total area burned through mosaic burning; ► burn when fuels have a higher fuel moisture content; ► reduce fuel loading by removing fuels before ignition. Methods to remove fuels include mechanical treatments, manual treatments, prescribed herbivory, and biomass utilization; and ► schedule burns before new fuels appear. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 59 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements and Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity As the science evolves, other feasible methods or technologies to sequester carbon could be incorporated, such as conservation burning, a technique for burning woody material that reduces the production of smoke particulates and carbon released into the atmosphere and generates more biochar. Biochar is produced from the material left over after the burn and spread with compost to increase soil organic matter and soil carbon sequestration. Technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may also include portable units that perform gasification to produce electricity or pyrolysis that produces biooil that can be used as liquid fuel and/or syngas that can be used to generate electricity. The project proponent will document in the Burn Plan required pursuant to SPR AQ-3 which methods for reducing GHG emissions can feasibly be integrated into the treatment design. Hazardous Materials, Public Health and Safety Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Identify and Avoid Known Hazardous Waste Sites Prior to treatment projects Project Proponent Project Proponent Prior to the start of vegetation treatment activities requiring soil disturbance (i.e., mechanical treatments) or prescribed burning, CAL FIRE and other project proponents will make reasonable efforts to check with the landowner or other entity with jurisdiction (e.g., California Department of Parks and Recreation) to determine if there are any sites known to have previously used, stored, or disposed of hazardous materials. If it is determined that hazardous materials sites could be located within the boundary of a treatment site, the project proponent will conduct a DTSC EnviroStor web search (https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/) and consult DTSC's Cortese List to identify any known contamination sites within the project site. If a proposed mechanical treatment or prescribed burn is located on a site included on the DTSC Cortese List as containing potential soil contamination that has not been cleaned up and deemed closed by DTSC, the area will be marked and no prescribed burning or soil disturbing treatment activities will occur within 100 feet of the site boundaries. If it is determined through coordination with landowners or after review of the Cortese List that no potential or known contamination is located on a project site, the project may proceed as planned. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 60 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program REFERENCES Busse, Matt D.; Hubbert, Ken R.; Moghaddas, Emily E. Y. 2014. Fuel reduction practices and their effects on soil quality. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-241. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.156 p. California Invasive Plant Council. 2012 Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants: Best Management Practices for Land Mangers (3rd Edition). Cal-IPC Publication 2012-03. California Invasive Plant Council. Berkeley, CA. California Water Boards. 2019 (March 22). State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Available: https://www.waterboards.ca.govlwater_issues/programslcwa401/state_wetland_def_procedures.html. Accessed October 2019. Cal-IPC. See California Invasive Plant Council. de Groot, R. S., M. A. Wilson, and R. M. Boumans. 2002. A Typology for the Classification, Description and Valuation of Ecosystem Functions, Goods and Services. Ecological Economics 41:393-408. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. (Technical Report Y-87- 1.) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2018. NWCG Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed Fire. Available: https://www.nwcg.gov/publications/420-2. Accessed April 21, 2019. NWCG. See National Wildfire Coordinating Group. Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler -Wolf, J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation (Second Edition). California Native Plant Society and California Department of Fish and Game. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007 (September). Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. California/Nevada Operations Office. Sacramento, CA. 2017. Framework for Assessing Impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus). Available: https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/documents/VELB_Framework.pdf. Accessed April 15, 2019. USFWS. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Van Wagtendonk, J.W., N.G. Sugihara, S.L Stephens, A.E. Thode, K.E. Shaffer, J. A. Fites-Kaufman. 2018. Fire in California's Ecosystems. University of California Press. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program December 2019 61 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental This page intentionally left blank. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 62 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program ATTACHMENT C.2 PSA Template Appendix PD=3 Project- Specific Analysis Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental PD-3: PROJECT -SPECIFIC ANALYSIS PD-3.1: INTRODUCTION The California Vegetation Treatment Program (CaIVTP) directs implementation of vegetation treatments within the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's (CAL FIRE'S) State Responsibility Area (SRA) to serve as one component of the state's range of actions to reduce wildfire risk, reduce fire suppression efforts and costs, and protect natural resources as well as other assets from wildfire. The Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the CaIVTP evaluates the environmental impacts of the CaIVTP. The CaIVTP is described in Chapter 2, "Program Description" of the PEIR. The PEIR has been prepared under the direction of CEQA lead agency, California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board), in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The document functions as a Program EIR in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 for streamlining of CEQA review of later activities consistent with the CaIVTP. Using the Project -specific Analysis (PSA) in reliance on the PEIR, CAL FIRE or other project proponents will evaluate each vegetation treatment project intended to implement the CaIVTP as a later activity addressed by the PEIR to determine whether the later activity qualifies as within the scope of this PEIR or requires additional environmental documentation or its own independent environmental review. Such evaluations will ascertain whether a later vegetation treatment project is consistent with the description of activities contained in the CaIVTP and whether the effects on the environment were covered in the PEIR. Also, a project proponent will evaluate whether the later vegetation treatment project would (1) cause any new impact, (2) cause any substantially more severe significant impact than was addressed in the PEIR, or (3) reveal a mitigation measure or alternative that is substantially different from those in the PEIR or found infeasible in the PEIR, but that is now is feasible, and that the project proponent declines to implement. If none of those outcomes are determined, and the effects on the environment were covered in the PEIR, the impacts of the later vegetation treatment project can be found to be within the scope of this PEIR, and no additional environmental documentation would be required (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c][1], [2] and [4]). The determination that a project is within the scope of the PEIR is a factual determination that should be supported by substantial evidence. The substantial evidence underpinning the finding is developed using the PSA checklist provided in this section. If a project is within the scope of this PEIR, the project proponent may act on the project using the PSA and PEIR without public circulation of any additional environmental document. If the project is approved, the project proponent would file a Notice of Determination. Under this CEQA compliance approach, a project proponent must incorporate from the PEIR into the later vegetation treatment project all standard project requirements (SPRs) relevant to the proposed project and all feasible mitigation measures in response to significant impacts caused by the later project. A "within the scope" finding for later vegetation treatment projects would facilitate an increase in the pace and scale of project approvals in a manner that includes environmental protections. If a later vegetation treatment project would have impacts that were not covered by the PEIR (and therefore would not qualify for a within the scope finding), then additional documentation may need to be prepared that accompanies the PEIR to demonstrate the project's CEQA compliance (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(1)). If additional documentation is needed, it may be a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR, depending on the environmental impact differences encountered. In this situation, the PSA serves the same function as an initial study to identify which impacts were not covered by (and are therefore not within the scope of) the PEIR and, therefore, must be addressed in a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR, as well as documenting those impacts that are within the scope of the PEIR. Refer to Section PD-3.2.4 (under Checklist Answers) for additional explanation regarding the function of the PSA checklist. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 11 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis PD-3.1.1: Project Proponents - Lead and Responsible Agency Roles CAL FIRE is in charge of preventing and extinguishing wildfires within the SRA (PRC Sections 4113 and 4125). The treatable landscape within the SRA primarily encompasses private land (approximately 92 percent) on which CAL FIRE or counties under contract with CAL FIRE would implement vegetation treatments in coordination with the landowner. Additionally, there are many local, regional, and state agencies with land ownership or land management roles in the remainder of the treatable landscape (i.e., on public land) that will seek to implement vegetation treatments consistent with the CaIVTP to reduce wildfire risks. For the purposes of this PEIR and PSA, a project proponent is a public agency that provides funding for vegetation treatment or has land ownership, land management, or other regulatory responsibility in the treatable landscape and is seeking to fund, authorize, or implement vegetation treatments consistent with the CaIVTP. If through the PSA a project proponent determines that a proposed project is within the scope of the CaIVTP PEIR, then the project proponent would act as a responsible agency pursuant to CEQA. A regulatory agency seeking to use the CaIVTP PEIR to issue any secondary approval or permit for vegetation treatments would also be a responsible agency. If the PSA determines that one or more impacts of a proposed later vegetation treatment project is not within the scope of the CaIVTP PEIR, then the project proponent may serve as a lead agency in the preparation of additional environmental documentation that accompanies the PEIR for CEQA compliance. PD-3.1.2: Treatments Addressed in the PEIR Proposed treatment projects qualifying as within the scope of the PEIR must be consistent with the treatments covered in the CaIVTP, which are summarized in this section, and the geographic extent of the CaIVTP, which is encompassed in the boundaries of the treatable landscape. Refer to PEIR Chapter 2, "Program Description" for a detailed description of the CaIVTP. TREATMENT TYPES The CaIVTP treatment types are: ► Wildland-Urban Interface Fuel Reduction: Located in WUI-designated areas, fuel reduction would generally consist of strategic removal of vegetation to prevent or slow the spread of non -wind driven wildfire between structures and wildlands, and vice versa. ► Fuel Breaks: In strategic locations, fuel breaks create zones of vegetation removal and ongoing maintenance, often in a linear layout, that support fire suppression by providing responders with a staging area or access to a remote landscape for fire control actions. While fuel breaks can passively interrupt the path of a fire or halt or slow its progress, this is not the primary goal of constructing fuel breaks. P. Ecological Restoration: Generally, outside of the WUI in areas that have departed from the natural fire regime as a result of fire exclusion, ecological restoration would focus on restoring ecosystem processes, conditions, and resiliency by moderating uncharacteristic wildland fuel conditions to reflect historic vegetative composition, structure, and habitat values. TREATMENT ACTIVITIES The WUI fuel reduction, fuel break, and ecological restoration treatment types would be implemented using various treatment "activities" that may be applied singularly or in combination. The CaIVTP treatment activities are: P. Prescribed Burning: Includes pile burning (prescribed burning of piles of vegetative material to reduce fuel and/or remove biomass following treatment) and broadcast burning (prescribed burning to reduce fuels over a larger area or restore fire resiliency in target fire -adapted plant communities; would be conducted under specific conditions related to fuels, weather, and other variables). December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 12 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental ► Mechanical Treatment: Use of motorized equipment to cut, uproot, crush/compact, or chop existing vegetation. P. Manual Treatment: Use of hand tools and hand -operated power tools to cut, clear, or prune herbaceous or woody species. ► Prescribed Herbivory: Use of domestic livestock to reduce a target plant population thereby reducing fire fuels or competition of desired plant species. ► Herbicides: Chemical application designed to inhibit growth of target plant species. TREATABLE LANDSCAPE Approximately 20.3 million acres within the 31 million -acre SRA were identified that may be appropriate for vegetation treatments. This area is called the "treatable landscape." CAL FIRE's Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) modeled the areas where each of the three proposed treatment types could be implemented within the treatable landscape. Multiple treatment types can be implemented where modeled treatment areas for treatment types overlap. Qualifying treatments under the CalVTP would occur within the 20.3 million acres of treatable landscape. The boundaries of the treatable landscape are available on the Board's website. PD-3.2: EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The PSA provided herein is to be used to determine whether later vegetation treatment projects in the treatable landscape have been covered in the PEIR to allow for approval without further environmental review and documentation (beyond what is needed to complete the PSA), or whether additional CEQA documentation is required (i.e., a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR). Environmental effects are not necessarily limited to those identified in the PSA checklist, which encompass all effects disclosed in the PEIR. For this reason, the checklist includes a row for "Other Impacts" under each resource area. The determination as to whether an ND, MND, or EIR is required for impacts that are not within the scope of the PEIR is subject to the "fair argument" standard, which requires preparation of an EIR when there is a fair argument, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the proposed treatment project may have a significant effect on the environment. PD-3.2.1: Determining Whether a Proposed Treatment is Within the Scope of the PEIR The purpose of the PSA is to guide CAL FIRE and other project proponents in their determination of whether a proposed vegetation treatment project is within the scope of the CaIVTP PEIR. A proposed vegetation treatment project is within the scope of the PEIR when it meets all of the following qualifications: ► Treatment Methods. The proposed treatment methods are consistent with the treatment types and activities described in Chapter 2, "Program Description" of the PEIR. P. Geographic Area. The proposed treatment site is within the geographic limits of the CalVTP's treatable landscape. P. Environmental Impacts. The environmental effects of the proposed treatment have been covered in the PEIR and none of the criteria for preparation of subsequent CEQA documentation are met (State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168(c)(2), 15162). Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 13 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis PD-3.2.2: Documenting Whether Impacts of a Proposed Treatment Projects are Within the Scope of the PER For the PSA to adequately document the impacts that are within the scope of this PEIR and do not require additional CEQA review and documentation, the PSA must identify the following: ► Relevant PEIR analysis. Identify the specific sections, impact numbers, and page numbers from this PEIR that contain information relevant to the proposed treatment project. ► Additional Studies Prepared and References Cited. Attach to the PSA site -specific studies, reports, and survey results used in support of the within -the -scope finding or impact significance determination, if less severe than that identified in the PEIR. Include copies of references cited in the PSA, which will be made available to the public by the project proponent upon request. ► Standard Project Requirements. Identify each standard project requirement (SPR) that is relevant to the treatment, which will demonstrate that the SPR will be integrated into treatment design. Some SPRs allow for deviation from requirements (e.g., minimum buffer distances), identification of parameters (e.g., tree size for retention), and determinations of feasibility with the provision of a site- and/or treatment activity -specific explanation for the planned deviation, identified parameter, or feasibility determination in the PSA. P. Environmental Impacts. Identify which impacts in the PEIR would occur from implementation of the proposed vegetation treatment project. Because the intent of the PEIR is to disclose potentially significant impacts that are reasonably foreseeable to occur from any of the treatments within the extent of the treatable landscape, it is expected that, due to site -specific conditions, proposed vegetation treatment projects may result in impacts less severe than those identified in the PEIR. A project proponent may rely on the impact significance determination in the PEIR, and for significant impacts, apply the relevant mitigation measures. Alternatively, if an impact identified as significant in the PEIR would be less than significant for the later treatment project, the project proponent may demonstrate with substantial evidence in the PSA that the project impact is less than significant and mitigation measure(s) are not needed. Similarly, potentially significant environmental effects identified in the PEIR may be minimized or found to be less than significant without mitigation in the future due to technological advances, further research, or industry response (e.g., air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, utilities and service systems); these effects and the reasons they are less severe than those identified in the PEIR will be documented in the PSA. ► Mitigation Measures. Identify each mitigation measure from the PEIR that is relevant to the proposed treatment project. In the PSA, explain any components of the mitigation measures that are not applicable to the treatment, and for any significance determination that is different than the PEIR, describe how each measure will address site -specific conditions and reduce the impact of the proposed vegetation treatment project. Some mitigation measures allow for deviation from requirements (e.g., minimum buffer distances), identification of parameters (e.g., tree size for retention), and determinations of feasibility with the provision of a site- and/or treatment activity -specific explanation for the planned deviation, identified parameter, or feasibility determination in the PSA. PD-3.2.3: Providing Substantial Evidence The impact determinations and within -the -scope findings in the PSA, as well as any explanation for planned deviations, identified parameters, or feasibility determinations associated with SPR and mitigation measures, must be based on substantial evidence (defined in the CEQA Guidelines as "facts, reasonable assumptions predicted upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts"). Therefore, the PSA will include analytical discussions of the conclusions reached. Portions of the PEIR relied on for conclusions should be identified by section number and page number. Ancillary information (e.g., site -specific surveys) not included in the PEIR but relied on for conclusions or required by December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 1 4 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental PEIR measures will be attached to the PSA. A list of references cited in the PSA will be included with the PSA and copies of such references made available to the public by the proponent agency upon request. PD-3.2.4: Project -Specific Analysis STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND MONITORING AND REPORTING The analysis must consider the measures identified in the PEIR that will avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate potential impacts of the project. These measures take the form of SPRs and mitigation measures. Some SPRs and mitigation measures apply to all projects, while others only apply to projects that include specific treatment types, treatment activities, or locations. Attachment A to this checklist provides a comprehensive list of SPRs and mitigation measures applicable to each project type. The project proponent should complete Attachment A and verify that all applicable SPRs and mitigation measures will be implemented, the timing of implementation, and identify the entity responsible for implementing and verifying or enforcing each measure. In effect, a completed Attachment A to the PSA will function as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the vegetation treatment project. RESOURCE AREAS The environmental resource areas in the PSA checklist are the same as those analyzed in Chapter 3, "Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures", of the PEIR. The project proponent will review the environmental analysis in the PEIR for each corresponding resource area in the PSA checklist. The project proponent will consider whether required SPRs and mitigation measures would be effective in avoiding, reducing, or mitigating environmental impacts of the project considering the proposed activities and site -specific characteristics. SPRs are intended to be integrated into treatment design and implementation; therefore, project proponents should determine if it is necessary to implement the SPR during preparation of the PSA, prior to treatment, or during treatment implementation. For example, implementation of SPR 1310-1 is intended to be carried out during PSA preparation; it will identify potentially affected biological resources and assess whether they can be avoided, which will determine whether other SPRs and mitigation measures must be implemented prior to or during treatments. Written explanations supporting all conclusions should be provided in the discussion following the checklist questions for each resource area. CHECKLIST ANSWERS After verifying that the proposed treatment activities, treatment types, and geographic location of the treatment project are consistent with the PEIR, the primary functions of the checklist are to determine: P. whether any of the significant impacts of the later treatment project would be substantially more severe than those covered in the PEIR; ► whether the later treatment project would result in any new impacts that were not covered in the PEIR; and ► the type of CEQA document, if any, that is appropriate to examine impacts that are not within the scope of the PEIR. Accordingly, the checklist questions presented for each resource area identify, for each impact addressed in the PEIR, whether the impact applies to the treatment project and if so, identify the SPRs and mitigation measures that are applicable to the treatment project. The checklist is also intended to identify whether the impact significance determination for the treatment project is different than the impact significance determination in the PEIR; if it is different, the checklist will identify whether the difference constitutes a substantially more severe significant impact and is therefore not within the scope of the PEIR. If it is determined that a substantially more severe significant impact Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 15 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis that cannot be mitigated down to the same level as, or lower level than, identified in the PEIR would result from a later treatment project, an EIR must be prepared, unless one or more mitigation measures incorporated into the project would mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, in which case an MND would be appropriate The MND or EIR may be limited to examining the impacts that are not within the scope of the PEIR. "New" impacts are effects on the environment that were not addressed in the CaIVTP PEIR. For each new impact listed in the checklist, the project proponent should indicate whether the impact would be one of the following: ► New Impact that is Less Than Significant: The project would result in a new adverse impact that is not analyzed in the CaIVTP PEIR; however, the impact would not be significant. In this case, the impact is not "within the scope" of the CaIVTP PEIR and preparation of a Negative Declaration could be prepared. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(d), a subsequent negative declaration could be prepared to document the new impact and substantial evidence supporting the less -than -significant conclusion, along with the PSA checklist documenting the rest of the "within -the -scope" impacts. ► New Impact that is Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The project would result in a new significant impact that is not analyzed in the CaIVTP PEIR, but due to the project proponent's willingness to incorporate new mitigation into the proposed project, the impact is clearly less than significant with feasible mitigation. In this case, the impact is not "within the scope" of the CaIVTP PEIR and a Mitigated Negative Declaration could be prepared, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(d), which allows for use of a subsequent negative declaration to document the new impact and substantial evidence supporting the less -than -significant conclusion, along with the PSA checklist documenting the rest of the "within -the -scope" impacts. New Impact that is Potentially Significant: The project would result in a new significant impact that is not analyzed in the CaIVTP PEIR (which would be subject to the "fair argument" standard as a new impact), the impact cannot be clearly mitigated to less than significant. In this circumstance, the impact is not "within the scope" of the CaIVTP PEIR and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. The EIR will cover the new potentially significant or significant impact(s) and need not further evaluate significant impacts already covered in the PEIR, which are documented in the PSA. In summary, when additional environmental documentation is needed to augment the PEIR for CEQA compliance, the PSA checklist and accompanying analysis would serve the same function as an initial study that defines the topics to be addressed in the EIR, MND, or ND to cover the impacts that are not within the scope of the PEIR, as directed by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(d)(1). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(d), a later ND could be prepared, if the new impact would be less than significant, or MND, if the new impact or substantially more severe significant impact could be clearly mitigated to less than significant. The analysis of any new impact to support adoption of an ND or MND, along with the analysis of impacts that are within the scope, would be documented in the PSA checklist. If a later EIR is prepared, it could be limited in its scope to the new significant impact(s) or substantially more severe significant impact(s), with the remainder of the impacts that are within the scope of the PEIR being documented in the PSA checklist. Refer to the CaIVTP PSA Process flowchart presented in Figure 1. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 1 6 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Submit information on planned project per SPR AD-7 Design Implement SPRs to identify Prepare project sensitive resources RSA Complete PSA At least 1 new impact is All impacts within At least 1 new At least 1 new PS and/or at least 1 the scope of PER impact is LTS impact is LTSM substantially more severe significant impact identified NDt MND t Adopt ND/MND or certify EIR Adopt MMRP, findings, SOC as applicable 2 EIR t Submit information on approved project per SPR AD-7 Implement Implement treatment SPRs and MMs Ct Completed _ Submit information on completed project per SPR AD-7 1 The CEQA document will be limited to impact(s) not within the scope of PEIR. Impacts within the scope of PEIR will be documented in PSA. PSA will function as an Initial Study for new impacts. 2 Findings are required for any LTSM or SU impacts identified in an EIR, including impacts within the scope of PEIR. SOC is required for any SU impact identified, including impacts within the scope of PEIR. MMRP is required if any SPRs or MMs are identified as applicable in the PSA or CEQA document. Note: This figure illustrates the process to implement later vegetation treatment projects under the CaIVTP. It may not identify every detail of the steps required for CEQA compliance. Please refer to the relevant sections of the PSA and PEIR for additional information. EIR: environmental impact report MM: mitigation measure ND: negative declaration SOC: statement of overriding LTS: less than significant MMRP: mitigation monitoring PEIR: Program FIR considerations LTSM: less than significant with and reporting program PS: potentially significant SPR: Standard Project mitigation incorporated MND: mitigated negative PSA: Project -specific Analysis Requirement declaration 18010126.01 GRX 005 Source: Ascent Environmental Inc. 2019 Figure 1 CaIVTP PSA Process Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 17 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis AGENCY -SPECIFIC CEQA IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES This PSA may be used by CAL FIRE, another public agency funded by grants from CAL FIRE or other state agencies, or a public agency with land ownership, land management, or other regulatory responsibilities in the treatable landscape that is proposing to implement, fund, or issue any approval for vegetation treatments consistent with the CaIVTP PEIR. Each project proponent should follow their agency's CEQA implementation procedures, including filing of a Notice of Determination through the State Clearinghouse and/or applicable County Clerk's office. PROJECT -SPECIFIC CEQA FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS When a responsible agency approves a vegetation treatment project using a within the scope finding for all environmental impacts, it must still adopt CEQA findings pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and if needed, a statement of overriding considerations, pursuant to Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Although each responsible agency must adopt its own findings (see CEQA Guidelines section 15096(h)), such agencies have the option of reusing, incorporating, or adapting all or part of the findings adopted by the Board for the CaIVTP PEIR to meet the agency's own requirements to the extent the findings are applicable to the proposed vegetation treatment project. A findings template intended to assist responsible agencies to formulate their own findings is attached to this PSA as Attachment B. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Planned Projects To assist with tracking actions under the CaIVTP, project proponents will submit information to CAL FIRE on planned projects when beginning preparation of this PSA. The submittal will include the following: P. GIS data that include project location (as a point); ► project size (typically acres); ► treatment types and activities; and ► contact information for a representative of the project proponent. Approved Projects To assist with tracking, reporting, and adaptively managing actions under the CaIVTP, project proponents will submit this completed PSA and associated geospatial data to CAL FIRE at the time a Notice of Determination is filed. The submittal will include the following: ► A completed PSA Environmental Checklist; ► A completed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (using Attachment A to the Environmental Checklist); ► GIS data that include: ■ a polygon(s) of the project area, showing the extent of each treatment type included in the project (ecological restoration, fuel break, WUI fuel reduction) Completed Projects To assist with tracking, reporting, and adaptively managing actions under the CaIVTP, project proponents will submit the following information to CAL FIRE after implementation of the treatment: ► GIS data that include a polygon(s) of the treated area, showing the extent of each treatment type implemented (ecological restoration, fuel break, WUI fuel reduction) ► A post -project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report) that includes December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 18 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental ■ Size of treated area (typically acres); ■ Treatment types and activities; ■ Dates of work; ■ A list of the SPRs and mitigation measures that were implemented ■ Any explanations regarding implementation if required by SPRs and mitigation measures (e.g., explanation for feasibility determination required by SPR 31O-12; explanation for reduction of a no - disturbance buffer below the general minimum size described in Mitigation Measures 131O-1a and 131O-2b). Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 19 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST VEGETATION TREATMENT PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title: 2. Project Proponent Name and Address: 3. Contact Person Information and Phone Number: [provide phone number and email] 4. Project Location: [include county and coordinates; also include cross streets or other major landmark as useful to identify treatment location] 5. Total Area to be Treated (acres) 6. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including any phasing of initial treatments as well as planned treatment maintenance, including equipment to be used and planned duration of treatments. Provide cross reference to specific subsections and page numbers from Chapter 2 of the PEIR to demonstrate that treatments are consistent with those analyzed in the PEIR. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) a. Initial Treatment [insert description here] Treatment Types [see description in CQIVTP PEIR Section 2.5.7, check every applicable category, provide detail in description of Initial Treatment] ❑ Wildland-Urban Interface Fuel Reduction ❑ Fuel Break ❑ Ecological Restoration Treatment Activities [see description in CQIVTP PEIR Section 2.5.2, check every applicable category,- include number of acres subject to each treatment activity, provide detail in description of Initial Treatment] ❑ Prescribed Burning (Broadcast), acres ❑ Prescribed Burning (Pile Burning) ❑ Mechanical Treatment, acres ❑ Manual Treatment, acres ❑ Prescribed Herbivory, acres ❑ Herbicide Application, acres December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 110 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Fuel Type [see description in ColVTP PEIR Section 2.4.7, check every applicable category,- provide detail in description of Initial Treatment] ❑ Grass Fuel Type ❑ Shrub Fuel Type ❑ Tree Fuel Type b. Treatment Maintenance [Insert description here; identify planned maintenance intervals, including the site conditions that are reasonably expected to be present in the future in response to the initial treatment, and vegetation conditions that would trigger the need for maintenance] Treatment Types [see description in CalVTP PEIR Section 2.5.7, check every applicable category, provide detail in description of Treatment Maintenance] ❑ Wildland-Urban Interface Fuel Reduction ❑ Fuel Break ❑ Ecological Restoration Treatment Activities [see description in CalVTP PEIR Section 2.5.2, check every applicable category, include number of acres subject to each treatment activity, provide detail in description of Treatment Maintenance] ❑ Prescribed Burning (Broadcast), acres ❑ Prescribed Burning (Pile Burning) ❑ Mechanical Treatment, acres ❑ Manual Treatment, acres ❑ Prescribed Herbivory, acres ❑ Herbicide Application, acres Fuel Type [see description in ColVTP PEIR Section 2.4.7, check every applicable category, provide detail in description of Treatment Maintenance] ❑ Grass Fuel Type ❑ Shrub Fuel Type ❑ Tree Fuel Type Use of the PSA for Treatment Maintenance Prior to implementing a maintenance treatment, the project proponent will verify that the expected site conditions as described in the PSA are present in the treatment area. As time passes, the continued relevance of the PSA will be considered by the project proponent in light of potentially changed conditions or circumstances. Where the project proponent determines the PSA is no longer sufficiently relevant, the project proponent will determine whether a new PSA or other environmental analysis is warranted. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 111 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis In addition to verifying that the PSA continues to provide relevant CEQA coverage for treatment maintenance, the project proponent will update the PSA at the time a maintenance treatment is needed when more than 10 years have passed since the approval of the PSA or the latest PSA update. For example, the project proponent may conduct a reconnaissance survey to verify conditions are substantially similar to those anticipated in the PSA. Updated information should be documented. 7. Regional Setting and Surrounding Land Uses: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings) [insert text here] 8. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: (e.g., permits) [insert text here; note status of any required approvals (permits)] Coastal Act Compliance ❑ The proposed project is NOT within the Coastal Zone ❑ The proposed project is within the Coastal Zone (check one of the following boxes) ❑ A coastal development permit been applied for or obtained from the local Coastal Commission district office or local government with a certified Local Coastal Plan, as applicable ❑ The local Coastal Commission district office or local government with a certified Local Coastal Plan (in consultation with the local Coastal Commission district office) has determined that a coastal development permit is not required 9. Native American Consultation. For treatment projects that are within the scope of the CalVTP PEIR, AB 52 consultation for AB 52 compliance has been completed. The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection conducted consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 27080.3.7 during preparation of the PEIR. For treatment projects with impacts not within the scope of the PEIR, pursuant to PRC Sections 27080.3.7, 27080.3.2, and 27082.3, project proponents preparing a new negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR must notify any California Native American tribe who has submitted written request for notification of a project in the area of the treatment site. Upon written request for consultation by a tribe, the project proponent must begin consultation before the release of the environmental document and must follow the requirements of the cited PRC sections. [insert text here] December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 112 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental DETERMINATION (To be completed by the project proponent) On the basis of this PSA and the substantial evidence supporting it: ❑ I find that all of the effects of the proposed project (a) have been covered in the CaIVTP PEIR, and (b) all applicable Standard Project Requirements and mitigation measures identified in the CaIVTP PEIR will be implemented. The proposed project is, therefore, WITHIN THE SCOPE of the CaIVTP PEIR. NO ADDITIONAL CEQA DOCUMENTATION is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project will have effects that were not covered in the CaIVTP PEIR. These effects are less than significant without any mitigation beyond what is already required pursuant to the CaIVTP PEIR. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project will have effects that were not covered in the CaIVTP PEIR or will have effects that are substantially more severe than those covered in the CaIVTP PEIR. Although these effects may be significant in the absence of additional mitigation beyond the CaIVTP PEIR's measures, revisions to the proposed project or additional mitigation measures have been agreed to by the project proponent that would avoid or reduce the effects so that clearly no significant effects would occur. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project will have significant environmental effects that are (a) new and were not covered in the CaIVTP PEIR and/or (b) substantially more severe than those covered in the CaIVTP PEIR. Because one or more effects may be significant and cannot be clearly mitigated to less than significant, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT will be prepared. Signature Date Printed Name Title Agency Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 113 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. Refer to the applicable resource analysis section in the CaIVTP PEIR for relevant information on each environmental topic. 2. A brief explanation is required for each impact, including impacts that have been identified in the PEIR as well as any "new impacts". 3. The discussion of each impact identified in the PEIR that is also applicable to the proposed treatment project should generally include the following information: ► Briefly describe the impact of the proposed vegetation treatment project. ► Summarize the impact as it was presented in the PEIR, including a statement that the impact is covered in PEIR. ► Provide evidence that (explain why) the project impact is covered in PEIR, considering whether the proposed treatment is consistent with the treatment types and activities addressed in the PEIR as well as the associated intensity (i.e., duration). ► Identify SPRs and MMs applicable to the treatment project. ► (If applicable) Explain which components of the MM or SPR would be applied. This circumstance exists if the MM or SPR allows for deviation from requirements (e.g., minimum buffer distances), identification of parameters (e.g., tree size for retention), and determinations of feasibility. A site- and/or treatment activity - specific explanation for the planned deviation, identified parameter, or feasibility determination must be provided in the PSA. ► (If applicable) Explain why the impact significance in the PSA is different than that found in the PEIR; substantiate the different (new) significance conclusion. ► (If applicable) Explain why MM or SPRs identified for this impact in PEIR do not apply to this project. This circumstance may exist where a PS impact was identified in the PEIR, but the impact severity would be less for the treatment project or the MM does not otherwise apply. 4. If the project proponent has determined that a new impact would occur, then the checklist answers for the new impact must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant without the need for mitigation. 5. "Potentially Significant" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a new impact may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant" new impacts identified, or if any impact would constitute a substantially more severe significant impact than was covered in the PEIR, an EIR is required unless one or more mitigation measures incorporated into the project would mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, in which case an MND would be appropriate. AND could be prepared, if the new impact would be less than significant, or MND, if the new impact could be clearly mitigated to less than significant. The analysis of any new impact to support adoption of an ND or MND, along with the analysis of impacts that are within the scope, would be documented in the PSA checklist. If a later EIR is prepared, it could be limited in its scope to the new significant impact(s) or substantially more severe significant impact(s), with the remainder of the impacts that are within the scope of the PEIR being documented in the PSA checklist and attached to the EIR as an appendix. When preparing any environmental document, the environmental analysis should incorporate by reference pertinent portions of the analysis from the CaIVTP PEIR and focus the environmental analysis solely on issues that were not addressed in the CaIVTP PEIR. 6. Project proponents should incorporate into the PSA checklist references to information sources for potential impacts. Include a list of references cited in the PSA and make copies of such references available to the public upon request. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 114 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental PD-3.3: AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Impact in the PEIR Project -Specific Checklist Does the Identify Would this be a Identify Identify Impact List SPRs List MMs Impact Substantially Is this Environmental Impact Covered Impact Location of Apply to Applicable to Applicable Significance More Severe Impact In the PEIR Significance Impact the the to the for Significant Within the in the PEIR Analysis in the Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Impact than Scope of PEIR Project? Projects Project' Project Identified in the the PEIR? PEIR? Would the project: Impact AES-1: Result in Short- LTS Impact AES-1, Term, Substantial Degradation pp. 3.2-16— of a Scenic Vista or Visual 3.2-19 Character or Quality of Public Views, or Damage to Scenic Resources in a State Scenic Highway from Treatment Activities Impact AES-2: Result in Long- LTS Impact AES-2, Term, Substantial Degradation pp. 3.2-20 — of a Scenic Vista or Visual 3.2-25 Character or Quality of Public Views, or Damage to Scenic Resources in a State Scenic Highway from WUI Fuel Reduction, Ecological Restoration, or Shaded Fuel Break Treatment Types Impact AES-3: Result in Long- SU Impact AES-3, Term Substantial Degradation pp. 3.2-25 — of a Scenic Vista or Visual 3.2-27 Character or Quality of Public Views, or Damage to Scenic Resources in a State Scenic Highway from the Non - Shaded Fuel Break Treatment Type 'NA: not applicable; there are no SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PEIR for this impact. None: there are SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PEIR for this impact, but none are applicable to the treatment project. New Aesthetic and Visual Resource Impacts: Would the treatment result in If yes, complete row(s) below other impacts to aesthetics and visual resources that are not evaluated in ❑ Yes ❑ No and discussion the CaIVTP PEIR? Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant with Significant Mitigation Incorporated [identify new impact here, if applicable; add rows as needed] ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 115 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Impact AES-1 Impact AES-2 Impact AES-3 New Aesthetic and Visual Resource Impacts December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 116 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental PD-3.4: AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Impact in the PEIR Project -Specific Checklist Does the Identify Would this be a Identify Identify Impact List SPRs List MMs Impact Substantially Is this Environmental Impact Covered Impact Location of Apply to Applicable to Applicable Significance More Severe Impact In the PEIR Significance Impact the the to the for Significant Within the in the PEIR Analysis in the Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Impact than Scope of PEIR Projects Project' Identified in the the PEIR? Project? Project PEIR? Would the project: Impact AG-1: Directly Result in LTS Impact AG-1, the Loss of Forest Land or pp. 3.3-7 — Conversion of Forest Land to a 3.3-8 Non -Forest Use or Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment Which, Due to Their Location or Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Forest Land to Non -Forest Use 'NA: not applicable; there are no SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PEIR for this impact. None: there are SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PEIR for this impact, but none are applicable to the treatment project. New Agriculture and Forestry Resource Impacts: Would the treatment result If yes, complete row(s) below in other impacts to agriculture and forestry resources that are not evaluated ❑ Yes ❑ No and discussion in the CalVTP PEIR? Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant with Significant Mitigation Incorporated [identify new impact here, if applicable; add rows as needed] ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion Impact AG-1 New Agriculture and Forestry Resource Impacts Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 117 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis PD-3.5: AIR QUALITY Impact in the PEIR Project -Specific Checklist Does the Identify Would this be a Identify Identify Impact List SPRs List MMs Impact Substantially Is this Environmental Impact Impact Location of Apply to Applicable to Applicable Significance More Severe Impact Covered In the PEIR Significance Impact Analysis the the to the for Significant Within the in the PEIR in the PEIR Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Impact than Scope of projects ProjecP Identified in the the PEIR? Project? Project PEIR? Would the project: Impact AQ-1: Generate SU Table 3.4-1; Emissions of Criteria Air Impact AQ-1, Pollutants and Precursors pp. 3.4-26 — 3.4- During Treatment Activities 32; Appendix that would exceed CAAQS AQ-1 or NAAQS Impact AQ-2: Expose LTS Table 3.4-6; People to Diesel Particulate Impact AQ-2 Matter Emissions and pp. 3.4-33 — Related Health Risk 3.4-34; Appendix AQ-1 Impact AQ-3: Expose LTS Section 3.4.2; People to Fugitive Dust Impact AQ-3, Emissions Containing pp. 3.4-34 — Naturally Occurring 3.4-35 Asbestos and Related Health Risk Impact AQ-4: Expose SU Section 3.4.2; People to Toxic Air Impact AQ-4, Contaminants Emitted by pp. 3.4-35 — Prescribed Burns and 3.4-37 Related Health Risk Impact AQ-5: Expose LTS Impact AQ-5, People to Objectionable pp. 3.4-37 — Odors from Diesel Exhaust 3.4-38 Impact AQ-6: Expose SU Section 2.5.2; People to Objectionable Impact AQ-6; Odors from Smoke During pp. 3.4-38 Prescribed Burning 'NA: not applicable; there are no SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact. None: there are SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact, but none are applicable to the treatment project. New Air Quality Impacts: Would the treatment result in other impacts to air quality that are not evaluated in the CaIVTP PEIR? ❑ Yes ❑ N0 If yes, complete row(s) below and discussion Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant with Significant Mitigation Incorporated [identify new impact here, if applicable; add rows as needed] ❑ ❑ ❑ December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 118 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Discussion Impact AQ-1 Impact AQ-2 Impact AQ-3 Impact AQ-4 Impact AQ-5 Impact AQ-6 New Air Quality Impacts Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 119 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis PD-3.6: ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact in the PEIR Project -Specific Checklist Does the Identify Would this be a Identify Identify Impact List SPRs List MMs Impact Substantially Is this Environmental Impact Covered Impact Location of Apply to Applicable to Applicable Significance More Severe Impact In the PEIR Significance Impact the the to the for Significant Within the in the PEIR Analysis in the Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Impact than Scope of PEIR Project? Project' Project' Project Identified in the the PEIR? PEIR? Would the project: Impact CUL-1: Cause a LTS Impact CUL-1, Substantial Adverse Change in pp. 3.5-14— the Significance of Built 3.5-15 Historical Resources Impact CUL-2: Cause a SU Impact CUL-2, Substantial Adverse Change in pp. 3.5-15 — the Significance of Unique 3.5-16 Archaeological Resources or Subsurface Historical Resources Impact CUL-3: Cause a LTS Impact CUL-3, Substantial Adverse Change in p. 3.5-17 the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource Impact CUL-4: Disturb Human LTS Impact CUL-4, Remains p. 3.5-18 'NA: not applicable; there are no SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact. None: there are SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact, but none are applicable to the treatment project. New Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resource Impacts: Would If yes, complete row(s) below the treatment result in other impacts to archaeological, historical, and tribal ❑ Yes ❑ No and discussion cultural resources that are not evaluated in the CaIVTP PEIR? Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant with Significant Mitigation Incorporated [identify new impact here, if applicable; add rows as needed] ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion Impact CUL-1 Impact CUL-2 Impact CUL-3 December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 120 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Impact CUL-4 New Archaeological. Historical. and Tribal Cultural Resource Im Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 121 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis PD-3.7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact in the PEIR Project -Specific Checklist Does the Identify Would this be a Identify Identify Impact List SPRs List MMs Impact Substantially Is this Environmental Impact Covered Impact Location of Apply to Applicable to Applicable Significance More Severe Impact In the PEIR Significance Impact the the to the for Significant Within the in the PEIR Analysis in Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Impact than Scope of the PEIR Project? Projects Project' Project Identified in the the PEIR? PEIR? Would the project: Impact BIO-1: Substantially LTS Impact 310- Affect Special -Status Plant 1, pp 3.6- Species Either Directly or 131-3.6.138 Through Habitat Modifications LTS (all Impact 310- wildlife 2, pp 3.6- Impact BIO-2: Substantially species 138-3.6-184 Affect Special -Status Wildlife except Species Either Directly or bumble Through Habitat Modifications bees) S&U (bumble bees) Impact BIO-3: Substantially LTS Impact 310- Affect Riparian Habitat or 3, pp 3.6- Other Sensitive Natural 186-3.6-191 Community Through Direct Loss or Degradation that Leads to Loss of Habitat Function Impact BIO-4: Substantially LTS Impact 310- Affect State or Federally 4, pp 3.6- Protected Wetlands 191-3.6-192 Impact BIO-5: Interfere LTS Impact 310- Substantially with Wildlife 5, pp 3.6- Movement Corridors or 192-3.6-196 Impede Use of Nurseries Impact BIO-6: Substantially LTS Impact 310- Reduce Habitat or Abundance 6, pp 3.6- of Common Wildlife 197-3.6-198 Impact BIO-7: Conflict with No Impact Impact 310- Local Policies or Ordinances 7, pp 3.6- Protecting Biological 198-3.6-199 Resources Impact BIO-8: Conflict with the No Impact Impact 310- Provisions of an Adopted 8, pp 3.6- Natural Community 199-3.6-200 Conservation Plan, Habitat Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Habitat Plan 'NA: not applicable; there are no SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact. None: there are SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact, but none are applicable to the treatment project. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 122 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental New Biological Resources Impacts: Would the treatment result in other impacts to biological resources that are not evaluated in the CaIVTP PEIR? ❑Yes ❑ No If yes, complete row(s) below and discussion Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant with Significant Mitigation Incorporated [identify new impact here, if applicable; add rows as needed] ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion Impact BIO-1 Impact 131O-2 Impact 131O-3 Impact BIO-4 Impact 131O-5 Impact BIO-6 Impact 131O-7 Impact 131O-8 New Biological Resource Impacts Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 123 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis PD-3.8: GEOLOGY, SOILS, PALEONTOLOGY, AND MINERAL RESOURCES Impact in the PEIR Project -Specific Checklist Does the Identify Would this be a Identify Identify Impact List SPRs List MMs Impact Substantially Is this Environmental Impact Covered Impact Location of Apply to Applicable to Applicable Significance More Severe Impact In the PEIR Significance Impact the the to the for Significant Within the in the PEIR Analysis in the Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Impact than Scope of PEIR Projects Project' Identified in the the PEIR? Project? Project PEIR? Would the project: Impact GEO-1: Result in LTS Impact GEO-1, Substantial Erosion or Loss of pp. 3.7-26 — Topsoil 3.7-29 Impact GEO-2: Increase Risk of LTS Impact GEO- Landslide 2, pp. 3.7 29 3.7-30 'NA: not applicable; there are no SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PEIR for this impact. None: there are SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PEIR for this impact, but none are applicable to the treatment project. New Geology, Soils, Paleontology, and Mineral Resource Impacts: Would the If yes, complete row(s) treatment result in other impacts to geology, soils, paleontology, and mineral ❑ Yes ❑ No below and discussion resources that are not evaluated in the CaIVTP PEIR? Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant with Significant Mitigation Incorporated [identify new impact here, if applicable; add rows as needed] ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion Impact GEO-1 Impact GEO-2 New Geology, Soils, Paleontology, and Mineral Resource Impacts December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 1 24 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental PD-3.9: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Impact in the PER Project -Specific Checklist Does the Identify Would this be a Identify Identify Impact List SPRs List MMs Impact Substantially Is this Environmental Impact Covered Impact Location of Apply to Applicable to Applicable Significance More Severe Impact In the PEIR Significance Impact the the to the for Significant Within the in the PEIR Analysis in the Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Impact than Scope of PEIR Project? Projects Project' Project Identified in the the PEIR? PEIR? Would the project: Impact GHG-1: Conflict with LTS Impact GHG- Applicable Plan, Policy, or 1, pp. 3.8-10 — Regulation of an Agency 3.8-11 Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of GHGs Impact GHG-2: Generate GHG PSU Impact GHG- Emissions through 2, pp. 3.8-11 — Treatment Activities 3.8-17 'NA: not applicable; there are no SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact. None: there are SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact, but none are applicable to the treatment project. New GHG Emissions Impacts: Would the treatment result in other impacts to GHG emissions that are not evaluated in the CaIVTP PEIR? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, complete row(s) below and discussion Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant with Significant Mitigation Incorporated [identify new impact here, if applicable; add rows as needed] ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion Impact GHG-1 Impact GHG-2 New Impacts Related to GHG Emissions Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 125 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis PD-3.10: ENERGY RESOURCES Impact in the PEIR Project -Specific Checklist Does the Identify Would this be a Identify Identify Impact List SPRs List MMs Impact Substantially Is this Environmental Impact Covered Impact Location of Apply to Applicable to Applicable Significance More Severe Impact In the PEIR Significance Impact the the to the for Significant Within the in the PEIR Analysis in the Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Impact than Scope of PEIR Project? Projects Project' Project Identified in the the PEIR? PEIR? Would the project: Impact ENG-1: Result in LTS Impact ENG-1, Wasteful, Inefficient, or pp. 3.9-7 — Unnecessary Consumption of 3.9-8 Energy 'NA: not applicable; there are no SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PEIR for this impact. None: there are SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PEIR for this impact, but none are applicable to the treatment project. New Energy Resource Impacts: Would the treatment result in other impacts to energy resources that are not evaluated in the CaIVTP PEIR? ❑ Yes ❑ N0 If yes, complete row(s) below and discussion Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant with Significant Mitigation Incorporated [identify new impact here, if applicable; add rows as needed] ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion Impact ENG-1 New Energy Resource Impacts December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 126 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental PD-3.11: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Impact in the PER Project -Specific Checklist Does the Identify Would this be a Identify Identify Impact List SPRs List MMs Impact Substantially Is this Environmental Impact Covered Impact Location of Apply to Applicable to Applicable Significance More Severe Impact In the PER Significance Impact the the to the for Significant Within the in the PER Analysis in the Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Impact than Scope of PER Projects Project' Identified in the the PEIR? Project? Project PEIR? Would the project: Impact HAZ-1: Create a LTS Impact HAZ-1, Significant Health Hazard from pp. 3.10-14— the Use of Hazardous 3.10-15 Materials Impact HAZ-2: Create a LTS Impact HAZ- Significant Health Hazard from 2, pp. 3.10-15 the Use of Herbicides — 3.10-18 Impact HAZ-3: Expose the PS Impact HAZ- Public or Environment to 3, pp. 3.10-18 Significant Hazards from — 3.10-19 Disturbance to Known Hazardous Material Sites 'NA: not applicable; there are no SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact. None: there are SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact, but none are applicable to the treatment project. New Hazardous Materials, Public Health and Safety Impacts: Would the If yes, complete row(s) treatment result in other impacts related to hazardous materials, public health ❑ Yes ❑ No below and discussion and safety that are not evaluated in the CaIVTP PEIR? Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant with Significant Mitigation Incorporated [identify new impact here, if applicable; add rows as needed] ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion Impact HAZ-1 Impact HAZ-2 Impact HAZ-3 New Hazardous Materials, Public Health and Safety Impacts Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 1 27 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis PD-3.12: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact in the PEIR Project -Specific Checklist Does the Identify Would this be a Identify Identify Impact List SPRs List MMs Impact Substantially Is this Environmental Impact Covered Impact Location of Apply to Applicable to Applicable Significance More Severe Impact In the PEIR Significance Impact the the to the for Significant Within the in the PEIR Analysis in the Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Impact than Scope of PEIR Project? Projects Project' Project Identified in the the PEIR? PEIR? Would the project: Impact HYD-1: Violate Water LTS Impact HYD-1, Quality Standards or Waste pp. 3.11-25 — Discharge Requirements, 3.11-27 Substantially Degrade Surface or Ground Water Quality, or Conflict with or Obstruct the Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan Through the Implementation of Prescribed Burning Impact HYD-2: Violate Water LTS Impact HYD- Quality Standards or Waste 2, pp. 3.11-27 Discharge Requirements, — 3.11-29 Substantially Degrade Surface or Ground Water Quality, or Conflict with or Obstruct the Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan Through the Implementation of Manual or Mechanical Treatment Activities Impact HYD-3: Violate Water LTS Impact HYD- Quality Standards or Waste 3, p. 3.11-29 Discharge Requirements, Substantially Degrade Surface or Ground Water Quality, or Conflict with or Obstruct the Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan Through Prescribed Herbivory Impact HYD-4: Violate Water LTS Impact HYD- Quality Standards or Waste 4, pp. 3.11-30 Discharge Requirements, — 3.11-31 Substantially Degrade Surface or Ground Water Quality, or Conflict with or Obstruct the Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan Through the Ground Application of Herbicides Impact HYD-5: Substantially LTS Impact HYD- Alter the Existing Drainage 5, p. 3.11-31 December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 128 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Does the Identify Would this be a Identify Identify Impact List SPRs List MMs Impact Substantially Is this Environmental Impact Covered Impact Location of Apply to Applicable to Applicable Significance More Severe Impact In the PER Significance Impact the the to the for Significant Within the in the PEIR Analysis in the Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Impact than Scope of PER Project' Project' Identified in the the PEIR? Project? Project PEIR? Would the project: Pattern of a Treatment Site or Area 'NA: not applicable; there are no SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact. None: there are SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact, but none are applicable to the treatment project. New Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts: Would the treatment result in If yes, complete row(s) below other impacts to hydrology and water quality that are not evaluated in the ❑ Yes ❑ No and discussion CaIVTP PEIR? Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant with Significant Mitigation Incorporated [identify new impact here, if applicable; add rows as needed] ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion Impact HYD-1 Impact HYD-2 Impact HYD-3 Impact HYD-4 Impact HYD-5 New Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 129 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis PD-3.13: LAND USE AND PLANNING, POPULATION AND HOUSING Impact in the PER Project -Specific Checklist Does the Identify Would this be a Identify Identify Impact List SPRs List MMs Impact Substantially Is this Environmental Impact Covered Impact Location of Apply to Applicable to Applicable Significance More Severe Impact In the PER Significance Impact the the to the for Significant Within the in the PER Analysis in the Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Impact than Scope of PER Project? Projects Project' Project Identified in the the PEIR? PEIR? Would the project: Impact LU-1: Cause a LTS Impact LU-1, Significant Environmental pp. 3.12-13 — Impact Due to a Conflict with a 3.12-14 Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation Impact LU-2: Induce LTS Impact LU-2, Substantial Unplanned pp. 3.12-14— Population Growth 3.12-15 'NA: not applicable; there are no SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact. None: there are SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact, but none are applicable to the treatment project. New Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing Impacts: Would the If yes, complete row(s) treatment result in other impacts to land use and planning, population and ❑ Yes ❑ No below and discussion housing that are not evaluated in the CaIVTP PEIR? Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant with Significant Mitigation Incorporated [identify new impact here, if applicable; add rows as needed] ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion Impact LU-1 Impact LU-2 New Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing Impacts December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 130 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental PD-3.14: NOISE Impact in the PER Project -Specific Checklist Does the Identify Would this be a Identify Identify Impact List SPRs List MMs Impact Substantially Is this Environmental Impact Covered Impact Location of Apply to Applicable to Applicable Significance More Severe Impact In the PEIR Significance Impact the the to the for Significant Within the in the PEIR Analysis in the Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Impact than Scope of PEIR Projects Project' Identified in the the PEIR? Project? Project PEIR? Would the project: Impact N01-1: Result in a LTS Impact N01-1, Substantial Short -Term pp. 3.13-9 — Increase in Exterior Ambient 3.13-12; Noise Levels During Treatment Appendix Implementation N01-1 Impact N01-2: Result in a LTS Impact N01-2, Substantial Short -Term p. 3.13-12 Increase in Truck -Generated SENL's During Treatment Activities 'NA: not applicable; there are no SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PEIR for this impact. None: there are SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact, but none are applicable to the treatment project. New Noise Impacts: Would the treatment result in other noise -related impacts that are not evaluated in the CaIVTP PEIR? ❑ Yes ❑ N0 If yes, complete row(s) below and discussion Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant with Significant Mitigation Incorporated [identify new impact here, if applicable; add rows as needed] ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion Impact N01-1 Impact N01-2 New Noise Impacts Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 131 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis PD-3.15: RECREATION Impact in the PEIR Project -Specific Checklist Would this be a Identify Does the List SPRs List MMs Identify Substantially Is this Identify Location of Impact Applicable to Applicable Impact More Severe Impact Environmental Impact Covered Impact Impact Apply to the to the Significance Significant Within the In the PEIR Significance Analysis in the the Treatment Treatment for Impact than Scope of in the PEIR PEIR Treatment Projects Projects Treatment Identified in the the PEIR? Project? Project PEIR? Would the project: Impact REC-1: Directly or LTS Impact REC-1 Indirectly Disrupt Recreational pp. 3.14-6 — Activities within Designated 3.14-7 Recreation Areas 'NA: not applicable; there are no SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact. None: there are SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact, but none are applicable to the treatment project. New Recreation Impacts: Would the treatment result in other impacts to recreation that are not evaluated in the CaIVTP PEIR? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, complete row(s) below and discussion Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant with Significant Mitigation Incorporated [identify new impact here, if applicable; add rows as needed] ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion Impact REC-1 New Recreation Impacts December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 132 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental PD-3.16: TRANSPORTATION Impact in the PEIR Project -Specific Checklist Does the Identify Would this be a Identify Identify Impact List SPRs List MMs Impact Substantially Is this Environmental Impact Covered Impact Location of Apply to Applicable to Applicable Significance More Severe Impact In the PEIR Significance Impact the the to the for Significant Within the in the PEIR Analysis in the Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Impact than Scope of PEIR Project? Projects Project' Project Identified in the the PEIR? PEIR? Would the project: Impact TRAN-1: Result in LTS Section 3.15.2; Temporary Traffic Operations Impact TRAN- Impacts by Conflicting with a 1 pp. 3.15-9 — Program, Plan, Ordinance, or 3.15-10 Policy Addressing Roadway Facilities or Prolonged Road Closures Impact TRAN-2: Substantially LTS Impact TRAN- Increase Hazards due to a 2 pp. 3.15-10 — Design Feature or 3.15-11 Incompatible Uses Impact TRAN-3: Result in a Net PSU Impact TRAN- Increase in VMT for the 3 pp. 3.15-11— Proposed CaIVTP 3.15-13 'NA: not applicable; there are no SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PEIR for this impact. None: there are SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PEIR for this impact, but none are applicable to the treatment project. New Transportation Impacts: Would the treatment result in other impacts to transportation that are not evaluated in the CaIVTP PEIR? ❑ Yes ❑ N0 If yes, complete row(s) below and discussion Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant with Significant Mitigation Incorporated [identify new impact here, if applicable; add rows as needed] ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion Impact TRAN-1 Impact TRAN-2 Impact TRAN-3 New Transportation Impacts Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 133 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis PD-3.17: PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Impact in the PER Project -Specific Checklist Does the Identify Would this be Identify Identify Impact List SPRs List MMs Impact a Substantially Is this Environmental Impact Covered Impact Location of Apply to Applicable to Applicable Significance More Severe Impact In the PEIR Significance Impact the the to the for Significant Within the in the PEIR Analysis in the Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Impact than Scope of PEIR Projed Projects Identified in the the PEIR? Project? Project PEIR? Would the project: Impact UTIL-1: Result in LTS Section 3.16.1 Physical Impacts Associated pp. 3.16-2 — with Provision of Sufficient 3.16-3; Impact Water Supplies, Including UTIL-1 p. 3.16- Related Infrastructure Needs 9 Impact UTIL-2: Generate Solid PSU Section 3.16.1 Waste in Excess of State pp. 3.16-3 - Standards or Exceed Local 3.16-5; Impact Infrastructure Capacity UTIL-2 pp. 3.16-10 — 3.16- 12 Impact UTIL-3: Comply with LTS Section 3.16.2 Federal, State, and Local pp. 3.16-6 — Management and Reduction 3.16-7; Impact Goals, Statutes, and UTIL-2 p. Regulations Related to Solid 3.16-12 Waste 'NA: not applicable; there are no SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PEIR for this impact. None: there are SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PEIR for this impact, but none are applicable to the treatment project. New Public Services, Utilities and Service System Impacts: Would the If yes, complete row(s) below treatment result in other impacts to public services, utilities and service ❑Yes ❑ No and discussion systems that are not evaluated in the CaIVTP PEIR? Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant with Significant Mitigation Incorporated [identify new impact here, if applicable; add rows as needed] ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion Impact UTIL-1 Impact UTIL-2 Impact UTIL-3 New Impacts to Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 134 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental PD-3.18: WILDFIRE Impact in the PEIR Project -Specific Checklist Does the Identify Would this be a Identify Identify Impact List SPRs List MMs Impact Substantially Is this Environmental Impact Covered Impact Location of Apply to Applicable to Applicable Significance More Severe Impact In the PEIR Significance Impact the the to the for Significant Within the in the PEIR Analysis in the Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Impact than Scope of PEIR Projects Project' Identified in the the PEIR? Project? Project PEIR? Would the project: Impact WIL-1: Substantially LTS Section 3.17.1; Exacerbate Fire Risk and Impact WIL-1 Expose People to Uncontrolled pp. 3.17-14 — Spread of a Wildfire 3.17-15 Impact WIL-2: Expose People LTS Section 3.17.1; or Structures to Substantial Impact WIL-2 Risks Related to Post -Fire pp. 3.17-15 — Flooding or Landslides 3.17-16 'NA: not applicable; there are no SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PEIR for this impact. None: there are SPRs and/or MMs identified in the PER for this impact, but none are applicable to the treatment project. New Wildfire Impacts: Would the treatment result in other impacts related to wildfire that are not evaluated in the CaIVTP PEIR? ❑ Yes ❑ N0 If yes, complete row(s) below and discussion Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant with Significant Mitigation Incorporated [identify new impact here, if applicable; add rows as needed] ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion Impact WIL-1 Impact WIL-2 New Impacts to Wildfire Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 135 Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis ATTACHMENT A - STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES CHECKLIST Instructions: Review the standard project requirements and mitigation measures and verify that those that are applicable will be implemented. Provide information for each column as follows: P. Applicable (Yes/No). Document whether the SPR or mitigation measure is applicable to the initial treatment and/or treatment maintenance (Yes or No), and whether it is applicable to initial treatment and/or treatment maintenance. The applicability should be substantiated in the Environmental Checklist Discussion. ► Timing. This column identifies the time frame in which the SPR or mitigation measure will be implemented (e.g., prior to treatment, during treatment, etc.). ► Implementing Entity. The implementing entity is the agency or organization responsible for carrying out the requirement. This could include the project proponent's project manager, a technical specialist (e.g., archeologist or biologist), a vegetation management contractor, a partner agency or organization, or other entities that are primarily responsible for carrying out each project requirement. ► Verifying/Monitoring Entity. The verifying/monitoring entity is the agency or organization responsible for ensuring that the requirement is implemented. The verifying/monitoring entity may be different from the implementing entity. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 136 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity Administrative Standard Project Requirements SPR AD-1 Project Proponent Coordination: For treatments coordinated with CAL FIRE, Initial Treatment: CAL FIRE will meet with the project proponent to discuss all natural and environmental resources that must be protected using SPRs and any applicable mitigation measures; identify any sensitive resources onsite; and discuss resource protection measures. For any prescribed burn treatments, CAL FIRE will also discuss the details of the burn plan in Treatment Maintenance: the incident action plan (IAP). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AD-2 Delineate Protected Resources: The project proponent will clearly define the Initial Treatment: boundaries of the treatment area and protected resources on maps for the treatment area and with highly -visible flagging or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway) prior to beginning any treatment to avoid disturbing the resource. "Protected Resources" refers to environmentally sensitive places within or adjacent to the Treatment Maintenance: treatment areas that would be avoided or protected to the extent feasible during planned treatment activities to sustain their natural qualities and processes. This work will be performed by a qualified person, as defined for the specific resource (e.g., qualified Registered Professional Forester or biologist). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AD-3 Consistency with Local Plans, Policies, and Ordinances: The project proponent Initial Treatment: will design and implement the treatment in a manner that is consistent with applicable local plans (e.g., general plans, Community Wildfire Protection Plans, CAL FIRE Unit Fire Plans), policies, and ordinances to the extent the project is subject to them. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Treatment Maintenance: SPR AD-4 Public Notifications for Prescribed Burning: At least days prior to the Initial Treatment: commencement of prescribed burning operations, the project proponent will:1) post signs along the closest public roadway to the treatment area describing the activity and timing, and requesting persons in the area to contact a designated representative of the project proponent (contact information will be provided with the notice) if they have Treatment Maintenance: questions or smoke concerns; 2) publish a public interest notification in a local newspapers or other widely distributed media source describing the activity, timing, and contact information; 3) send the local county supervisor and county administrative officer (or equivalent official responsible for distribution of public information) a notification letter describing the activity, its necessity, timing, and measures being taken to protect the environment and prevent prescribed burn escape. This SPR applies only to prescribed burn treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 137 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity SPR AD-5 Maintain Site Cleanliness: If trash receptacles are used on -site, the project Initial Treatment: proponent will use fully covered trash receptacles with secure lids (wildlife proof) to contain all food, food scraps, food wrappers, beverages, and other worker generated miscellaneous trash. Remove all temporary non -biodegradable flagging, trash, debris, and barriers from the project site upon completion of project activities. This SPR applies Treatment Maintenance: to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AD-6 Public Notifications for Treatment Projects. One to three days prior to the Initial Treatment: commencement of a treatment activity, the project proponent will post signs in a conspicuous location near the treatment area describing the activity and timing, and requesting persons in the area to contact a designated representative of the project proponent (contact information will be provided with the notice) if they have questions Treatment Maintenance: or concerns. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Prescribed burning is subject to the additional notification requirements of SPR AD-4. SPR AD-7 Provide Information on Proposed, Approved, and Completed Treatment Initial Treatment: Projects. For any vegetation treatment project using the CaIVTP PEIR for CEQA compliance, the project proponent will provide the information listed below to the Board or CAL FIRE during the proposed, approved, and completed stages of the project. The Board or CAL FIRE will make this information available to the public via an online Treatment Maintenance: database or other mechanism. Information on proposed projects (PSA in progress): ► GIS data that include project location (as a point); ► project size (typically acres); P. treatment types and activities; and ► contact information for a representative of the project proponent. The project proponent will provide information on the proposed project to the Board or CAL FIRE as early as feasible in the planning phase. The project proponent will provide this information to the Board or CAL FIRE with sufficient lead time to allow those agencies to make the information available to the public no later than two weeks prior to project approval. The project proponent may also make information available to the public via other mechanisms (e.g., the proponent's own website). Information on approved projects (PSA complete): ► A completed PSA Environmental Checklist; ► A completed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (using Attachment A to the Environmental Checklist); December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 138 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► GIS data that include a polygon(s) of the project area, showing the extent of each treatment type included in the project (ecological restoration, fuel break, WUI fuel reduction). Information on completed projects: ► GIS data that include a polygon(s) of the treated area, showing the extent of each treatment type implemented (ecological restoration, fuel break, WUI fuel reduction) ► A post -project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report) that includes ■ Size of treated area (typically acres); ■ Treatment types and activities; ■ Dates of work; ■ A list of the SPRs and mitigation measures that were implemented ■ Any explanations regarding implementation if required by SPRs and mitigation measures (e.g., explanation for feasibility determination required by SPR BIO-12; explanation for reduction of a no -disturbance buffer below the general minimum size described in Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and BIO-2b). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AD-8 Request Access for Post -Treatment Assessment. For CAL FIRE projects, during Initial Treatment: contract development, CAL FIRE will include access to the treated area over a prescribed period (usually up to three years) to assess treatment effectiveness in achieving desired fuel conditions and other CaIVTP objectives as well as any necessary maintenance, as a contract term for consideration by the landowner. For public landowners, access to the Treatment Maintenance: treated area over a prescribed period will be a requirement of the executed contract. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AD-9: Obtain a Coastal Development Permit for Proposed Treatment Within the Initial Treatment: Coastal Zone Where Required. When planning a treatment project within the Coastal Zone, the project proponent will contact the local Coastal Commission district office, or applicable local government to determine if the project area is within thejurisdiction of the Coastal Commission, a local government with a certified Local Coastal Program Treatment Maintenance: (LCP), or both. All treatment projects in the Coastal Zone will be reviewed by the local Coastal Commission district office or local government with a certified LCP (in consultation with the local Coastal Commission district office regarding whether a Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 139 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required). If a CDP is required, the treatment project will be designed to meet the following conditions: i. The treatment project will be designed in compliance with applicable provisions of the Coastal Act that provide substantive performance standards for the protection of potentially affected coastal resources, if the treatment activity will occur within the original jurisdiction of the Commission or an area of a local coastal government without a certified LCP; and ii. The treatment project will be designed in compliance with the applicable provisions of the certified LCP, specifically the substantive performance standards for the protection of potentially affected coastal resources, if the treatment activity will occur within thejurisdiction of a local coastal government with a certified LCP. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Aesthetic and Visual Resource Standard Project Requirements SPR AES-1 Vegetation Thinning and Edge Feathering: The project proponent will thin Initial Treatment: and feather adjacent vegetation to break up or screen linear edges of the clearing and mimic forms of natural clearings as reasonable or appropriate for vegetation conditions. In general, thinning and feathering in irregular patches of varying densities, as well as a gradation of tall to short vegetation at the clearing edge, will achieve a natural Treatment Maintenance: transitional appearance. The contrast of a distinct clearing edge will be faded into this transitional band. This SPR only applies to mechanical and manual treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AES-2 Avoid Staging within Viewsheds: The project proponent will store all Initial Treatment: treatment -related materials, including vehicles, vegetation treatment debris, and equipment, outside of the viewshed of public trails, parks, recreation areas, and roadways to the extent feasible. The project proponent will also locate materials staging and storage areas outside of the viewshed of public trails, parks, recreation areas, and Treatment Maintenance: roadways to the extent feasible. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AES-3 Provide Vegetation Screening: The project proponent will preserve sufficient Initial Treatment: vegetation within, at the edge of, or adjacent to treatment areas to screen views from public trails, parks, recreation areas, and roadways as reasonable or appropriate for vegetation conditions. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Treatment Maintenance: Air Quality Standard Project Requirements December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 140 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity SPR AQ-1 Comply with Air Quality Regulations: The project proponent will comply with Initial Treatment: the applicable air quality requirements of air districts within whose jurisdiction the project is located. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Treatment Maintenance: SPR AQ-2 Submit Smoke Management Plan: The project proponent will submit a smoke Initial Treatment: management plan for all prescribed burns to the applicable air district, in accordance with 17 CCR Section 80160. Pursuant to this regulation a smoke management plan will not be required for burns less than 10 acres that also will not be conducted near smoke sensitive areas, unless otherwise directed by the air district. Burning will only be Treatment Maintenance: conducted in compliance with the burn authorization program of the applicable air district(s) having jurisdiction over the treatment area. Example of a smoke management plan is in Appendix PD-2. This SPR applies only to prescribed burning treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AQ-3 Create Burn Plan: The project proponent will create a burn plan using the CAL Initial Treatment: FIRE burn plan template for all prescribed burns. The burn plan will include a fire behavior model output of First Order Fire Effects Model and BEHAVE or other fire behavior modeling simulation and that is performed by a qualified fire behavior technical specialist that predicts fire behavior, calculates consumption of fuels, tree Treatment Maintenance: mortality, predicted emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and soil heating. The project proponent will minimize soil burn severity from broadcast burning to reduce the potential for runoff and soil erosion. The burn plan will be created with input from a qualified technician or certified State burn boss. This SPR applies only to prescribed burning treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AQ-4 Minimize Dust: To minimize dust during treatment activities, the project Initial Treatment: proponent will implement the following measures: ► Limit the speed of vehicles and equipment traveling on unpaved areas to 15 miles per hour to reduce fugitive dust emissions, in accordance with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Fugitive Dust protocol. Treatment Maintenance: ► If road use creates excessive dust, the project proponent will wet appurtenant, unpaved, dirt roads using water trucks or treat roads with a non -toxic chemical dust suppressant (e.g., emulsion polymers, organic material) during dry, dusty conditions. Any dust suppressant product used will be environmentally benign (i.e., non -toxic to plants and will not negatively impact water quality) and its use will not be prohibited by ARB, EPA, or the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The project proponent will not over -water exposed areas such that the water results in runoff. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 141 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity The type of dust suppression method will be selected by the project proponent based on soil, traffic, site -specific conditions, and air quality regulations. P. Remove visible dust, silt, or mud tracked -out on to public paved roadways where sufficient water supplies and access to water is available. The project proponent will remove dust, silt, and mud from vehicles at the conclusion of each workday, or at a minimum of every 24 hours for continuous treatment activities, in accordance with Vehicle Code Section 23113. ► Suspend ground -disturbing treatment activities, including land clearing and bulldozer lines, when there is visible dust transport (particulate pollution) outside the treatment boundary, if the particulate emissions may "cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any of those persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property," per Health and Safety Code Section 41700. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AQ-5 Avoid Naturally Occurring Asbestos: The project proponent will avoid ground- Initial Treatment: disturbing treatment activities in areas identified as likely to contain naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) per maps and guidance published by the California Geological Survey, unless an Asbestos Dust Control Plan (17 CCR Section 93105) is prepared and approved by the air district(s) with jurisdiction over the treatment area. Any NOA-related guidance Treatment Maintenance: provided by the applicable air district will be followed. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR AQ-6: Prescribed Burn Safety Procedures. Prescribed burns planned and managed Initial Treatment: by non -CAL FIRE crews will follow all safety procedures required of CAL FIRE crew, including the implementation of an approved Incident Action Plan (IAP). The IAP will include the burn dates; burn hours; weather limitations; the specific burn prescription; a communications plan; a medical plan; a traffic plan; and special instructions such as Treatment Maintenance: minimizing smoke impacts to specific local roadways. The IAP will also assign responsibilities for coordination with the appropriate air district, such as conducting onsite briefings, posting notifications, weather monitoring during burning, and other burn related preparations. This SPR applies only to prescribed burning treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Standard Project Requirements SPR CUL-1 Conduct Record Search: An archaeological and historical resource record Initial Treatment: search will be conducted per the applicable state or local agency procedures. Instead of conducting a new search, the project proponent may use recent record searches December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 142 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity containing the treatment area requested by a landowner or other public agency in accordance applicable agency guidance. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and Treatment Maintenance: treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR CUL-2 Contact Geographically Affiliated Native American Tribes: The project Initial Treatment: proponent will obtain the latest Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) provided Native Americans Contact List. Using the appropriate Native Americans Contact List, the project proponent will notify the California Native American Tribes in the counties where the treatment activity is located. The notification will contain the following: Treatment Maintenance: ► A written description of the treatment location and boundaries. ► Brief narrative of the treatment objectives. ► A description of the activities used (e.g., prescribed burning, mastication) and associated acreages. ► A map of the treatment area at a sufficient scale to indicate the spatial extent of activities. ► A request for information regarding potential impacts to cultural resources from the proposed treatment. ► A detailed description of the depth of excavation, if ground disturbance is expected. In addition, the project proponent will contact the NAHC for a review of their Sacred Lands File. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR-CUL-3 Pre -field Research: The project proponent will conduct research prior to Initial Treatment: implementing treatments as part of the cultural resource investigation. The purpose of this research is to properly inform survey design, based on the types of resources likely to be encountered within the treatment area, and to be prepared to interpret, record, and evaluate these findings within the context of local history and prehistory. The qualified archaeologist Treatment Maintenance: and/or archaeologically -trained resource professional will review records, study maps, read pertinent ethnographic, archaeological, and historical literature specific to the area being studied, and conduct other tasks to maximize the effectiveness of the survey. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR CUL-4 Archaeological Surveys: The project proponent will coordinate with an Initial Treatment: archaeologically -trained resource professional and/or qualified archaeologist to conduct a site -specific survey of the treatment area. The survey methodology (e.g., pedestrian survey, subsurface investigation) depends on whether the area has a low, moderate, or high sensitivity for resources, which is based on whether the records search, pre -field research, Treatment Maintenance: and/or Native American consultation identifies archaeological or historical resources near or within the treatment area. A survey report will be completed for every cultural resource Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 143 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity survey completed. The specific requirements will comply with the applicable state or local agency procedures. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR CUL-5 Treatment of Archaeological Resources: If cultural resources are identified Initial Treatment: within a treatment area, and cannot be avoided, a qualified archaeologist will notify the culturally affiliated tribe(s) based on information provided by NAHC and assess, whether an archaeological find qualifies as a unique archaeological resource, an historical resource, or in coordination with said tribe(s), as a tribal cultural resource. The project Treatment Maintenance: proponent, in consultation with culturally affiliated tribe(s), will develop effective protection measures for important cultural resources located within treatment areas. These measures may include adjusting the treatment location or design to entirely avoid cultural resource locations or changing treatment activities so that damaging effects to cultural resources will not occur. These protection measures will be written in clear, enforceable language, and will be included in the survey report in accordance with applicable state or local agency procedures. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR CUL-6 Treatment of Tribal Cultural Resources: The project proponent, in consultation Initial Treatment: with the culturally affiliated tribe(s), will develop effective protection measures for important tribal cultural resources located within treatment areas. These measures may include adjusting the treatment location or design to entirely avoid cultural resource locations or changing treatment activities so that damaging effects to cultural resources Treatment Maintenance: will not occur. The project proponent will provide the tribe(s) the opportunity to submit comments and participate in consultation to resolve issues of concern. The project proponent will defer implementing the treatment until the tribe approves protection measures, or if agreement cannot be reached after a good -faith effort, the proponent determines that any or all feasible measures have been implemented, where feasible, and the resource is either avoided or protected. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR CUL-7 Avoid Built Historical Resources: If the records search identifies built historical Initial Treatment: resources, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project proponent will avoid these resources. Within a buffer of 100 feet of the built historical resource, there will be no prescribed burning or mechanical treatment activities Buffers less than 100 feet for built historical resources will only be used after consultation with Treatment Maintenance: and receipt of written approval from a qualified archaeologist. If the records search does not identify known historical resources in the treatment area, but structures (i.e., buildings, bridges, roadways) over 50 years old that have not been evaluated for historic December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 1 44 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity significance are present in the treatment area, they will similarly be avoided. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR CUL-8 Cultural Resource Training: The project proponent will train all crew members Initial Treatment: and contractors implementing treatment activities on the protection of sensitive archaeological, historical, or tribal cultural resources. Workers will be trained to halt work if archaeological resources are encountered on a treatment site and the treatment method consists of physical disturbance of land surfaces (e.g., soil disturbance). This SPR Treatment Maintenance: applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Biological Resources Standard Project Requirements SPR BIO-1: Review and Survey Project -Specific Biological Resources. The project Initial Treatment: proponent will require a qualified RPF or biologist to conduct a data review and reconnaissance -level survey prior to treatment, no more than one year prior to the submittal of the PSA, and no more than one year between completion of the PSA and implementation of the treatment project. The data reviewed will include the biological Treatment Maintenance: resources setting, species and sensitive natural communities tables, and habitat information in this PEIR for the ecoregion(s) where the treatment will occur. It will also include review of the best available, current data for the area, including vegetation mapping data, species distribution/range information, CNDDB, California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, relevant BIOS queries, and relevant general and regional plans. Reconnaissance -level biological surveys will be general surveys that include visual and auditory inspection for biological resources to help determine the environmental setting of a project site. The qualified surveyor will 1.) identify and document sensitive resources, such as riparian or other sensitive habitats, sensitive natural community, wetlands, or wildlife nursery site or habitat (including bird nests), and 2.) assess the suitability of habitat for special -status plant and animal species. The surveyor will also record any incidental wildlife observations. For each treatment project, habitat assessments will be completed at a time of year that is appropriate for identifying habitat and no more than one year prior to the submittal of the PSA, unless it can be demonstrated in the PSA that habitat assessments older than one year remain valid (e.g., site conditions are unchanged and no treatment activity has occurred since the assessment). If more than one year passes between completion of the PSA and initiation of the treatment project, the project proponent will verify the continued accuracy of the PSA prior to beginning the treatment project by reviewing for any data updates and/or visiting the site to verify conditions. Based on the results of the data review and reconnaissance -level survey, the project proponent, in consultation with a qualified RPF or biologist, will determine which one of the following best characterizes the treatment: Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 145 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity 1. Suitable Habitat Is Present but Adverse Effects Can Be Clearly Avoided. If, based on Initial Treatment: the data review and reconnaissance -level survey, the qualified RPF or biologist determines that suitable habitat for sensitive biological resources is present but adverse effects on the suitable habitat can clearly be avoided through one of the following methods, the avoidance mechanism will be implemented prior to initiating Treatment Maintenance: treatment and will remain in effect throughout the treatment: a. by physically avoiding the suitable habitat, or b. by conducting treatment outside of the season when a sensitive resource could be present within the suitable habitat or outside the season of sensitivity (e.g., outside of special -status bird nesting season, during dormant season of sensitive annual or geophytic plant species, or outside of maternity and rearing season at wildlife nursery sites). Physical avoidance will include flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway) to delineate the boundary of the avoidance area around the suitable habitat. For physical avoidance, a buffer may be implemented as determined necessary by the qualified RPF or biologist. 2. Suitable Habitat is Present and Adverse Effects Cannot Be Clearly Avoided. Further review and surveys will be conducted to determine presence/absence of sensitive biological resources that may be affected, as described in the SPRs below. Further review may include contacting USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, CDFW, CNPS, or local resource agencies as necessary to determine the potential for special -status species or other sensitive biological resources to be affected by the treatment activity. Focused or protocol -level surveys will be conducted as necessary to determine presence/absence. If protocol surveys are conducted, survey procedures will adhere to methodologies approved by resource agencies and the scientific community, such as those that are available on the CDFW webpage at: https://www.wildIife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols. Specific survey requirements are addressed for each resource type in relevant SPRs (e.g., additional survey requirements are presented for special -status plants in SPR 3I0-7). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR BIO-2: Require Biological Resource Training for Workers. The project proponent will Initial Treatment: require crew members and contractors to receive training from a qualified RPF or biologist prior to beginning a treatment project. The training will describe the appropriate work practices necessary to effectively implement the biological SPRs and mitigation measures and to comply with the applicable environmental laws and regulations. The training will Treatment Maintenance: include the identification, relevant life history information, and avoidance of pertinent December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 146 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity special -status species; identification and avoidance of sensitive natural communities and habitats with the potential to occur in the treatment area; impact minimization procedures; and reporting requirements. The training will instruct workers when it is appropriate to stop work and allow wildlife encountered during treatment activities to leave the area unharmed and when it is necessary to report encounters to a qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician. The qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician will immediately contact CDFW or USFWS, as appropriate, if any wildlife protected by the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) is encountered and cannot leave the site on its own (without being handled). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Sensitive Natural Communities and Other Sensitive Habitats SPR BIO-3: Survey Sensitive Natural Communities and Other Sensitive Habitats. If SPR Initial Treatment: BIO-1 determines that sensitive natural communities or sensitive habitats may be present and adverse effects cannot be avoided, the project proponent will: P. require a qualified RPF or biologist to perform a protocol -level survey following the CDFW "Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Treatment Maintenance: Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities" (current version dated March 20, 2018) of the treatment area prior to the start of treatment activities for sensitive natural communities and sensitive habitats. Sensitive natural communities will be identified using the best means possible, including keying them out using the most current edition of Manual of California Vegetation (including updated natural communities data at http://vegetation.cnps.org/), or referring to relevant reports (e.g., reports found on the VegCAMP website). ► map and digitally record, using a Global Positioning System (GPS), the limits of any potential sensitive habitat and sensitive natural community identified in the treatment a rea. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR BIO-4: Design Treatment to Avoid Loss or Degradation of Riparian Habitat Function. Initial Treatment: Project proponents, in consultation with a qualified RPF or qualified biologist, will design treatments in riparian habitats to retain or improve habitat functions by implementing the following within riparian habitats: ► Retain at least 75 percent of the overstory and 50 percent of the understory canopy Treatment Maintenance: of native riparian vegetation within the limits of riparian habitat identified and mapped during surveys conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-3. Native riparian vegetation will be retained in a well distributed multi -storied stand composed of a diversity of species similar to that found before the start of treatment activities. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 1 47 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► Treatments will be limited to removal of uncharacteristic fuel loads (e.g., removing dead or dying vegetation), trimming/limbing of woody species as necessary to reduce ladder fuels, and select thinning of vegetation to restore densities that are characteristic of healthy stands of the riparian vegetation types characteristic of the region. This includes hand removal (or mechanized removal where topography allows) of dead or dying riparian trees and shrubs, invasive plant removal, selective thinning, and removal of encroaching upland species. P. Removal of large, native riparian hardwood trees (e.g., willow, ash, maple, oak, alder, sycamore, cottonwood) will be minimized to the extent feasible and 75 percent of the pretreatment native riparian hardwood tree canopy will be retained. Because tree size varies depending on vegetation type present and site conditions, the tree size retention parameter will be determined on a site -specific basis depending on vegetation type present and setting; however, live, healthy, native trees that are considered large for that type of tree and large relative to other trees in that location will be retained. A scientifically -based, project -specific explanation substantiating the retention size parameter for native riparian hardwood tree removal will be provided in the Biological Resources Discussion of the PSA. Consideration of factors such as site hydrology, erosion potential, suitability of wildlife habitat, presence of sufficient seed trees, light availability, and changes in stream shading may inform the tree size retention requirements. ► Removed trees will be felled away from adjacent streams or waterbodies and piled outside of the riparian vegetation zone (unless there is an ecological reason to do otherwise that is approved by applicable regulatory agencies, such as adding large woody material to a stream to enhance fish habitat, e.g., see Accelerated Wood Recruitment and Timber Operations: Process Guidance from the California Timber Harvest Review Team Agencies and National Marine Fisheries Service). ► Vegetation removal that could reduce stream shading and increase stream temperatures will be avoided. ► Ground disturbance within riparian habitats will be limited to the minimum necessary to implement effective treatments. This will consist of the minimum disturbance area necessary to reduce hazardous fuels and return the riparian community to a natural fire regime (i.e., Condition Class 1) considering historic fire return intervals, climate change, and land use constraints. ► Only hand application of herbicides approved for use in aquatic environments will be allowed and only during low -flow periods or when seasonal streams are dry. ► The project proponent will notify CDFW when required by California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 prior to implementing any treatment activities in riparian habitats. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 148 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity Notification will identify the treatment activities, map the vegetation to be removed, identify the impact avoidance identification methods to be used (e.g., flagging), and appropriate protections for the retention of shaded riverine habitat, including buffers and other applicable measures to prevent erosion into the waterway. ► In consideration of spatial variability of riparian vegetation types and condition and consistent with California Forest Practice Rules Section 916.9(v) (February 2019 version), a different set of vegetation retention standards and protection measures from those specified in the above bullets may be implemented on a site -specific basis if the qualified RPF and the project proponent demonstrate through substantial evidence that alternative design measures provide a more effective means of achieving the treatment goals objectives and would result in effects to the Beneficial Functions of Riparian Zones equal or more favorable than those expected to result from application of the above measures. Deviation from the above design specifications, different protection measures and design standards will only be approved when the treatment plan incorporates an evaluation of beneficial functions of the riparian habitat and with written concurrence from CDFW. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR BIO-5: Avoid Environmental Effects of Type Conversion and Maintain Habitat Initial Treatment: Function in Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub. The project proponent will design treatment activities to avoid type conversion where native coastal sage scrub and chaparral are present. An ecological definition of type conversion is used in the CaIVTP PEIR for assessment of environmental effects: a change from a vegetation type Treatment Maintenance: dominated by native shrub species that are characteristic of chaparral and coastal sage scrub vegetation alliances to a vegetation type characterized predominantly by weedy herbaceous cover or annual grasslands. For the PEIR, type conversion is considered in terms of habitat function, which is defined here as the arrangement and capability of habitat features to provide refuge, food source, and reproduction habitat to plants and animals, and thereby contribute to the conservation of biological and genetic diversity and evolutionary processes (de Groot et al. 2002). Some modification of habitat characteristics may occur provided habitat function is maintained (i.e., the location, essential habitat features, and species supported are not substantially changed). During the reconnaissance -level survey required in SPR BIO-1, a qualified RPF or biologist will identify chaparral and coastal sage scrub vegetation to the alliance level and determine the condition class and fire return interval departure of the chaparral and/or coastal sage scrub present in each treatment area. For all treatment types in chaparral and coastal sage scrub, the project proponent, in consultation with a qualified RPF or qualified biologist will: Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 149 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► Develop a treatment design that avoids environmental effects of type conversion in chaparral and coastal sage scrub vegetation alliances, which will include evaluating and determining the appropriate spatial scale at which the proponent would consider type conversion, and substantiating its appropriateness. The project proponent will demonstrate with substantial evidence that the habitat function of chaparral and coastal sage scrub would be at least maintained within the identified spatial scale at which type conversion is evaluated for the specific treatment project. Consideration of factors such as site hydrology, erosion potential, suitability of wildlife habitat, spatial needs of sensitive species, presence of sufficient seed plants and nurse plants, light availability, and edge effects may inform the determination of an appropriate spatial scale. P. The treatment design will maintain a minimum percent cover of mature native shrubs within the treatment area to maintain habitat function; the appropriate percent cover will be identified by the project proponent in the development of treatment design and be specific to the vegetation alliances that are present in the identified spatial scale used to evaluate type conversion. Mature native shrubs that are retained will be distributed contiguously or in patches within the stand. If the stand consists of multiple age classes, patches representing a range of middle to old age classes will be retained to maintain and improve heterogeneity, to the extent needed to avoid type conversion. These SPR requirements apply to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Additional measures will be applied to ecological restoration treatment types: ► For ecological restoration treatment types, complete removal of the mature shrub layer will not occur in native chaparral and coastal sage scrub vegetation types. ► Ecological restoration treatments will not be implemented in vegetation types that are within their natural fire return interval (i.e., time since last burn is less than the average time listed as the fire return interval range in Table 3.6-1) unless the project proponent demonstrates with substantial evidence that the habitat function of chaparral and coastal sage scrub would be improved. ► A minimum of 35 percent relative cover of existing shrubs and associated native vegetation will be retained at existing densities in patches distributed in a mosaic pattern within the treated area or the shrub canopy will be thinned by no more than 20 percent from baseline density (i.e., if baseline shrub canopy density is 60 percent, post treatment shrub canopy density will be no less than 40 percent). A different percent relative cover can be retained if the project proponent demonstrates with substantial evidence that alternative treatment design measures would result in effects on the habitat function of chaparral and coastal sage scrub that are equal or December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 150 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity more favorable than those expected to result from application of the above measures. Biological considerations that may inform a deviation from the minimum 35 percent relative cover retention include but are not limited to soil moisture requirements, increased soil temperatures, changes in light/shading, presence of sufficient seed plants and nurse plants, erosion potential, and site hydrology. ► If the stand within the treatment area consists of multiple age classes, patches representing a range of middle to old age classes will be retained to maintain and improve heterogeneity. These SPR requirements apply to all treatment activities and only the ecosystem restoration treatment type, including treatment maintenance. A determination of compliance with the SB 1260 prohibition of type conversion in chaparral and coastal sage scrub is a statutory issue separate from CEQA compliance that may involve factors additional to the ecological definition and habitat functions presented in the PEIR, such as geographic context. It is beyond the legal scope of the PEIR to define SB 1260 type conversion and statutory compliance. The project proponent, acting as lead agency for the proposed later treatment project, will be responsible for defining type conversion in the context of the project and making the finding that type conversion would not occur, as required by SB 1260. The project proponent will determine its criteria for defining and avoiding type conversion and, in making its findings, may draw upon information presented in this PEIR. SPR BIO-6: Prevent Spread of Plant Pathogens. When working in sensitive natural Initial Treatment: communities, riparian habitats, or oak woodlands that are at risk from plant pathogens (e.g., lone chaparral, blue oak woodland), the project proponent will implement the following best management practices to prevent the spread of Phytopthora and other plant pathogens (e.g., pitch canker (Fusarium), goldspotted oak borer, shot hole borer, Treatment Maintenance: bark beetle): ► clean and sanitize vehicles, equipment, tools, footwear, and clothes before arriving at a treatment site and when leaving a contaminated site, or a site in a county where contamination is a risk; ► include training on Phytopthora diseases and other plant pathogens in the worker awareness training; ► minimize soil disturbance as much as possible by limiting the number of vehicles, avoiding off -road travel as much as possible, and limiting use of mechanized equipment; ► minimize movement of soil and plant material within the site, especially between areas with high and low risk of contamination; Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 151 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► clean soil and debris from equipment and sanitize hand tools, buckets, gloves, and footwear when moving from high risk to low risk areas or between widely separated portions of a treatment area; and P. follow the procedures listed in Guidance for plant pathogen prevention when working at contaminated restoration sites or with rare plants and sensitive habitat (Working Group for Phytoptheras in Native Habitats 2016). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Special -Status Plants SPR 13I0-7: Survey for Special -Status Plants. If SPR BIO-1 determines that suitable habitat Initial Treatment: for special -status plant species is present and cannot be avoided, the project proponent will require a qualified RPF or botanist to conduct protocol -level surveys for special - status plant species with the potential to be affected by a treatment prior to initiation of the treatment. The survey will follow the methods in the current version of CDFW's Treatment Maintenance: "Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities." Surveys to determine the presence or absence of special -status plant species will be conducted in suitable habitat that could be affected by the treatment and timed to coincide with the blooming or other appropriate phenological period of the target species (as determined by a qualified RPF or botanist), or all species in the same genus as the target species will be assumed to be special -status. If potentially occurring special -status plants are listed under CESA or ESA, protocol -level surveys to determine presence/absence of the listed species will be conducted in all circumstances, unless determined otherwise by CDFW or USFWS. For other special -status plants not listed under CESA or ESA, as defined in Section 3.6.1 of this PEIR, surveys will not be required under the following circumstances: ► If protocol -level surveys, consisting of at least two survey visits (e.g., early blooming season and later blooming season) during a normal weather year, have been completed in the 5 years before implementation of the treatment project and no special -status plants were found, and no treatment activity has occurred following the protocol -level survey, treatment may proceed without additional plant surveys. ► If the target special -status plant species is an herbaceous annual, stump -sprouting, or geophyte species, the treatment may be carried out during the dormant season for that species or when the species has completed its annual lifecycle without conducting presence/absence surveys provided the treatment will not alter habitat or destroy seeds, stumps, or roots, rhizomes, bulbs and other underground parts in a way that would make it unsuitable for the target species to reestablish following treatment. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 152 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas SPR BIO-8: Identify and Avoid or Minimize Impacts in Coastal Zone ESHAs. When Initial Treatment: planning a treatment project within the Coastal Zone, the project proponent will, in consultation with the Coastal Commission or a local government with a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) (as applicable), identify the habitat types and species present to determine if the area qualifies as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). If the Treatment Maintenance: area is an ESHA, the treatment project may be allowed pursuant to this PEIR, if it meets the following conditions. If a project requires a CDP by the Coastal Commission or a local government with a certified LCP (as applicable), the CDP approval may require modification to these conditions to further avoid and minimize impacts: ► The treatment will be designed, in compliance with the Coastal Act or LCP if a site is within a certified LCP area, to protect the habitat function of the affected ESHA, protect habitat values, and prevent loss or type conversion of habitat and vegetation types that define the ESHA, or loss of special -status species that inhabit the ESHA. ► Treatment actions will be limited to eradication or control of invasive plants, removal of uncharacteristic fuel loads (e.g., removing dead, diseased, or dying vegetation), trimming/limbing of woody species as necessary to reduce ladder fuels, and select thinning of vegetation to restore densities that are characteristic of healthy stands of the vegetation types present in the ESHA. ► A qualified biologist or RPF familiar with the ecology of the treatment area will monitor all treatment activities in ESHAs. ► Appropriate no -disturbance buffers will be developed in compliance with the Coastal Act or relevant LCP policies for treatment activities in the vicinity of ESHAs to avoid adverse direct and indirect effects to ESHAs. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Invasive Plants and Wildlife SPR BIO-9: Prevent Spread of Invasive Plants, Noxious Weeds, and Invasive Wildlife. The Initial Treatment: project proponent will take the following actions to prevent the spread of invasive plants, noxious weeds, and invasive wildlife (e.g., New Zealand mudsnail): ► clean clothing, footwear, and equipment used during treatments of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, other debris or seed -bearing material, or water (e.g., rivers, Treatment Maintenance: streams, creeks, lakes) before entering the treatment area or when leaving an area with infestations of invasive plants, noxious weeds, or invasive wildlife; Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 153 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► for all heavy equipment and vehicles traveling off road, pressure wash, if feasible, or otherwise appropriately decontaminate equipment at a designated weed -cleaning station prior to entering the treatment area from an area with infestations of invasive plants, noxious weeds, or invasive wildlife. Anti -fungal wash agents will be specified if the equipment has been exposed to any pathogen that could affect native species; ► inspect all heavy equipment, vehicles, tools, or other treatment -related materials for sand, mud, or other signs that weed seeds or propagules could be present prior to use in the treatment area. If the equipment is not clean, the qualified RPF or biological technician will deny entry to the work areas; ► stage equipment in areas free of invasive plant infestations unless there are no uninfested areas present within a reasonable proximity to the treatment area; ► identify significant infestations of invasive plant species (i.e., those rated as invasive by Cal-IPC or designated as noxious weeds by California Department of Food and Agriculture) during reconnaissance -level surveys and target them for removal during treatment activities. Treatment methods will be selected based on the invasive species present and may include herbicide application, manual or mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, and/or herbivory, and will be designed to maximize success in killing or removing the invasive plants and preventing reestablishment based on the life history characteristics of the invasive plant species present. Treatments will be focused on removing invasive plant species that cause ecological harm to native vegetation types, especially those that can alter fire cycles,- 0- treat invasive plant biomass onsite to eliminate seeds and propagules and prevent reestablishment or dispose of invasive plant biomass offsite at an appropriate waste collection facility (if not kept on site); transport invasive plant materials in a closed container or bag to prevent the spread of propagules during transport; and ► implement Fire and Fuel Management BMPs outlined in the "Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants: Best Management Practices for Land Mangers" (Cal-IPC 2012, or current version). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Wildlife SPR BIO-10: Survey for Special -Status Wildlife and Nursery Sites. If SPR BIO-1 determines Initial Treatment: that suitable habitat for special -status wildlife species or nurseries of any wildlife species is present and cannot be avoided, the project proponent will require a qualified RPF or biologist to conduct focused or protocol -level surveys for special -status wildlife species or nursery sites (e.g., bat maternity roosts, deer fawning areas, heron or egret rookeries, Treatment Maintenance: monarch overwintering sites) with potential to be directly or indirectly affected by a December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 154 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity treatment activity. The survey area will be determined by a qualified RPF or biologist based on the species and habitats and any recommended buffer distances in agency protocols. The qualified RPF or biologist will determine if following an established protocol is required, and the project proponent may consult with CDFW and/or USFWS for technical information regarding appropriate survey protocols. Unless otherwise specified in a protocol, the survey will be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the beginning of treatment activities. Focused or protocol surveys for a special -status species with potential to occur in the treatment area may not be required if presence of the species is assumed. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR BIO-11. Install Wildlife -Friendly Fencing (Prescribed Herbivory). If temporary fencing Initial Treatment: is required for prescribed herbivory treatment, a wildlife -friendly fencing design will be used. The project proponent will require a qualified RPF or biologist to review and approve the design before installation to minimize the risk of wildlife entanglement. The fencing design will meet the following standards: Treatment Maintenance: ► Minimize the chance of wildlife entanglement by avoiding barbed wire, loose or broken wires, or any material that could impale or snag a leaping animal; and, if feasible, keeping electric netting -type fencing electrified at all times or laid down while not in use. ► Charge temporary electric fencing with intermittent pulse energizers; continuous output fence chargers will not be permitted. ► Allow wildlife tojump over easily without injury by installing fencing that can flex as animals pass over it and installing the top wire low enough (no more than approximately 40 inches high on flat ground) to allow adult ungulates tojump over it. The determination of appropriate fence height will consider slope, as steep slopes are more difficult for wildlife to pass. ► Be highly visible to birds and mammals by using high -visibility tape or wire, flagging, or other markers. This SPR applies only to prescribed herbivory and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR BIO-12. Protect Common Nesting Birds, Including Raptors. The project proponent Initial Treatment: will schedule treatment activities to avoid the active nesting season of common native bird species, including raptors, that could be present within or adjacent to the treatment site, if feasible. Common native birds are species not otherwise treated as special status Treatment Maintenance: Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 155 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity in the CaIVTP PEIR. The active nesting season will be defined by the qualified RPF or biologist. If active nesting season avoidance is not feasible, a qualified RPF or biologist will conduct a survey for common nesting birds, including raptors. Existing records (e.g., CNDDB, eBird database, State Wildlife Action Plan) should be reviewed in advance of the survey to identity the common nesting birds, including raptors, that are known to occur in the vicinity of the treatment site. The survey area will encompass reasonably accessible areas of the treatment site and the immediately surrounding vicinity viewable from the treatment site. The survey area will be determined by a qualified RPF or biologist, based on the potential species in the area, location of suitable nesting habitat, and type of treatment. For vegetation removal or project activities that would occur during the nesting season, the survey will be conducted at a time that balances the effectiveness of detecting nests and the reasonable consideration of potential avoidance strategies. Typically, this timeframe would be up to 3 weeks before treatment. The survey will occur in a single survey period of sufficient duration to reasonably detect nesting birds, including raptors, typically one day for most treatment projects (depending on the size, configuration, and vegetation density in the treatment site), and conducted during the active time of day for target species, typically close to dawn and/or dusk. The survey may be conducted concurrently with other biological surveys, if they are required by other SPRs. Survey methods will be tailored by the qualified RPF or biologist to site and habitat conditions, typically involving walking throughout the survey area, visually searching for nests and birds exhibiting behavior that is typical of breeding (e.g., delivering food). If an active nest is observed (i.e., presence of eggs and/or chicks) or determined to likely be present based on nesting bird behavior, the project proponent will implement a feasible strategy to avoid disturbance of active nests, which may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following: ► Establish Buffer. The project proponent will establish a temporary, species - appropriate buffer around the nest sufficient to reasonably expect that breeding would not be disrupted. Treatment activities will be implemented outside of the buffer. The buffer location will be determined by a qualified RPF or biologist. Factors to be considered for determining buffer location will include: presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography, nest height above ground, baseline levels of noise and human activity, species sensitivity, and expected treatment activities. Nests of common birds within the buffer need not be monitored during treatment. However, buffers will be maintained until young fledge or the nest becomes inactive, as determined by the qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 156 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► Modify Treatment. The project proponent will modify the treatment in the vicinity of an active nest to avoid disturbance of active nests (e.g., by implementing manual treatment methods, rather than mechanical treatment methods). Treatment modifications will be determined by the project proponent in coordination with the qualified RPF or biologist. ► Defer Treatment. The project proponent will defer the timing of treatment in the portion(s) of the treatment site that could disturb the active nest. If this avoidance strategy is implemented, treatment activity will not commence until young fledge or the nest becomes inactive, as determined by the qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician. Feasible actions will be taken by the project proponent to avoid loss of common native bird nests. The feasibility of implementing the avoidance strategies will be determined by the project proponent based on whether implementation of this SPR will preclude completing the treatment project within the reasonable period of time necessary to meet CaIVTP program objectives, including, but not limited to, protection of vulnerable communities. Considerations may include limitations on the presence of environmental and atmospheric conditions necessary to execute treatment prescriptions (e.g., the limited seasonal windows during which prescribed burning can occur when vegetation moisture, weather, wind, and other physical conditions are suitable). If it is infeasible to avoid loss of common bird nests (not including raptor nests), the project proponent will document the reasons implementation of the avoidance strategies is infeasible in the PSA. After completion of the PSA and prior to or during treatment implementation, if there is any change in the feasibility of avoidance strategies from those explained in the PSA, this will be documented in the post -project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report). The following avoidance strategies may also be considered together with or in lieu of other actions for implementation by a project proponent to avoid disturbance to raptor nests: ► Monitor Active Raptor Nest During Treatment. A qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician will monitor an active raptor nest during treatment activities to identify signs of agitation, nest defense, or other behaviors that signal disturbance of the active nest is likely (e.g., standing up from a brooding position, flying off the nest). If breeding raptors are showing signs of nest disturbance, one of the other avoidance strategies (establish buffer, modify treatment or defer treatment) will be implemented or a pause in the treatment activity will occur until the disturbance behavior ceases. ► Retention of Raptor Nest Trees. Trees with visible raptor nests, whether occupied or not, will be retained. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 157 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resource Standard Project Requirements SPR GEO-1 Suspend Disturbance during Heavy Precipitation: The project proponent will Initial Treatment: suspend mechanical, prescribed herbivory, and herbicide treatments if the National Weather Service forecast is a "chance' (30 percent or more) of rain within the next 24 hours. Activities that cause mechanical soil disturbance may resume when precipitation stops and soils are no longer saturated (i.e., when soil and/or surface material pore Treatment Maintenance: spaces are filled with water to such an extent that runoff is likely to occur). Indicators of saturated soil conditions may include, but are not limited to: (1) areas of ponded water, (2) pumping of fines from the soil or road surfacing, (3) loss of bearing strength resulting in the deflection of soil or road surfaces under a load, such as the creation of wheel ruts, (4) spinning or churning of wheels or tracks that produces a wet slurry, or (5) inadequate traction without blading wet soil or surfacing materials. This SPR applies only to mechanical, prescribed herbivory, and herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR GEO-2 Limit High Ground Pressure Vehicles: The project proponent will limit heavy equipment that could cause soil disturbance or compaction to be driven through treatment areas when soils are wet and saturated to avoid compaction and/or damage to soil structure. Saturated soil means that soil and/or surface material pore spaces are filled with water to such an extent that runoff is likely to occur. If use of heavy equipment is required in saturated areas, other measures such as operating on organic debris, using low ground pressure vehicles, or operating on frozen soils/snow covered soils will be implemented to minimize soil compaction. Existing compacted road surfaces are exempted as they are already compacted from use. This SPR applies only to mechanical treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR GEO-3 Stabilize Disturbed Soil Areas: The project proponent will stabilize soil Initial Treatment: disturbed during mechanical, prescribed herbivory treatments, and prescribed burns that result in exposure of bare soil over 50 percent or more of the treatment area with mulch or equivalent immediately after treatment activities, to the maximum extent practicable, to minimize the potential for substantial sediment discharge. If mechanical, prescribed Treatment Maintenance: herbivory, or prescribed burn treatment activities could result in substantial sediment discharge from soil disturbed by machinery, animal hooves, or being bare, organic material from mastication or mulch will be incorporated onto at least 75 percent of the disturbed soil surface where the soil erosion hazard is moderate or high, and 50 percent of the disturbed soil surface where soil erosion hazard is low to help prevent erosion. Where slash mulch is used, it will be packed into the ground surface with heavy equipment so that it is sufficiently in contact with the soil surface. This SPR only applies to mechanical, prescribed herbivory, and prescribed burns that result in exposure of December 2019 PD-3 158 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity bare soil over 50 percent of the project area treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR GEO-4 Erosion Monitoring: The project proponent will inspect treatment areas for Initial Treatment: the proper implementation of erosion control SPRs and mitigations prior to the rainy season. If erosion control measures are not properly implemented, they will be remediated prior to the first rainfall event per SPR GEO-3 and GEO-8. Additionally, the project proponent will inspect for evidence of erosion after the first large storm or Treatment Maintenance: rainfall event (i.e., >_ 1.5 inches in 24 hours) as soon as is feasible after the event. Any area of erosion that will result in substantial sediment discharge will be remediated within 48 hours per the methods stated in SPRs GEO-3 and GEO-8. This SPR applies only to mechanical, prescribed herbivory, and prescribed burning treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR GEO-5 Drain Stormwater via Water Breaks: The project proponent will drain Initial Treatment: compacted and/or bare linear treatment areas capable of generating storm runoff via water breaks using the spacing and erosion control guidelines contained in Sections 914.6, 934.6, and 954.6(c) of the California Forest Practice Rules (February 2019 version). Where waterbreaks cannot effectively disperse surface runoff, including where Treatment Maintenance: waterbreaks cause surface run-off to be concentrated on downslopes, other erosion controls will be installed as needed to maintain site productivity by minimizing soil loss. This SPR applies only to mechanical, manual, and prescribed burn treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR GEO-6 Minimize Burn Pile Size: The project proponent will not create burn piles that Initial Treatment: exceed 20 feet in length, width, or diameter, except when on landings, road surfaces, or on contour to minimize the spatial extent of soil damage. In addition, burn piles will not occupy more than 15 percent of the total treatment area (Busse et al. 2014). The project proponent will not locate burn piles in a Watercourse and Lake Protection Zone as Treatment Maintenance: defined in SPR HYD-4. This SPR applies to mechanical, manual, and prescribed burning treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR GEO-7 Minimize Erosion: To minimize erosion, the project proponent will: Initial Treatment: (1) Prohibit use of heavy equipment where any of the following conditions are present: (i) Slopes steeper than 65 percent. (ii) Slopes steeper than 50 percent where the erosion hazard rating is high or extreme. Treatment Maintenance: (iii) Slopes steeper than 50 percent that lead without flattening to sufficiently dissipate water flow and trap sediment before it reaches a watercourse or lake. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 159 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity (2) On slopes between 50 percent and 65 percent where the erosion hazard rating is moderate, and all slope percentages are for average slope steepness based on sample areas that are 20 acres, or less, heavy equipment will be limited to: (i) Existing tractor roads that do not require reconstruction, or (ii) New tractor roads flagged by the project proponent prior to the treatment activity. (3) Prescribed herbivory treatments will not be used in areas with over 50 percent slope. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR GEO-8 Steep Slopes: The project proponent will require a Registered Professional Initial Treatment: Forester (RPF) or licensed geologist to evaluate treatment areas with slopes greater than 50 percent for unstable areas (areas with potential for landslide) and unstable soils (soil with moderate to high erosion hazard). If unstable areas or soils are identified within the treatment area, are unavoidable, and will be potentially directly or indirectly affected by Treatment Maintenance: the treatment, a licensed geologist (P.G. or C.E.G.) will determine the potential for landslide, erosion, of other issue related to unstable soils and identity measures (e.g., those in SPR GEO-7) that will be implemented by the project proponent such that substantial erosion or loss of topsoil would not occur. This SPR applies only to mechanical treatment activities and WUI fuel reduction, non -shaded fuel breaks, and ecological restoration treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standard Project Requirements SPR GHG-1 Contribute to the AB 1504 Carbon Inventory Process: The project proponent Initial Treatment: of treatment projects subject to the AB 1504 process will provide all necessary data about the treatment that is needed by the U.S. Forest Service and FRAP to fulfill requirements of the AB 1504 carbon inventory, and to aid in the ongoing research about the long-term net change in carbon sequestration resulting from treatment activity. This Treatment Maintenance: SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Hazardous Material and Public Health and Safety Standard Project Requirements SPR HAZ-1 Maintain All Equipment: The project proponent will maintain all diesel- and Initial Treatment: gasoline -powered equipment per manufacturer's specifications, and in compliance with all state and federal emissions requirements. Maintenance records will be available for verification. Prior to the start of treatment activities, the project proponent will inspect all equipment for leaks and inspect everyday thereafter until equipment is removed from Treatment Maintenance: the site. Any equipment found leaking will be promptly removed. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 160 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity SPR HAZ-2 Require Spark Arrestors: The project proponent will require mechanized Initial Treatment: hand tools to have federal- or state -approved spark arrestors. This SPR applies only to manual treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Treatment Maintenance: SPR HAZ-3 Require Fire Extinguishers: The project proponent will require tree cutting Initial Treatment: crews to carry one fire extinguisher per chainsaw. Each vehicle would be equipped with one long -handled shovel and one axe or Pulaski consistent with PRC Section 4428. This SPR applies only to manual treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Treatment Maintenance: SPR HAZ-4 Prohibit Smoking in Vegetated Areas: The project proponent will require that Initial Treatment: smoking is only permitted in designated smoking areas barren or cleared to mineral soil at least 3 feet in diameter (PRC Section 4423.4). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Treatment Maintenance: SPR HAZ-5 Spill Prevention and Response Plan: The project proponent or licensed Pest Initial Treatment: Control Advisor (PCA) will prepare a Spill Prevention and Response Plan (SPRP) prior to beginning any herbicide treatment activities to provide protection to onsite workers, the public, and the environment from accidental leaks or spills of herbicides, adjuvants, or other potential contaminants. The SPRP will include (but not be limited to): Treatment Maintenance: ► a map that delineates staging areas, and storage, loading, and mixing areas for herbicides; ► a list of items required in an onsite spill kit that will be maintained throughout the life of the activity; ► procedures for the proper storage, use, and disposal of any herbicides, adjuvants, or other chemicals used in vegetation treatment. This SPR applies only to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HAZ-6 Comply with Herbicide Application Regulations: The project proponent will Initial Treatment: coordinate pesticide use with the applicable County Agricultural Commissioner(s), and all required licenses and permits will be obtained prior to herbicide application. The project proponent will prepare all herbicide applications to do the following: ► Be implemented consistent with recommendations prepared annually by a licensed Treatment Maintenance: PCA. ► Comply with all appropriate laws and regulations pertaining to the use of pesticides and safety standards for employees and the public, as governed by the EPA, DPR, and applicable local jurisdictions. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 161 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► Adhere to label directions for application rates and methods, storage, transportation, mixing, container disposal, and weather limitations to application such as wind speed, humidity, temperature, and precipitation. ► Be applied by an applicator appropriately licensed by the State. This SPR applies only to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HAZ-7 Triple Rinse Herbicide Containers: The project proponent will triple rinse all Initial Treatment: herbicide and adjuvant containers with clean water at an approved site, and dispose of rinsate by placing it in the batch tank for application per 3 CCR Section 6684. The project proponent will puncture used containers on the top and bottom to render them unusable, unless said containers are part of a manufacturer's container recycling Treatment Maintenance: program, in which case the manufacturer's instructions will be followed. Disposal of non - recyclable containers will be at legal dumpsites. Equipment will not be cleaned, and personnel will not be washed in a manner that would allow contaminated water to directly enter any body of water within the treatment area or adjacent watersheds. Disposal of all herbicides will follow label requirements and waste disposal regulations. This SPR applies only to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HAZ-8 Minimize Herbicide Drift to Public Areas: The project proponent will employ Initial Treatment: the following herbicide application parameters during herbicide application to minimize drift into public areas: ► application will cease when weather parameters exceed label specifications or when sustained winds at the site of application exceeds 7 miles per hour (whichever is more Treatment Maintenance: conservative); ► spray nozzles will be configured to produce the largest appropriate droplet size to minimize drift; ► low nozzle pressures (30-70 pounds per square inch) will be utilized to minimize drift; and P. spray nozzles will be kept within 24 inches of vegetation during spraying. This SPR applies only to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HAZ-9 Notification of Herbicide Use in the Vicinity of Public Areas: For herbicide Initial Treatment: applications occurring within or adjacent to public recreation areas, residential areas, schools, or any other public areas within S00 feet, the project proponent will post signs at each end of herbicide treatment areas and any intersecting trails notifying the public of the use of herbicides. The signs will include the signal word (i.e., Danger, Warning or Treatment Maintenance: Caution), product name, and manufacturer; active ingredient; EPA registration number; target pest; treatment location; date and time of application; restricted entry interval, if December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 162 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity applicable per the label requirements; date which notification sign may be removed; and a contact person with a telephone number. Signs will be posted prior to the start of treatment and notification will remain in place for at least 72 hours after treatment ceases. This SPR applies only to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Hydrology and Water Quality Standard Project Requirements SPR HYD-1 Comply with Water Quality Regulations: Project proponents must also Initial Treatment: conduct proposed vegetation treatments in conformance with appropriate RWQCB timber, vegetation and land disturbance related Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and/or related Conditional Waivers of Waste Discharge Requirements (Waivers), and appropriate Basin Plan Prohibitions. Where these regulatory requirements differ, the Treatment Maintenance: most restrictive will apply. If applicable, this includes compliance with the conditions of general waste discharge requirements (WDR) and waste discharge requirement waivers for timber or silviculture activities where these waivers are designed to apply to non- commercial fuel reduction and forest health projects. In general, WDR and Waivers of waste discharge requirements for fuel reduction and forest health activities require that wastes, including but not limited to petroleum products, soil, silt, sand, clay, rock, felled trees, slash, sawdust, bark, ash, and pesticides must not be discharged to surface waters or placed where it may be carried into surface waters; and that Water Board staff must be allowed reasonable access to the property in order to determine compliance with the waiver conditions. The specifications for each WDR and Waiver vary by region. Regions 2 (San Francisco Bay), 4 (Los Angeles), 8 (Santa Ana), and 7 (Colorado River) are highly urban or minimally forested and do not offer WDRs or Waivers for fuel reduction or vegetation management activities. The current applicable WDRs and Waivers for timber and vegetation management activities are included in Appendix HYD-1. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HYD-2 Avoid Construction of New Roads: The project proponent will not construct Initial Treatment: or reconstruct (i.e., cutting or filling involving less than 50 cubic yards/0.25 linear road miles) any new roads (including temporary roads). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Treatment Maintenance: SPR HYD-3 Water Quality Protections for Prescribed Herbivory: The project proponent will Initial Treatment: include the following water quality protections for all prescribed herbivory treatments: ► Environmentally sensitive areas such as waterbodies, wetlands, or riparian areas will be identified in the treatment prescription and excluded from prescribed herbivory project areas using temporary fencing or active herding. A buffer of approximately 50 Treatment Maintenance: feet will be maintained between sensitive and actively grazed areas. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 163 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► Water will be provided for grazing animals in the form of an on -site stock pond or a portable water source located outside of environmentally sensitive areas. ► Treatment prescriptions will be designed to protect soil stability. Grazing animals will be herded out of an area if accelerated soil erosion is observed. This SPR applies to prescribed herbivory treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HYD-4 Identify and Protect Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones: The project Initial Treatment: proponent will establish Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones (WLPZs) on either side of watercourses as defined in the table below, which is based on 14 CCR Section 916.5 of the California Forest Practice Rules (February 2019 version). WLPZ's are classified based on the uses of the stream and the presence of aquatic life. Wider WLPZs are Treatment Maintenance: required for steep slopes. Procedures for Determining Watercourse and Lake Protection Zone (WLPZ) widths Water Class Class I Class II Class III Class IV Water Class 1) Domestic 1) Fish always or No aquatic life Man-made Characteristics supplies, seasonally present, watercourses, or Key including present offsite watercourse usually Indicator springs, on site within 1000 feet showing downstream, Beneficial Use and/or within downstream evidence of established 100 feet and/or being capable domestic, downstream of 2) Aquatic of sediment agricultural, the operations habitat for transport to hydroelectric area and/or nonfish aquatic Class I and 11 supply or other 2) Fish always or species. waters under beneficial use. seasonally 3) Excludes normal high - present onsite, Class III waters water flow includes habitat that are conditions after to sustain fish tributary to completion of migration and Class I waters. timber spawning. operations. WLPZ Width (ft) — Distance from top of bank to the edge of WLPZ < 30 % Slope 75 50 Sufficient to prevent the 30-50 % Slope 100 75 December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 1 64 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity >50 % Slope 150 100 degradation of downstream beneficial uses of water. Determined on a site -specific basis. Source: 14 CCR Section 916.5 [936.5, 956.5] (Februar( 2019 version) The following WLPZ protections will be applied for all treatments: ► Treatment activities with WLPZs will retain at least 75 percent surface cover and undisturbed area to act as a filter strip for raindrop energy dissipation and for wildlife habitat. If this percentage is reduced a qualified RPF will provide the project proponent with a site- and/or treatment activity -specific explanation for the percent surface cover reduction, which will be included in the PSA. After completion of the PSA and prior to or during treatment implementation, if there is any deviation (e.g., further reduction) from the reduced percent as explained in the PSA, this will be documented in the post -project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report). This requirement is based on 14 CCR Section 916.4 [936.4, 956.4] Subsection (b)(6) (February 2019 version) and 14 CCR Section 916.5 (February 2019 version). ► Equipment, including tractors and vehicles, must not be driven in wet areas or WLPZs, except over existing roads or watercourse crossings where vehicle tires or tracks remain dry. ► Equipment used in vegetation removal operations will not be serviced in WLPZs, within wet meadows or other wet areas, or in locations that would allow grease, oil, or fuel to pass into lakes, watercourses, or wet areas. ► WLPZs will be kept free of slash, debris, and other material that harm the beneficial uses of water. Accidental deposits will be removed immediately. ► Burn piles will be located outside of WLPZs. ► No fire ignition (nor use of associated accelerants) will occur within WLPZs however low intensity backing fires may be allowed to enter or spread into WLPZs. P. Within Class I and Class II WLPZs, locations where project operations expose a continuous area of mineral soil 800 square feet or larger shall be treated for reduction of soil loss. Treatment shall occur prior to October 15th and disturbances that are created after October 15th shall be treated within 10 days. Stabilization measures shall be selected that will prevent significant movement of soil into water Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 165 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity bodies and may include but are not limited to mulching, rip -rap, grass seeding, or chemical soil stabilizers. ► Where mineral soil has been exposed by project operations on approaches to watercourse crossings of Class I, II, or III within a WLPZ, the disturbed area shall be stabilized to the extent necessary to prevent the discharge of soil into watercourses or lakes in amounts that would adversely affect the quality and beneficial uses of the watercourse. ► Where necessary to protect beneficial uses of water from project operations, protection measures such as seeding, mulching, or replanting shall be used to retain and improve the natural ability of the ground cover within the WLPZ to filter sediment, minimize soil erosion, and stabilize banks of watercourses and lakes. ► Equipment limitation zones (ELZs) will be designated adjacent to Class III and Class IV watercourses with minimum widths of 25 feet where side -slope is less than 30 percent and 50 feet where side -slope is 30 percent or greater. An RPF will describe the limitations of heavy equipment within the ELZ and, where appropriate, will include additional measures to protect the beneficial uses of water. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HYD-5 Protect Non -Target Vegetation and Special -status Species from Herbicides: Initial Treatment: The project proponent will implement the following measures when applying herbicides: ► Locate herbicide mixing sites in areas devoid of vegetation and where there is no potential of a spill reaching non -target vegetation or a waterway. ► Use only herbicides labeled for use in aquatic environments when working in riparian Treatment Maintenance: habitats or other areas where there is a possibility the herbicide could come into direct contact with water. Only hand application of herbicides will be allowed in riparian habitats and only during low -flow periods or when seasonal streams are dry. ► No terrestrial or aquatic herbicides will be applied within WLPZs of Class I and II watercourses, if feasible. If this is not feasible, hand application of herbicides labeled for use in aquatic environments may be used within the WLPZ provided that the project proponent notifies the applicable regional water quality control board no fewer than 15 days prior to herbicide application. The feasibility of avoiding herbicide application within WLPZ of Class I and II watercourses will be determined by the project proponent and may be based on whether doing so will preclude achieving CaIVTP program objectives, including, but not limited to, protection of vulnerable communities. The reasons for infeasibility will be documented in the PSA. ► No herbicides will be applied within a 50-foot buffer of ESA or CESA listed plant species or within 50 feet of dry vernal pools. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 166 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► For spray applications in and adjacent to habitats suitable for special -status species, use herbicides containing dye (registered for aquatic use by DPR, if warranted) to prevent overspray. ► Application will cease when weather parameters exceed label specifications or when sustained winds at the site of application exceeds 7 miles per hour (whichever is more conservative); ► No herbicide will be applied during precipitation events or if precipitation is forecast 24 hours before or after project activities. This SPR applies to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR HYD-6 Protect Existing Drainage Systems: If a treatment activity is adjacent to a Initial Treatment: roadway with stormwater drainage infrastructure, the existing stormwater drainage infrastructure will be marked prior to ground disturbing activities. If a drainage structure or infiltration system is inadvertently disturbed or modified during project activities, the project proponent will coordinate with owner of the system or feature to repair any Treatment Maintenance: damage and restore pre -project drainage conditions. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Noise Standard Project Requirements SPR NO1-1 Limit Heavy Equipment Use to Daytime Hours: The project proponent will Initial Treatment: require that operation of heavy equipment associated with treatment activities (heavy off -road equipment, tools, and delivery of equipment and materials) will occur during daytime hours if such noise would be audible to receptors (e.g., residential land uses, schools, hospitals, places of worship). Cities and counties in the treatable landscape Treatment Maintenance: typically restrict construction -noise (which would apply to vegetation treatment noise) to particular daytime hours. If the project proponent is subject to local noise ordinance, it will adhere to those to the extent the project is subject to them. If the applicable jurisdiction does not have a noise ordinance or policy restricting the time -of -day when noise -generating activity can occur noise -generating vegetation treatment activity will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sunday and federal holidays. If the project proponent is not subject to local ordinances (e.g., CAL FIRE), it will adhere to the restrictions stated above or may elect to adhere to the restrictions identified by the local ordinance encompassing the treatment area. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR NO1-2 Equipment Maintenance: The project proponent will require that all powered Initial Treatment: treatment equipment and power tools will be used and maintained according to manufacturer specifications. All diesel- and gasoline -powered treatment equipment will be Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 1 67 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity properly maintained and equipped with noise -reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations. This SPR applies to Treatment Maintenance: all activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR NO1-3 Engine Shroud Closure: The project proponent will require that engine Initial Treatment: shrouds be closed during equipment operation. This SPR applies only to mechanical treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Treatment Maintenance: SPR NO1-4 Locate Staging Areas Away from Noise -Sensitive Land Uses: The project Initial Treatment: proponent will locate treatment activities, equipment, and equipment staging areas away from nearby noise -sensitive land uses (e.g., residential land uses, schools, hospitals, places of worship), to the extent feasible, to minimize noise exposure. This SPR applies to all Treatment Maintenance: treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. SPR NO1-5 Restrict Equipment Idle Time: The project proponent will require that all Initial Treatment: motorized equipment be shut down when not in use. Idling of equipment and haul trucks will be limited to 5 minutes. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Treatment Maintenance: SPR NO1-6 Notify Nearby Off -Site Noise -Sensitive Receptors: For treatment activities Initial Treatment: utilizing heavy equipment, the project proponent will notify noise -sensitive receptors (e.g., residential land uses, schools, hospitals, places of worship) located within 1,500 feet of the treatment activity. Notification will include anticipated dates and hours during which treatment activities are anticipated to occur and contact information, including a Treatment Maintenance: daytime telephone number, of the project representative. Recommendations to assist noise -sensitive land uses in reducing interior noise levels (e.g., closing windows and doors) will also be included in the notification. This SPR applies only to mechanical treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Recreation Standard Project Requirements SPR REC-1 Notify Recreational Users of Temporary Closures. If a treatment activity would Initial Treatment: require temporary closure of a public recreation area or facility, the project proponent to will coordinate with the owner/manager of that recreation area or facility. If temporary closure of a recreation area or facility is required, the project proponent will work with the owner/manager to post notifications of the closure at least 2 weeks prior to the Treatment Maintenance: commencement of the treatment activities. Additionally, notification of the treatment activity will be provided to the Administrative Officer (or equivalent official responsible for distribution of public information) of the county(ies) in which the affected recreation area or facility is located. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Transportation Standard Project Requirements December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 168 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity SPR TRAN-1 Implement Traffic Control during Treatments: Prior to initiating vegetation Initial Treatment: treatment activities the project proponent will work with the agency(ies) with jurisdiction over affected roadways to determine if a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is needed. A TMP will be needed if traffic generated by the project would result in obstructions, hazards, or delays exceeding applicable jurisdictional standards along access routes for Treatment Maintenance: individual vegetation treatments. If needed, a TMP will be prepared to provide measures to reduce potential traffic obstructions, hazards, and service level degradation along affected roadway facilities. The scope of the TMP will depend on the type, intensity, and duration of the specific treatment activities under the CaIVTP. Measures included in the TMP could include (but are not be limited to) construction signage to provide motorists with notification and information when approaching or traveling along the affected roadway facilities, flaggers for lane closures to provide temporary traffic control along affected roadway facilities, treatment schedule restrictions to avoid seasons or time periods of peak vehicle traffic, haul -trip, delivery, and/or commute time restrictions that would be implemented to avoid peak traffic days and times along affected roadway facilities. If the TMP identifies impacts on transportation facilities outside of the jurisdiction of the project proponent, the TMP will be submitted to the agency with jurisdiction over the affected roadways prior to commencement of vegetation treatment projects. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Smoke generated during prescribed burn operations could potentially affect driver Initial Treatment: visibility and traffic operations along nearby roadways. Direct smoke impacts to roadway visibility and indirect impacts related to driver distraction will be considered during the planning phase of burning operations. Smoke impacts and smoke management practices specific to traffic operations during prescribed fire operations will be identified Treatment Maintenance: and addressed within the TMP. The TMP will include measures to monitor smoke dispersion onto public roadways, and traffic control operations will be initiated in the event burning operations could affect traffic safety along any roadways. This SPR applies only to prescribed burn treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Public Services and Utilities Standard Project Requirements SPR UTIL-1: Solid Organic Waste Disposition Plan. For projects requiring the disposal of Initial Treatment: material outside of the treatment area, the project proponent will prepare an Organic Waste Disposition Plan prior to initiating treatment activities. The Solid Organic Waste Disposition Plan will include the amount (e.g., tons) of solid organic waste to be managed onsite (i.e., scattering of wood materials, generating unburned piles, and pile burning) and Treatment Maintenance: transported offsite for processing (i.e., biomass power plant, wood product processing Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 169 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Standard Project Requirements Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monito(ng Entity facility, composting). If the project proponent intends to transport solid organic waste offsite, the Solid Organic Waste Disposition Plan will clearly identify the location and capacity of the intended processing facility, consistent with local and state regulations to demonstrate that adequate capacity exists to accept the treated materials. This SPR applies only to mechanical and manual treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity Aesthetics and Visual Resources Mitigation Measure AES-3: Conduct Visual Reconnaissance for Non -Shaded Fuel Breaks Initial Treatment: and Relocate or Feather and Screen Publicly Visible Non -Shaded Fuel Breaks The project proponent will conduct a visual reconnaissance of the treatment area prior to implementing non -shaded fuel breaks to observe the surrounding landscape and determine if public viewing locations, including scenic vistas, public trails, and state scenic Treatment Maintenance: highways, have views of the proposed treatment area. If none are identified, the non - shaded fuel break may be implemented without additional visual mitigation. If the project proponent identifies public viewing points, including heavily used scenic vistas, public trails, recreation areas, and state scenic highways with lengthy views (i.e., longer than a few seconds) of a proposed non -shaded fuel break treatment area, the project proponent will, prior to implementation, attempt to identify any feasible change in location of the fuel break to reduce its visibility from public viewpoints. If no feasible location changes exist that would reduce impacts to public viewers and achieve the intended wildfire risk reduction objectives of the proposed non -shaded fuel break, the project proponent will implement, where feasible, a shaded fuel break rather than a non -shaded fuel break, if the shaded fuel break would achieve the intended wildfire risk reduction objectives. With the shaded fuel break, the project proponent will thin and feather adjacent vegetation to break up the linear edges of the fuel break and strategically preserve vegetation at the edge of the fuel break, as feasible, to help screen public views and minimize the contrast between the fuel break and surrounding vegetation. Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement On -Road Vehicle and Off -Road Equipment Exhaust Initial Treatment: Emission Reduction Techniques Where feasible, project proponents will implement emission reduction techniques to reduce exhaust emissions from off -road equipment. It is acknowledged that due to cost, availability, and the limits of current technology, there may be circumstances where Treatment Maintenance: December 2019 PD-3 170 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity implementation of certain emission reduction techniques will not feasible. The project proponent will document the emission reduction techniques that will be applied and will explain the reasons other techniques that could reduce emissions are infeasible. Techniques for reducing emissions may include, but are not limited to, the following: P. Diesel -powered off -road equipment used in construction will meet EPA's Tier 4 emission standards as defined in 40 CFR 1039 and comply with the exhaust emission test procedures and provisions of 40 CFR Parts 1065 and 1068. Tier 3 models can be used if a Tier 4 version of the equipment type is not yet produced by manufacturers. This measure can also be achieved by using battery -electric off -road equipment as it becomes available. Prior to implementation of treatment activities, the project proponent will demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant equipment. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification or model year specification and operating permit (if applicable) will be available upon request at the time of mobilization of each unit of equipment. ► Use renewable diesel fuel in diesel -powered construction equipment. Renewable diesel fuel must meet the following criteria: ■ meet California's Low Carbon Fuel Standards and be certified by CARB Executive Officer; ■ be hydrogenation -derived (reaction with hydrogen at high temperatures) from 100 percent biomass material (i.e., non -petroleum sources), such as animal fats and vegetables; ■ contain no fatty acids or functionalized fatty acid esters; and ■ have a chemical structure that is identical to petroleum -based diesel and complies with American Society for Testing and Materials D975 requirements for diesel fuels to ensure compatibility with all existing diesel engines. ► Electric- and gasoline -powered equipment will be substituted for diesel -powered equipment. ► Workers will be encouraged to carpool to work sites, and/or use public transportation for their commutes. ► Off -road equipment, diesel trucks, and generators will be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM. Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Protect Inadvertent Discoveries of Unique Archaeological Initial Treatment: Resources or Subsurface Historical Resources If any prehistoric or historic -era subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including locally darkened soil ("midden"), that could conceal cultural deposits, are discovered during ground -disturbing activities, all ground -disturbing activity within 100 feet of the Treatment Maintenance: Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 171 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity resources will be halted and a qualified archaeologist will assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist will work with the project proponent to develop a primary records report that will comply with applicable state or local agency procedures. If the archaeologist determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, a data recovery plan will be prepared. If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist (i.e., because the find constitutes a unique archaeological resource, subsurface historical resource, or tribal cultural resource), the archaeologist will work with the project proponent to develop appropriate procedures to protect the integrity of the resource. Procedures could include preservation in place (which is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites), archival research, subsurface testing, or recovery of scientifically consequential information from and about the resource. Any find will be recorded standard DPR Primary Record forms (Form DPR 523) will be submitted to the appropriate regional information center. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Avoid Loss of Special -Status Plants Listed under ESA or CESA Initial Treatment: If listed plants are determined to be present through application of SPR BIO-1 and SPR BIO-7, the project proponent will avoid and protect these species by establishing a no - disturbance buffer around the area occupied by listed plants and marking the buffer boundary with high -visibility flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape Treatment Maintenance: demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway), exceptions to this requirement are listed later in this measure. The no -disturbance buffers will generally be a minimum of 50 feet from listed plants, but the size and shape of the buffer zone may be adjusted if a qualified RPF or botanist determines that a smaller buffer will be sufficient to avoid killing or damaging listed plants or that a larger buffer is necessary to sufficiently protect plants from the treatment activity. The appropriate buffer size will be determined based on plant phenology at the time of treatment (e.g., whether the plants are in a dormant, vegetative, or flowering state), the individual species' vulnerability to the treatment method being used, and environmental conditions and terrain. For example, paint -on or wicking application of herbicides to invasive plants may be implemented within 50 feet of listed plant species without posing a risk, especially if the listed plants are dormant at the time of application. Consideration of factors such as site hydrology, changes in light, edge effects, and potential introduction of invasive plants and noxious weeds may inform the determination of buffer width. If a no -disturbance buffer is reduced below 50 feet from a listed plant, a qualified RPF or botanist will provide the project proponent with a site - and/or treatment activity -specific explanation for the buffer reduction, which will be included in the PSA. After completion of the PSA and prior to or during treatment implementation, if there is any deviation (e.g., further reduction) from the reduced buffer as explained in the PSA, this will be documented in the post -project implementation December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 172 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report) with a science -based justification for the deviation. No fire ignition (nor use of associated accelerants) will occur within 50 feet of listed plants. For species listed under ESA or CESA, if the project proponent cannot avoid loss by implementing no -disturbance buffers, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1c. The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or botanist, in consultation with CDFW and USFWS, as appropriate depending on species status and location, that the listed plants would benefit from treatment in the occupied habitat area even though some of the listed plants may be lost during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to listed special -status plants, the qualified RPF or botanist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the species (or similar species) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced competition for resources), and the substantial evidence will be included in the PSA. If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to listed plants, no compensatory mitigation for loss of individuals will be required. Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Avoid Loss of Special -Status Plants Not Listed Under ESA or Initial Treatment: CESA If non -listed special -status plant species (i.e., species not listed under ESA or CESA, but meeting the definition of special -status as stated in Section 3.6.1 of the Program EIR) are determined to be present through application of SPR BIO-1 and SPR BIO-7, the project Treatment Maintenance: proponent will implement the following measures to avoid loss of individuals and maintain habitat function of occupied habitat: ► Physically avoid the area occupied by the special -status plants by establishing a no - disturbance buffer around the area occupied by species and marking the buffer boundary with high -visibility flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway). The no -disturbance buffers will generally be a minimum of 50 feet from special -status plants, but the size and shape of the buffer zone may be adjusted if a qualified RPF or botanist determines that a smaller buffer will be sufficient to avoid loss of or damaging to special -status plants or that a larger buffer is necessary to sufficiently protect plants from the treatment activity. The appropriate size and shape of the buffer zone will be determined by a qualified RPF or botanist and will depend on plant phenology at the time of treatment (e.g., whether the plants are in a dormant, vegetative, or flowering state), the individual species' vulnerability to the treatment method being used, and environmental Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 1 73 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity conditions and terrain. Consideration of factors such as site hydrology, changes in light, edge effects, and potential introduction of invasive plants and noxious weeds may inform an appropriate buffer size and shape. P. Treatments may be conducted within this buffer if the potentially affected special - status plant species is a geophytic, stump -sprouting, or annual species, and the treatment can be conducted outside of the growing season (e.g., after it has completed its annual life cycle) or during the dormant season using only treatment activities that would not damage the stump, root system or other underground parts of special -status plants or destroy the seedbank. ► Treatments will be designed to maintain the function of special -status plant habitat. For example, for a fuel break proposed in treatment areas occupied by special -status plants, if the removal of shade cover would degrade the special -status plant habitat despite the requirement to physically or seasonally avoid the special -status plant itself, habitat function would be diminished and the treatment would need to be modified or precluded from implementation. ► No fire ignition (nor use of associated accelerants) will occur within the special -status plant buffer. A qualified RPF or botanist with knowledge of the special -status plant species habitat and life history will review the treatment design and applicable impact minimization measures (potentially including others not listed above) to determine if the anticipated residual effects of the treatment would be significant under CEQA because implementation of the treatment would not maintain habitat function of the special -status plant habitat (i.e., the habitat would be rendered unsuitable) or because the loss of special -status plants would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a special -status plant species. If the project proponent determines the impact on special -status plants would be less than significant, no further mitigation will be required. If the project proponent determines that the loss of special -status plants or degradation of occupied habitat would be significant under CEQA after implementing feasible treatment design alternatives and impact minimization measures, then Mitigation Measure BIO-1c will be implemented. The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or botanist that the special -status plants would benefit from treatment in the occupied habitat area even though some of the non -listed special -status plants may be killed during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to non - listed special -status plants, the qualified RPF or botanist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the species (or similar species) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced competition for resources), and the substantial December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 174 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity evidence will be included in the PSA. If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to special -status plants, no compensatory mitigation will be required. Mitigation Measure BIO-1c: Compensate for Unavoidable Loss of Special -Status Plants Initial Treatment: If significant impacts on listed or non -listed special -status plants cannot feasibly be avoided as specified under the circumstances described under Mitigation Measures 13I0- 1a and 1b, the project proponent will prepare a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that identifies the residual significant impacts that require compensatory mitigation and Treatment Maintenance: describes the compensatory mitigation strategy being implemented and how unavoidable losses of special -status plants will be compensated. The project proponent will consult with CDFW and/or any other applicable responsible agency prior to finalizing the Compensatory Mitigation Plan to satisfy that responsible agency's requirements (e.g., permits, approvals) within the plan. If the special -status plant taxa are listed under ESA or CESA, the plan will be submitted to CDFW and/or USFWS (as appropriate) for review and comment. The first priority for compensatory mitigation will be preserving and enhancing existing populations outside of the treatment area in perpetuity, or if that is not an option because existing populations that can be preserved in perpetuity are not available, one of the following mitigation options will be implemented by the project proponent instead: ► creating populations on mitigation sites outside of the treatment area through seed collection and dispersal (annual species) or transplantation (perennial species); ► purchasing mitigation credits from a CDFW- or USFWS-approved conservation or mitigation bank in sufficient quantities to offset the loss of occupied habitat; and ► if the affected special -status plants are not listed under ESA or CESA, compensatory mitigation may include restoring or enhancing degraded habitats so that they are made suitable to support special -status plant species in the future. If relocation efforts are part of the Compensatory Mitigation Plan, the plan will include details on the methods to be used, including collection, storage, propagation, receptor site preparation, installation, long-term protection and management, monitoring and reporting requirements, success criteria, and remedial action responsibilities should the initial effort fail to meet long-term monitoring requirements. The following performance standards will be applied for relocation: ► the extent of occupied area will be substantially similar to the affected occupied habitat and will be suitable for self -producing populations. Re-located/re-established populations will be considered suitable for self -producing when: P. habitat conditions allow for plants to reestablish annually for a minimum of 5 years with no human intervention, such as supplemental seeding; and Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 1 75 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► reestablished habitats contain an occupied area comparable to existing occupied habitat areas in similar habitat types in the region. If preservation of existing populations or creation of new populations is part of the mitigation plan, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a summary of the proposed compensation lands and actions (e.g., the number and type of credits, location of mitigation bank or easement, restoration or enhancement actions), parties responsible for the long-term management of the land, and the legal and funding mechanisms (e.g., holder of conservation easement or fee title). The project proponent will submit evidence that the necessary mitigation has been implemented or that the project proponent has entered into a legal agreement to implement it and that compensatory plant populations will be preserved in perpetuity. If mitigation includes dedication of conservation easements, purchase of mitigation credits, or other offsite conservation measures, the details of these measures will be included in the mitigation plan, including information on responsible parties for long- term management, conservation easement holders, long-term management requirements, funding assurances, and success criteria such as those listed above and other details, as appropriate to target the preservation of long term viable populations. If mitigation includes restoring or enhancing habitat within the treatment area or outside of the treatment area, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a description of the proposed habitat improvements, success criteria that demonstrate the performance standard of maintained habitat function has been met, legal and funding mechanisms, and parties responsible for long-term management and monitoring of the restored habitat. If the loss of occupied habitat cannot be offset (e.g., if preservation of existing populations or creation of new populations through relocation efforts are not available for a certain species), and as a result treatment activities would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of listed plant species, then the treatment will not qualify as within the scope of this PER Compensatory mitigation may be satisfied through compliance with permit conditions, or other authorizations obtained by the project proponent (e.g., incidental take permit for state -listed plants), if these requirements are equally or more effective than the mitigation identified above. Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Initial Treatment: Function for Listed Wildlife Species and California Fully Protected Species (All Treatment Activities) If California Fully Protected Species or species listed under ESA or CESA are observed during reconnaissance surveys (conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-1) or focused or Treatment Maintenance: December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 176 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity protocol -level surveys (conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-10), the project proponent will avoid adverse effects to the species by implementing the following. Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance of Individuals The project proponent will implement one of the following 2 measures to avoid mortality, injury, or disturbance of individuals: 1. Treatment will not be implemented within the occupied habitat. Any treatment activities outside occupied habitat will be a sufficient distance from the occupied habitat such that mortality, injury, or disturbance of the species will not occur, as determined by a qualified RPF or biologist using the most current and commonly - accepted science and considering published agency guidance; OR 2. Treatment will be implemented outside the sensitive period of the species' life history (e.g., outside the breeding or nesting season) during which the species may be more susceptible to disturbance, or disturbance could result in loss of eggs or young. For species present year-round, CDFW and/or USFWS/NOAA Fisheries will be consulted to determine if there is a period of time within which treatment could occur that would avoid mortality, injury, or disturbance of the species. ► For species listed under ESA or CESA, if the project proponent cannot avoid mortality, injury or disturbance by implementing one of the two options listed above, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c. ► Injury or mortality of California Fully Protected Species is prohibited pursuant to Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code and will be avoided. Maintain Habitat Function ► The project proponent will design treatment activities to maintain the habitat function, by implementing the following: ■ While performing review and surveys for SPR BIO-1 and SPR BIO-10, a qualified RPF or biologist will identify any habitat features that are necessary for survival (e.g., habitat necessary for breeding, foraging, shelter, movement) of the affected wildlife species (e.g., trees with complex structure, trees with large cavities, trees with nesting platforms; dens; tree snags; large raptor nests [including inactive nests]; downed woody debris; food sources). These habitat features will be marked and treatments applied to the features will be designed to minimize or avoid the loss or degradation of suitable habitat for listed species during treatments. Identification and treatment of these features will be based on the life history and habitat requirements of the affected species and the most current, commonly accepted science. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 177 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ■ If it is determined during implementation of SPR 13I0-1 and SPR BIO-10 that listed or fully protected wildlife with specific requirements for high canopy cover (e.g., Humboldt marten, fisher, spotted owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, riparian woodrat) are present within a treatment area, then tree or shrub canopy cover within existing suitable areas will be retained at the percentage preferred by the species (as determined by expert opinion, published habitat association information, or other documented standards that are commonly accepted [e.g., 50 percent for coastal California gnatcatcher]) such that habitat function is maintained. ► A qualified RPF or biologist will determine if, after implementation of the impact avoidance measures listed above, the habitat function will remain for the affected species after implementation of the treatment. Because this measure pertains to species listed under CESA or ESA or are fully protected, the qualified RPF or biologist will consult with CDFW and/or USFWS/NOAA Fisheries regarding the determination that habitat function is maintained. If consultation determines that the treatment will not maintain habitat function for the special -status species, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c. Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Initial Treatment: Function for Other Special -Status Wildlife Species (All Treatment Activities) If other special -status wildlife species (i.e., species not listed under CESA or ESA or California Fully Protected, but meeting the definition of special status as stated in Section 3.6.1 of the Program EIR) are observed during reconnaissance surveys (conducted Treatment Maintenance: pursuant to SPR BIO-1) or focused or protocol -level surveys (conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-10), the project proponent will avoid or minimize adverse effects to the species by implementing the following. Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance of Individuals ► The project proponent will implement the following to avoid mortality, injury, or disturbance of individuals: For all treatment activities except prescribed burning, the project proponent will establish a no -disturbance buffer around occupied sites (e.g., nests, dens, roosts, middens, burrows, nurseries). Buffer size will be determined by a qualified RPF or biologist using the most current, commonly accepted science and will consider published agency guidance; however, buffers will generally be a minimum of 100 feet, unless site conditions indicate a smaller buffer would be sufficient for protection or a larger buffer would be needed. Factors to be considered in determining buffer size will include, but not be limited to, the species' tolerance to disturbance; the presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography; nest height; locations of foraging territory; baseline levels of noise and human activity; and treatment activity. Buffer size may be adjusted if the December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 178 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity qualified RPF or biologist determines that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect (i.e., cause mortality, injury, or disturbance to) the species within the nest, den, burrow, or other occupied site. If a no -disturbance buffer is reduced below 100 feet from an occupied site, a qualified RPF or biologist will provide the project proponent with a site- and/or treatment activity -specific explanation for the buffer reduction, which will be included in the PSA. After completion of the PSA and prior to or during treatment implementation, if there is any deviation (e.g., further reduction) from the reduced buffer as explained in the PSA, this will be documented in the post -project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report). ► No -disturbance buffers will be marked with high -visibility flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway). No activity will occur within the buffer areas until the qualified RPF or biologist has determined that the young have fledged or dispersed; the nest, den, or other occurrence is no longer active; or reducing the buffer would not likely result in disturbance, mortality, or injury. A qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician will be required to monitor the effectiveness of the no -disturbance buffer around the nest, den, burrow, or other occurrence during treatment. If treatment activities cause agitated behavior of the individual(s), the buffer distance will be increased, or treatment activities modified until the agitated behavior stops. The qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician will have the authority to stop any treatment activities that could result in mortality, injury or disturbance to special -status species. ► For prescribed burning, the project proponent will implement the treatment outside the sensitive period of the species' life history (e.g., outside the breeding or nesting season) during which the species may be more susceptible to disturbance, or disturbance could result in loss of eggs or young. For species present year-round, the qualified RPF or biologist will determine the period of time within which prescribed burning could occur that will avoid or minimize mortality, injury, or disturbance of the species. The project proponent may consult with CDFW and/or USFWS for technical information regarding appropriate limited operating periods. Maintain Habitat Function ► For all treatment activities, the project proponent will design treatment activities to maintain the habitat function by implementing the following: ■ While performing review and surveys for SPR 131O-1 and SPR 131O-10, a qualified RPF or biologist will identify any habitat features that are necessary for survival (e.g., habitat necessary for breeding, foraging, shelter, movement) of the affected wildlife species (e.g., trees with complex structure, trees with large cavities, trees with nesting platforms; tree snags; large raptor nests [including inactive nests]; downed woody debris). These habitat features will be marked and treatments Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 1 79 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity applied to the features will be designed to minimize or avoid the loss or degradation of suitable habitat for listed species during treatments. Identification and treatment of these features will be based on the life history and habitat requirements of the affected species and the most current, commonly accepted science. ■ If it is determined during implementation of SPR BIO-1 and SPR BIO-10 that special -status wildlife with specific requirements for high canopy cover (e.g., northern goshawk, Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare) are present within a treatment area, then tree or shrub canopy cover within existing suitable areas will be retained at the percentage preferred by the species (as determined by expert opinion, published habitat association information, or other documented standards that are commonly accepted) such that the habitat function is maintained. ► A qualified RPF or biologist will determine if, after implementation of the impact avoidance measures listed above, the habitat function will remain for the affected species after implementation of the treatment. The qualified RPF or biologist may consult with CDFW and/or USFWS for technical information regarding habitat function. A qualified RPF or biologist with knowledge of the special -status wildlife species habitat and life history will review the treatment design and applicable impact minimization measures (potentially including others not listed above) to determine if the anticipated residual effects of the treatment would be significant under CEQA because implementation of the treatment will not maintain habitat function of the special -status wildlife species' habitat or because the loss of special -status wildlife would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a special -status wildlife species. If the project proponent determines the impact on special -status wildlife would be less than significant, no further mitigation will be required. If the project proponent determines that the loss of special -status wildlife or degradation of occupied habitat would be significant under CEQA after implementing feasible treatment design alternatives and impact minimization measures, then Mitigation Measure BIO-2c will be implemented. The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or biologist that the non -listed special -status wildlife would benefit from treatment in the occupied habitat area even though some of the non -listed special -status wildlife may be killed, injured, or disturbed during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to non -listed special -status wildlife, the qualified RPF or biologist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the species (or similar species) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 180 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity competition for resources), and the substantial evidence will be included in the PSA. If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to special -status wildlife, no compensatory mitigation will be required. The qualified RPF or biologist may consult with CDFW and/or USFWS for technical information regarding the determination that a non - listed special -status species would benefit from the treatment. Mitigation Measure BIO-2c: Compensate for Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Loss of Initial Treatment: Habitat Function for Special -Status Wildlife if Applicable (All Treatment Activities) If the provisions of Mitigation Measure BIO-2a, B1O-2b, 131O-2d, 131O-2e, 131O-2f, or BIO- 2g cannot be implemented and the project proponent determines that additional mitigation is necessary to reduce significant impacts, the project proponent will Treatment Maintenance: compensate for such impacts to species or habitat by acquiring and/or protecting land that provides (or will provide in the case of restoration) habitat function for affected species that is at least equivalent to the habitat function removed or degraded as a result of the treatment. Compensation may include: 1. Preserving existing habitat outside of the treatment area in perpetuity; this may entail purchasing mitigation credits and/or lands from a CDFW- or USFWS-approved entity in sufficient quantity to offset the residual significant impacts, generally at a ratio of 1:1 for habitat; and 2. Restoring or enhancing existing habitat within the treatment area or outside of the treatment area (including decommissioning roads, adding perching structures, removing existing perching structures, or removing existing movement barriers or other existing features that are adversely affecting the species). The project proponent will prepare a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that identifies the residual significant effects that require compensatory mitigation and describes the compensatory mitigation strategy being implemented to reduce residual effects, and: 1. For preserving existing habitat outside of the treatment area in perpetuity, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a summary of the proposed compensation lands (e.g., the number and type of credits, location of mitigation bank or easement), parties responsible for the long-term management of the land, and the legal and funding mechanisms for long-term conservation (e.g., holder of conservation easement or fee title). The project proponent will submit evidence that the necessary mitigation has been implemented or that the project proponent has entered into a legal agreement to implement it and that compensatory habitat will be preserved in perpetuity. 2. For restoring or enhancing habitat within the treatment area or outside of the treatment area, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a description of the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 181 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity proposed habitat improvements, success criteria that demonstrate the performance standard of maintained habitat function has been met, legal and funding mechanisms, and parties responsible for long-term management and monitoring of the restored habitat. Review requirements are as follows: P. The project proponent will consult with CDFW and/or any other applicable responsible agency prior to finalizing the Compensatory Mitigation Plan in order to satisfy that responsible agency's requirements (e.g., permits, approvals) within the plan. ► For species listed under ESA or CESA or a California Fully Protected Species, the project proponent will submit the mitigation plan to CDFW and/or USFWS/NOAA Fisheries for review and comment. ► For other special -status wildlife species the project proponent may consult with CDFW and/or USFWS regarding the availability and applicability of compensatory mitigation and other related technical information. Compensatory mitigation may be satisfied through compliance with permit conditions, or other authorizations obtained by the project proponent (e.g., incidental take permit), if these requirements are equally or more effective than the mitigation identified above. Mitigation Measure BIO-2d: Implement Protective Measures for Valley Elderberry Initial Treatment: Longhorn Beetle (All Treatment Activities) If elderberry shrubs within the documented range of valley elderberry longhorn beetle are identified during review and surveys for SPR BIO-1, and valley elderberry longhorn beetle or likely occupied suitable elderberry habitat (e.g., within riparian, within historic Treatment Maintenance: riparian, containing exit holes) is confirmed to be present during protocol -level surveys following the protocol outlined in USFWS Framework for Assessing Impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS 2017) per SPR BIO-10, the following protective measures will be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle: ► If elderberry shrubs are 165 feet or more from the treatment area, and treatment activities would not encroach within this distance, direct or indirect impacts are not expected and further mitigation is not required. ► If elderberry shrubs are located within 165 feet of the treatment area, the following measures will be implemented: ■ A minimum avoidance area of at least 20 feet from the dripline of each elderberry plant will be fenced or flagged and maintained to avoid direct impacts (e.g., damage to root system) that could damage or kill the plant, with the exception of the following activities: December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 182 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity - Manual trimming of elderberry shrubs will only occur between November and February and will avoid removal of any branches or stems that are greater than or equal to 1 inch in diameter to avoid and minimize adverse effects on valley elderberry longhorn beetle. - Manual or mechanical vegetation treatment within the drip -line of any elderberry shrub will be limited to the season when adults are not active (August - February), will be limited to methods that do not cause ground disturbance, and will avoid damaging the elderberry. ■ A qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician familiar with valley elderberry longhorn beetle and its life history will monitor the work area to verify the avoidance and minimization measures are implemented. The qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician will have the authority to stop any treatment activities that could result in potential adverse effects to valley elderberry longhorn beetle. If the project proponent cannot implement the measures above to avoid mortality, injury, or disturbance of VELB or degradation of occupied habitat such that its function would not be maintained, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c. Mitigation Measure BIO-2e: Design Treatment to Retain Special -Status Butterfly Host Initial Treatment: Plants (All Treatment Activities) If federally listed butterflies are identified as occurring or having potential to occur during review and surveys for SPR 131O-1 and confirmed during protocol -level surveys per SPR BIO-10, then the following measures will be implemented: Treatment Maintenance: P. Treatment areas within the range of these species will be surveyed for the host plant for each species (Table 3.6-34). ► Host plants for federally listed butterflies within the occupied habitat will be marked with high -visibility flagging, fencing, or stakes, and no treatment activities will occur within 10 feet of these plants. ► Because prescribed herbivory could result in the indiscriminate removal of the host plants for federally listed butterflies, this treatment type will not be used within occupied habitat of any federally listed butterfly species, unless it is known that the host plant is unpalatable to the herbivore. ► Treatment areas that are not occupied but are within the range of the federally listed butterfly will be divided into as many treatment units as feasible such that the entirety of the habitat is not treated within the same year. ► Treatments will be conducted in a patchy pattern to the extent feasible in areas that are not occupied but are within the range of the federally listed butterfly, such that Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 183 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity the entirety of the habitat is not burned or removed and untreated portions of suitable habitat are retained. If the project proponent cannot implement the measures above to avoid mortality, injury, or disturbance of federally listed butterflies or degradation of occupied habitat (host plants) such that its function would not be maintained, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c. CESA and ESA Listed Species. A qualified RPF or biologist will determine if, after implementation of any feasible impact avoidance measures (potentially including others not listed above), the treatment will result in mortality, injury, or disturbance, or if after implementation of the treatment, habitat function will remain for the affected species. For species listed under CESA or ESA or that are fully protected, the qualified RPF or biologist will consult with CDFW and/or USFWS regarding this determination. If consultation determines that mortality, injury, or disturbance of listed butterflies or degradation of occupied habitat such that its function would not be maintained would occur, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c. Other Special -status Species. A qualified RPF or biologist with knowledge of the special - status species' habitat and life history will review the treatment design and applicable impact minimization measures (potentially including others not listed above) to determine if the anticipated residual effects of the treatment would be significant under CEQA, because implementation of the treatment will not maintain habitat function of the special -status species' habitat or because the loss of special -status individuals would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a special -status species. If the project proponent determines the impact on special -status butterflies would be less than significant, no further mitigation will be required. If the project proponent determines that the loss of special -status butterflies or degradation of occupied habitat would be significant under CEQA after implementing feasible treatment design alternatives and impact minimization measures, then Mitigation Measure BIO-2c will be implemented. The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or biologist that the special -status butterfly species would benefit from treatment in the occupied habitat area even though some may be killed, injured or disturbed during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to special -status butterfly species, the qualified RPF or biologist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the species (or similar species) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced competition for resources). If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to special - status butterflies, no compensatory mitigation will be required. December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 184 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity Table 3.6-34 Special -status Butterflies and Associated Host Plants Butterfly Species Host Plants bay checkerspot butterfly dwarf plantain (Plantago virginica), purple owl's clover (Castilleja exserta) Behren's silverspot butterfly blue violet (Viola adunco) callippe silverspot butterfly California golden violet (Viola pedunculata) Carson wandering skipper salt grass (Distichlis spicato) El Segundo blue butterfly seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium) Hermes copper butterfly spiny redberry (Rhamnus crocea) Kern primrose sphinx moth plains evening -primrose (Camissonia contorta), field primrose (Camissonia campestris) Laguna Mountains skipper Cleveland's horkelia (Horkelia clevelandit), sticky cinquefoil (Drymocallis glandulosa) Lange's metalmark butterfly naked -stemmed buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum) lotis blue butterfly seaside bird's foot trefoil (Hosockia gracilis) Mission blue butterfly lupine (Lupinus spp.) Myrtle's silverspot butterfly blue violet Oregon silverspot butterfly blue violet Palos Verdes blue butterfly Santa Barbara milkvetch (Astragalus trichopodus), common deerweed (Acmispon glaber) San Bruno elfin butterfly broadleaf stonecrop (Sedum spathulifolium), manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), huckleberry (Vaccinuum spp.) Smith's blue butterfly seacliff buckwheat, seaside buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium) Quino checkerspot butterfly dwarf plantain, purple owl's clover Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 185 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity Mitigation Measure BIO-2f: Avoid Habitat for Special -Status Beetles, Flies, Grasshoppers, Initial Treatment: and Snails (All Treatment Activities) If treatment activities would occur within the limited range of any state or federally listed beetle, fly, grasshopper, or snail, and these species are identified as occurring or having potential to occur due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat during review and Treatment Maintenance: surveys for SPR BIO-1 and surveys for SPR BIO-10, then the following measures will be implemented: ► To avoid and minimize impacts to Mount Hermon June beetle and Zayante band - winged grasshopper, treatment activities will not occur within "Sandhills" habitat in Santa Cruz County, the only suitable habitat for these species. ► To avoid and minimize impacts to Casey's June beetle, Delhi Sands flower -loving fly (Rhaphiomidos terminates obdominolis), Delta green ground beetle (Elophrus virisis), Morro shoulderband snail, Ohlone tiger beetle (Cicindela ohlone), and Trinity bristle snail, treatment activities will not occur within habitat in the range of these species that is deemed suitable by a qualified RPF or biologist with familiarity of the species. If the project proponent cannot implement the measures above to avoid mortality, injury or disturbance to listed beetles, flies, grasshoppers, and snails, or degradation of suitable habitat such that its function would not be maintained, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c. Mitigation Measure BIO-2g: Design Treatment to Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance Initial Treatment: and Maintain Habitat Function for Special -Status Bumble Bees (All Treatment Activities) If special -status bumble bees are identified as occurring during review and surveys under SPR BIO-1 and confirmed during protocol -level surveys per SPR BIO-10, or if suitable habitat for special -status bumble bees is identified during review and surveys under SPR Treatment Maintenance: BIO-1 (e.g., wet meadow, forest meadow, riparian, grassland, or coastal scrub habitat containing sufficient floral resources within the range of the species), then the project proponent will implement the following measures, as feasible: ► Prescribed burning within occupied or suitable habitat for special -status bumble bees will occur from October through February to avoid the bumble bee flight season. ► Treatment areas in occupied or suitable habitat will be divided into a sufficient number of treatment units such that the entirety of the habitat is not treated within the same year; the objective of this measure is to provide refuge for special -status bumble bees during treatment activities and temporary retention of suitable floral resources proximate to the treatment area. ► Treatments will be conducted in a patchy pattern to the extent feasible in occupied or suitable habitat, such that the entirety of the habitat is not burned or removed and untreated portions of occupied or suitable habitat are retained (e.g., fire breaks will be aligned to allow for areas of unburned floral resources for special -status bumble bees within the treatment area). December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 186 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► Herbicides will not be applied to flowering native plants within occupied or suitable habitat to the extent feasible during the flight season (March through September). CESA and ESA Listed Species. A qualified RPF or biologist will determine if, after implementation of feasible avoidance measures (potentially including others not listed above), the treatment will result in mortality, injury, or disturbance to the species, or if after implementation of the treatment, habitat function will remain for the affected species. For species listed under CESA or ESA or that are fully protected, the qualified RPF or biologist will consult with CDFW and/or USFWS regarding this determination. If consultation determines that mortality, injury, or disturbance of listed bumble bees (in the event the Candidate listing is confirmed) or degradation of occupied (or assumed to be occupied) habitat such that its function would not be maintained would occur, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c. Other Special -status Species. A qualified RPF or biologist with knowledge of the special - status species' habitat and life history will review the treatment design and applicable impact minimization measures (potentially including others not listed above) to determine if the anticipated residual effects of the treatment would be significant under CEQA because implementation of the treatment will not maintain habitat function of the special -status species' habitat or because the loss of special -status individuals would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a special -status species. If the project proponent determines the impact on special -status bumble bees would be less than significant, no further mitigation will be required. If the project proponent determines that the loss of special -status bumble bees or degradation of occupied (or assumed to be occupied) habitat would be significant under CEQA after implementing feasible treatment design alternatives and impact minimization measures, then Mitigation Measure BIO-2c will be implemented. The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or biologist that the special -status bumble bee species would benefit from treatment in the occupied (or assumed to be occupied) habitat area even though some of the non -listed special -status bumble bees may be killed, injured, or disturbed during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to special -status bumble bee species, the qualified RPF or biologist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the species (or similar species) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced competition for resources), and the substantial evidence will be included in the PSA. If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to special -status bumble bees, no compensatory mitigation will be required. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 1 87 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity Mitigation Measure BIO-2h: Avoid Potential Disease Transmission Between Domestic Initial Treatment: Livestock and Special -Status Ungulates (Prescribed Herbivory) The project proponent will implement the following measure if treatment activities are planned within the range of desert bighorn sheep, peninsular bighorn sheep, Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, or pronghorn: Treatment Maintenance: ► Prescribed herbivory activities will be prohibited within a 14-mile buffer around suitable habitat for any species of bighorn sheep within the range of these species consistent with the more stringent recommendations in the Recovery Plan for Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (USFWS 2007). ► Prescribed herbivory activities will be avoided within the range of pronghorn where feasible (where this range does not overlap with the range of any species of bighorn sheep). Mitigation Measure BIO-3a: Design Treatments to Avoid Loss of Sensitive Natural Initial Treatment: Communities and Oak Woodlands The project proponent will implement the following measures when working in treatment areas that contain sensitive natural communities identified during surveys conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-3: Treatment Maintenance: ► Reference the Manual of California Vegetation, Appendix 2, Table A2, Fire Characteristics (Sawyer et al.2009 or current version, including updated natural communities data at http://vegetation.cnps.org/) or other best available information to determine the natural fire regime of the specific sensitive natural community type (i.e., alliance) present. The condition class and fire return interval departure of the vegetation alliances present will also be determined. ► Design treatments in sensitive natural communities and oak woodlands to restore the natural fire regime and return vegetation composition and structure to their natural condition to maintain or improve habitat function of the affected sensitive natural community. Treatments will be designed to replicate the fire regime attributes for the affected sensitive natural community or oak woodland type including seasonality, fire return interval, fire size, spatial complexity, fireline intensity, severity, and fire type as described in Fire in California's Ecosystems (Van Wagtendonk et al.2018) and the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009 or current version, including updated natural communities data at http://vegetation.cnps.org/). Treatments will not be implemented in sensitive natural communities that are within their natural fire return interval (i.e., time since last burn is less than the average time required for that vegetation type to recover from fire) or within Condition Class 1. ► To the extent feasible, no fuel breaks will be created in sensitive natural communities with rarity ranks of S1 (critically imperiled) and S2 (imperiled). December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 188 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity ► To the extent feasible, fuel breaks will not remove more than 20 percent of the native vegetation relative cover from a stand of sensitive natural community vegetation in sensitive natural communities with a rarity rank of S3 (vulnerable) or in oak woodlands. In forest and woodland sensitive natural communities with a rarity rank of S3, and in oak woodlands, only shaded fuel breaks will be installed, and they will not be installed in more than 20 percent of the stand of sensitive natural community or oak woodland vegetation (i.e., if the sensitive natural community covers 100 acres, no more than 20 acres will be converted to create the fuel break). ► Use prescribed burning as the primary treatment activity in sensitive natural communities that are fire dependent (e.g., closed -cone forest and woodland alliances, chaparral alliances characterized by fire -stimulated, obligate seeders), to the extent feasible and appropriate based on the fire regime attributes as described in Fire in California's Ecosystems (Van Wagtendonk et al. 2018) and the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009 or current version, including updated natural communities data at http://vegetation.cnps.org/). ► Time prescribed herbivory to occur when non -target vegetation is not susceptible to damage (e.g. non -target vegetation is dormant or has completed its reproductive cycle for the year). For example, use herbivores to control invasive plants growing in sensitive habitats or sensitive natural communities when sensitive vegetation is dormant but invasive plants are growing. Timing of herbivory to avoid non -target vegetation will be determined by a qualified botanist, RPF, or biologist based on the specific vegetation alliance being treated, the life forms and life conditions of its characteristic plant species, and the sensitivity of the non -target vegetation to the effects of herbivory. The feasibility of implementing the avoidance measures will be determined by the project proponent based on whether implementation of this mitigation measure will preclude completing the treatment project within the reasonable period of time necessary to meet CaIVTP program objectives, including, but not limited to, protection of vulnerable communities. If the avoidance measures are determined by the project proponent to be infeasible, the project proponent will document the reasons implementation of the avoidance strategies are infeasible in the PSA. After completion of the PSA and prior to or during treatment implementation, if there is any change in the feasibility of avoidance strategies from those explained in the PSA, this will be documented in the post -project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report). A qualified RPF or botanist with knowledge of the affected sensitive natural community will review the treatment design and applicable impact minimization measures (potentially including others not listed above) to determine if the anticipated residual Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 189 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity effects of the treatment would be significant under CEQA because implementation of the treatment will not maintain habitat functions of the sensitive natural community or oak woodland. If the project proponent determines the impact on sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands would be less than significant, no further mitigation will be required. If the project proponent determines that the loss or degradation of sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands would be significant under CEQA after implementing feasible treatment design alternatives and impact minimization measures, then Mitigation Measure 13I0-31b will be implemented. The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or botanist that the sensitive natural community or oak woodland would benefit from treatment in the occupied habitat area even though some loss may occur during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to a sensitive natural community or oak woodland, the qualified RPF or botanist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the community (or similar community) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced competition for resources), and the substantial evidence will be included in the PSA. If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands, no compensatory mitigation will be required. Mitigation Measure BIO-3b: Compensate for Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities and Initial Treatment: Oak Woodlands If significant impacts on sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands cannot feasibly be avoided or reduced as specified under Mitigation Measure BIO-3a, the project proponent will implement the following actions: Treatment Maintenance: P. Compensate for unavoidable losses of sensitive natural community and oak woodland acreage and function by: ■ restoring sensitive natural community or oak woodland functions and acreage within the treatment area; ■ restoring degraded sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands outside of the treatment area at a sufficient ratio to offset the loss of acreage and habitat function; or ■ preserving existing sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands of equal or better value to the sensitive natural community lost through a conservation easement at a sufficient ratio to offset the loss of acreage and habitat function. ► The project proponent will prepare a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that identifies the residual significant effects on sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands that December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 190 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity require compensatory mitigation and describes the compensatory mitigation strategy being implemented to reduce residual effects, and: 1. For preserving existing habitat outside of the treatment area in perpetuity, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a summary of the proposed compensation lands (e.g., the number and type of credits, location of mitigation bank or easement), parties responsible for the long-term management of the land, and the legal and funding mechanism for long-term conservation (e.g., holder of conservation easement or fee title). The project proponent will submit evidence that the necessary mitigation has been implemented or that the project proponent has entered into a legal agreement to implement it and that compensatory habitat will be preserved in perpetuity. 2. For restoring or enhancing habitat within the treatment area or outside of the treatment area, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a description of the proposed habitat improvements, success criteria that demonstrate the performance standard of maintained habitat function has been met, legal and funding mechanisms, and parties responsible for long-term management and monitoring of the restored or enhanced habitat. The project proponent will consult with CDFW and/or any other applicable responsible agency prior to finalizing the Compensatory Mitigation Plan in order to satisfy that responsible agency's requirements (e.g., permits, approvals) within the plan. Mitigation Measure BIO-3c: Compensate for Unavoidable Loss of Riparian Habitat Initial Treatment: If, after implementation of SPR BIO-4, impacts to riparian habitat remain significant under CEQA, the project proponent will implement the following: ► Compensate for unavoidable losses of riparian habitat acreage and function by: ■ restoring riparian habitat functions and acreage within the treatment area; Treatment Maintenance: ■ restoring degraded riparian habitat outside of the treatment area; ■ purchasing riparian habitat credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank; or ■ preserving existing riparian habitat of equal or better value to the riparian habitat lost through a conservation easement at a sufficient ratio to offset the loss of riparian habitat function and value. ► The project proponent will prepare a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that identifies the residual significant effects on riparian habitat that require compensatory mitigation and describes the compensatory mitigation strategy being implemented to reduce residual effects, and: 1. For preserving existing riparian habitat outside of the treatment area in perpetuity, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a summary of the proposed compensation lands (e.g., the number and type of credits, location of mitigation Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 191 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity bank or easement), parties responsible for the long-term management of the land, and the legal and funding mechanism for long-term conservation (e.g., holder of conservation easement or fee title). The project proponent will submit evidence that the necessary mitigation has been implemented or that the project proponent has entered into a legal agreement to implement it and that compensatory plant populations will be preserved in perpetuity. 2. For restoring or enhancing riparian habitat within the treatment area or outside of the treatment area, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a description of the proposed habitat improvements, success criteria that demonstrate the performance standard of maintained habitat function has been met, legal and funding mechanisms, and parties responsible for long-term management and monitoring of the restored or enhanced habitat. The project proponent will consult with CDFW and/or any other applicable responsible agency prior to finalizing the Compensatory Mitigation Plan to satisfy that responsible agency's requirements (e.g., permits, approvals) within the plan. Compensatory mitigation may be satisfied through compliance with permit conditions, or other authorizations obtained by the project proponent (e.g., Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement), if these requirements are equally or more effective than the mitigation identified above. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Avoid State and Federally Protected Wetlands Initial Treatment: Impacts to wetlands will be avoided using the following measures: ► The qualified RPF or biologist will delineate the boundaries of federally protected wetlands according to methods established in the USACE wetlands delineation manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the appropriate regional supplement for Treatment Maintenance: the ecoregion in which the treatment is being implemented. ► The qualified RPF or biologist will delineate the boundaries of wetlands that may not meet the definition of waters of the United States, but would qualify as waters of the state, according to the state wetland procedures (California Water Boards 2019 or current procedures). ► A qualified RPF or biologist will establish a buffer around wetlands and mark the Initial Treatment: buffer boundary with high -visibility flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway). The buffer will be a minimum width of 25 feet but may be larger if deemed necessary. The appropriate size and shape of the buffer zone will be determined in coordination with the qualified RPF or Treatment Maintenance: biologist and will depend on the type of wetland present (e.g., seasonal wetland, wet meadow, freshwater marsh, vernal pool), the timing of treatment (e.g., wet or dry time of year), whether any special -status species may occupy the wetland and the December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 192 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity species' vulnerability to the treatment activities, environmental conditions and terrain, and the treatment activity being implemented. ► A qualified RPF or biological technician will periodically inspect the materials demarcating the buffer to confirm that they are intact and visible, and wetland impacts are being avoided. ► Within this buffer, herbicide application is prohibited. ► Within this buffer, soil disturbance is prohibited. Accordingly, the following activities are not allowed within the buffer zone: mechanical treatments, prescribed herbivory, equipment and vehicle access or staging. ► Only prescribed (broadcast) burning may be implemented in wetland habitats if it is determined by a qualified RPF or biologist that: ■ No special -status species are present in the wetland habitat ■ The wetland habitat function would be maintained. ■ The prescribed burn is within the normal fire return interval for the wetland vegetation types present ■ Fire containment lines and pile burning are prohibited within the buffer ■ No fire ignition (nor use of associated accelerants) will occur within the wetland buffer Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Retain Nursery Habitat and Implement Buffers to Avoid Initial Treatment: Nursery Sites The project proponent will implement the following measures while working in treatment areas that contain nursery sites identified in surveys conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-10: Treatment Maintenance: ► Retain Known Nursery Sites. A qualified RPF or biologist will identify the important habitat features of the wildlife nursery and, prior to treatment activities, will mark these features for avoidance and retention during treatment ► Establish Avoidance Buffers. The project proponent will establish a non -disturbance buffer around the nursery site if activities are required while the nursery site is active/occupied. The appropriate size and shape of the buffer will be determined by a qualified RPF or biologist, based on potential effects of project -related habitat disturbance, noise, visual disturbance, and other factors. No treatment activity will commence within the buffer area until a qualified RPF or biologist confirms that the nursery site is no longer active/occupied. Monitoring of the effectiveness of the non - disturbance buffer around the nursery site by a qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician during and after treatment activities will be required. If treatment activities cause agitated behavior of the individual(s), the buffer distance will be increased, or treatment activities modified until the agitated behavior stops. The qualified RPF, Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 193 Project -Specific Analysis Ascent Environmental Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity biologist, or biological technician will have the authority to stop any treatment activities that could result in potential adverse effects to special -status species. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation Measure GHG-2. Implement GHG Emission Reduction Techniques During Initial Treatment: Prescribed Burns When planning for and conducting a prescribed burn, project proponents implementing a prescribed burn will incorporate feasible methods for reducing GHG emissions, including the following, which are identified in the National Wildfire Coordinating Group Treatment Maintenance: Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed Fire (NWCG 2018): ► reduce the total area burned by isolating and leaving large fuels (e.g., large logs, snags) unburned; ► reduce the total area burned through mosaic burning; ► burn when fuels have a higher fuel moisture content; ► reduce fuel loading by removing fuels before ignition. Methods to remove fuels include mechanical treatments, manual treatments, prescribed herbivory, and biomass utilization; and ► schedule burns before new fuels appear. As the science evolves, other feasible methods or technologies to sequester carbon could be incorporated, such as conservation burning, a technique for burning woody material that reduces the production of smoke particulates and carbon released into the atmosphere and generates more biochar. Biochar is produced from the material left over after the burn and spread with compost to increase soil organic matter and soil carbon sequestration. Technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may also include portable units that perform gasification to produce electricity or pyrolysis that produces biooil that can be used as liquid fuel and/or syngas that can be used to generate electricity. The project proponent will document in the Burn Plan required pursuant to SPR AQ-3 which methods for reducing GHG emissions can feasibly be integrated into the treatment design. Hazardous Materials, Public Health and Safety Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Identify and Avoid Known Hazardous Waste Sites Initial Treatment: Prior to the start of vegetation treatment activities requiring soil disturbance (i.e., mechanical treatments) or prescribed burning, CAL FIRE and other project proponents will make reasonable efforts to check with the landowner or other entity with jurisdiction (e.g., California Department of Parks and Recreation) to determine if there are any sites known to Treatment Maintenance: have previously used, stored, or disposed of hazardous materials. If it is determined that hazardous materials sites could be located within the boundary of a treatment site, the December 2019 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection PD-3 194 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program Ascent Environmental Project -Specific Analysis Mitigation Measures Applicable? (Y/N) Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring Entity project proponent will conduct a DTSC EnviroStor web search (https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/) and consult DTSC's Cortese List to identify any known contamination sites within the project site. If a proposed mechanical treatment or prescribed burn is located on a site included on the DTSC Cortese List as containing potential soil contamination that has not been cleaned up and deemed closed by DTSC, the area will be marked and no prescribed burning or soil disturbing treatment activities will occur within 100 feet of the site boundaries. If it is determined through coordination with landowners or after review of the Cortese List that no potential or known contamination is located on a project site, the project may proceed as planned. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection December 2019 Final Program EIR for the California Vegetation Treatment Program PD-3 195 ATTACHMENT C.3 NOD CDFW Receipt ,. . State of California - Department of Fish and Wildlife 2019 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT DFW 753.5a (REV. 12/01/18) Previously DFG 753.5a Print Finalize&Email RECEIPT NUMBER: 59 — 12/30/2011 — 158 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (If applicable) SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY. 2019012052 LEADAGENCY LEADAGENCY EMAIL DATE Forestry and Fire Protection, Board of 12/30/2019 COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING DOCUMENT NUMBER OPR/SCH PROJECT TITLE California Vegetation Treatment Program PROJECT APPLICANT NAME PROJECT APPLICANT EMAIL PHONE NUMBER Edith Hannigan (916) 862-0120 PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE PO Box 944246 Sacramento CA 94244--2460 PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box) Local Public Agency School District Other Special District Q State Agency Private Entity CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: R Environmental Impact Report (EIR) $3,271.00 $ 3,271.00 ❑ Mitigated/Negative Declaration (MND)(ND) $2,354.75 $ 0.00 ❑ Certified Regulatory Program (CRP) document - payment due directly to CDFW $1,112.00 $ 0.00 ❑ Exempt from fee ❑ Notice of Exemption (attach) ❑ CDFW No Effect Determination (attach) ❑ Fee previously paid (attach previously issued cash receipt copy) ❑ Water Right Application or Petition Fee (State Water Resources Control Board only) $850.00 $ 0.00 ❑ County documentary handling fee $ ❑ Other $ PAYMENT METHOD: ❑ Cash ❑ Credit E] Check ❑ Other TOTAL RECEIVED $ 3,271.00 SIGNATURE AGENCY OF FILING PRINTED NAME AND TITLE Digitally signed by Justin Le Justin Le Date: 2019.12.30 11:17:56 i� -08001 J.Le, State Clearinghouse ORIGINAL - PROJECT APPLICANT COPY - CDFW/ASB COPY - LEAD AGENCY COPY - COUNTY CLERK DFW 753.5a (Rev. 12012018) Notice of Public Hearin THE CITY OF TEMECULA - 41000 Main Street- Temecula, CA 92590 — TemeculaCA.gov A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter(s) described below: Case No.: LR21-1331 Applicant: City of Temecula Project Location: Citywide Proposal: A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula adopting Long Range Planning Project No. LR21-1331, the Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) and making a finding of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15061(b)(3) and Section 15262. Environmental Action: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff has determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review per Section 15061(B)(3), and Statutorily exempt per Section 15262, and a Notice of Exemption will be adopted in compliance with CEQA if the resolution is adopted. Case Planner: Mark Collins, (951) 506-5172 PLACE OF HEARING: 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590, City of Temecula, Council Chambers DATE OF HEARING: April 17, 2024 TIME OF HEARING: 6:00 PM The complete agenda packet (including any supplemental materials) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — TemeculaCA.gov and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. Any writing distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — TemeculaCA.gov — and will be available for public review at the meeting. Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the Planning Commission shall be filed within time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the Planning Commission shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice. Questions? Please call the Community Development Department at (951) 694-6400. City of Temecula Community Development 41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590 Phone (951) 694-6400 • Fax (951) 694-6477 • TemeculaCA.gov VIA -ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL CEQAProces sing_gasrclkrec. com April 18, 2024 Supervising Legal Certification Clerk County of Riverside P.O. Box 751 Riverside, CA 92501-0751 SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Exemption for Long Range Application No. LR21-1331, Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed is the Notice of Exemption for the above referenced project. In addition, pursuant to Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) please find a receipt in the amount of $50.00, for the County Administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507. The City of Temecula is paying the $50.00 filing fee under protest. It is the opinion of the City that the administrative fee has been increased in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of State Law. Under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507, the County is entitled to receive a $25.00 filing fee. Also, please email a stamped copy of the Notice of Exemption within five working days after the 30-day posting to the email listed below. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mark Collins by email at Mark. CollinskTemeculaCA. gov. Sincerely, Matt Peters Assistant Director of Community Development Attachments: Project Notice of Exemption Form County Administrative Filing Fee Receipt City of Temecula Community Development Planning Division Notice of Exemption TO: County Clerk and Recorders Office FROM: Planning Division County of Riverside City of Temecula P.O. Box 751 41000 Main Street Riverside, CA 92501-0751 Temecula, CA 92590 Project Title: Long Range Application No. LR21-1331, Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) Description of Project: A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula adopting Long Range Planning Project No. LR21-1331, the Temecula Creek Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) and making a finding of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15061(b)(3) and Section 15262. Project Location: Citywide Applicant/Proponent: City of Temecula The Planning Commission approved the above -described project on April 17, 2024 and found that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. Exempt Status: (check one) ❑ Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); Section 15268); ❑ Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); Section 15269(a)); ❑ Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); Section 15269(b)(c)); ® Statutory Exemptions (Section Number: 15262) ® Categorical Exemption; (Section Number 15061 (b)(3)) ❑ Other: Section 15162 Categorical Exemption Statement of Reasons Supporting the Finding that the Project is Exempt: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed resolution has been deemed to be exempt from further environmental review as there is no possibility that the proposed action would have a significant impact on the environment pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The proposed resolution is a planning document only, and does not authorize any physical changes to the environment or fuels treatment. As such, the project has been deemed statutorily exempt from CEQA per Section 15262, feasibility and planning studies. Contact Person/Title: Mark Collins/Assistant Planner Signature: Matt Peters, Assistant Director of Community Development Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office: Phone Number: (951) 506-5172 Date: ELECTRONIC SUBMITTED PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #2: Public Correspondence in Opposition Work Order #2030026 Issue Type Planning Notes Regarding PA23-0030, PA23-0026,& PA23-0027: I urge the Planning Commission to deny the above requests for fast food drive -through concerns at this location. This is a prime location across from the duck pond. The location warrants a more upscale concern. Fast food drive- throughs will cheapen the area, not improve it. Thank you, Cheryl Medin Reporter Name Cheryl Medin Email Phone ( Report Submitted APR 17, 2024 - 1:02 PM Open Resort Please do not change subject line when responding.