Agenda, regular meeting, second session — Highland City Council, September 9, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
California Dept of Fish and Game ( CDFG) — Streambed Alteration Agreement 6- 2001- 281 ( with amendment), May 2022
US Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) — Formal Section 7 Consultations ( FWS- SB- 1162. 4 and FWSSB- 1162. 5), June 13, 2001 that addressed 4 acres of impact to SBKR habitat and an unknown number of SBKR that would be trapped and relocated. An August 7, 2002 reinitiation resulted in increasing impacts by 1. 69 additional acres, along with associated mitigation and conditions.

Regional Water Quality Control Board - National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems ( NPDES) Permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification.

Also in 2000, the City began conceptual planning for a new regional storm drain to be constructed in 5th Street/ Greenspot Road beginning from east of State Highway 210 with its terminus at the 5th Street bridge, to discharge at in the existing 24- inch RCP outfall under the City Creek bridge - the same outfall that was part of the original 5th Street widening project. The plans for a regional storm drain were not complete at the time, therefore, the work could not be completed at the same time as the bridge and widening project.

In 2005, the City finalized the regional storm drain plans, which would consist of a 72- inch storm drain, from east of State Highway 210 to the edge of 5th Street, just past the City Creek Bridge. The 2005 plans identified replacing the 24- inch RCP and associated outfall with a 60- inch RCP and associated outfall. As part of the planning process, the City obtained the following permits in 2009/ 2010:

CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement No. 1600- 2009- 0075- R6, November 4, 2009 ( Operation of Law Letter)
USACE 404 File No. SPL- 2009- 00737- SLP Letter of No Impact, October 22, 2009 ( issued because the limits of work were designed to be above the federal ordinary high water mark, therefore, the USACE would not have jurisdiction to issue a permit under the Clean Water Act).

RWQCB Storm water Discharge Covered under the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit, February 2010
The San Bernardino County Flood Control District ( District) owns and operates the outfall in City creek along with the stormdrain and associated catch basin in 5th Street. Permits from the District were not issued by the time the State and Federal permits were issued due to the requirement to also obtain a USFWS incidental take permit under the federal Endangered Species Act ( ESA) and the need to provide additional engineering information.

Therefore, in 2013, construction was only completed for the City' s 72- inch regional storm drain facility in the City' s road rights -of -way within 5th Street, beginning just east of State Highway 210 and terminating within the 5th Street bridge, just several feet north of the existing District catch basin that is within the roadway curb. Because City does not have approval from the District to outlet flows into the existing 24- inch pipe and outfall, the new 72- inch storm drain line was placed in a new bulkhead near the existing catch basin in a manner that allows the flows from the City' s pipeline to pool in the existing bulkhead. City crews have been hand -pumping stormwater from the bulkhead at the catch basin since its construction. 18

Page 11 ends

Initial5tudy/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
Through continuing discussions with the District, the District finally agreed that the City could remove and the existing 24- inch outfall structure and replace it with a pipeline and outfall structure that would be suitable to accept both the City' s existing 72- inch storm drain system flows and the localized street flows from 51h Street which collect in the existing 7- foot wide catch basin. The City and the District also agreed that:

The elevation of the outfall structure would not change; the elevation would be approximately 1 foot above the toe of slope, which is outside of the ordinary high water mark for federal waters jurisdiction, but within the State CDFW jurisdiction.

A design flow for the storm drain of less than 3 percent of the 100- year ( Q100) storm event.

All new permanent work would occur within the area of land and creek disturbed during the 2000 bridge project, and no new areas would need to be permanently disturbed.

The outfall work would occur within the existing grouted rock that was installed as part of the 2000 bridge project, and no extension of the grouted rock area along the sideslopes are required.

The City would obtain all State and Federal permits to conduct the work, even in the areas temporarily impacted by construction. The area identified for temporary disturbance would primarily consist of the area adjacent to the City Creek channel where District crews have had to stockpile excessive debris from the creek that built up under and around the bridge following several major storm events.

In 2018, the City and the USFWS prepared a Draft Low -Effect Habitat Conservation Plan ( LEHCP) for the Project under Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act ( ESA) for the USFWS to authorize incidental take of SBKR and address the temporary impacts to habitat. The Project did not qualify under Section 7 of the ESA because the Project would not impact federal jurisdictional waters, according to the No Impact" memo from the USACE in 2009.

In 2019, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( CDFW, formerly the Department of Fish and Game) listed the SBKR as species of Special Concern under the California Endangered Species Act ( CESA).

In April 2002, the USFWS adopted the final designation of Critical Habitat for the SBKR. The Project Site is located within the Santa Ana River and Wash Unit, which is approximately 830 acres within the Santa Ana Wash watershed and includes the City Creek watershed.

In September 2022, the City conducted SBKR trapping in the Project area of the proposed 72- inch RCP connection from 5th Street to the City Creek outfall, and within the area of the LEHCP, which is the same area of work disturbed by the 2000 project. The survey yielded positive results of two individuals in the proposed area of work.

In September 2023, the CDFW listed the SBKR as an endangered species under CESA. As such, the City would be required to also obtain a CDFW authorization under Fish and Game Code Section 2081 to address impacts to SBKR.
19

Page 12 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
In July 2024, during final design, the City desired to further reduce stormwater velocity from 15 feet per second ( fps) to less than 6 fps for the 100- year storm event to significantly reduce and/ or eliminate scour potential to the City Creek Channel at the new outfall location. This new design was conceived to ensure minimal impacts to the City Creek Channel hydraulics to provide a more environmentally sensitive option given that the area was occupied by SBKR. The revised design includes utilizing various sizes and shapes of pipeline between 5th Street and the proposed new outfall, as well as a modified outfall structure. The elevation of the outfall remains at approximately 1 foot above the toe of the grouted rip rap slope, consistent with the 2005 original design. The hydrology and hydraulics reports are provided in Appendix D- 1, Supplemental Hydrology Report, Sth Street Storm Drain Connection to City Creek, prepared by ERSC, November 8, 2024 and Appendix D- 2, Supplemental Hydraulics Report, 5th Street Storm Drain Connection to City Creek, prepared by ERSC, November 8, 2024.

In 2024, the City and the USFWS made minor modifications to the Draft LEHCP to address the design modification. No substantive changes to the number of SBKR or area of temporary or permanent disturbance was determined to be required as a result of the minor design revisions. Finalizing the LEHCP is pending the submittal of an SBKR relocation plan and coordination with the CDFW' s take permit to be obtained through CESA. The CDFW take permit requires that the project that is subject to a take permit be evaluated through the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA).

1. 2 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED INITIAL STUDY/ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT On October 10, 2000, the City, as the CEQA Lead Agency, adopted the Final IS/ EA ( also referred to in this document as the 2000 Final IS/ EA) for the City' s 5th Street bridge replacement City Creek and street widening project ( 2000 Fifth Street Bridge Project). The Draft IS/ EA was prepared and was circulated to interested agencies, organizations, and the public for comment pursuant to CEQA and NEPA in September 2000. On October 10, 2000, the City held a public hearing and adopted the 2000 Final IS/ EA ( refer to Appendix A).

1. 2. 1 Previous CEQA/ NEPA Determinations
The 2000 Final IS/ EA included analysis of the Project' s potential impacts associated with categories that were based on the CEQA Guidelines Environmental Checklist and the Caltrans Environmental Handbook.

In the checklist, the significance determination applies primarily to the CEQA definition of " significance." For the answer to also apply to significance under NEPA, a portion of the answer is reflected in the checklist and the remainder of the answer lies within the narrative explanation contained in Chapter 5. 0 of the 2000 Final IS/ EA.

The NEPA regulations ( Council on Environmental Quality [ CEQ] Regulations, Section 1508. 27) defines significantly" in terms of two considerations: context and intensity. The regulations state that context is the setting within which the proposed project and its impacts should be considered. Context encompasses all aspects of the project setting, including physical, social, political, and geographic factors.

Consideration of context puts the magnitude of impacts into their proper perspective. Section 5. 0 of the 2000 IS/ EA provided additional discussion. Therefore, all answers to the checklist are based on the CEQA Guidelines and
Table 1: 2000 IS/ EA Environmental Significance Checklist identifies the 2000 Final IS/ EA Significance Determinations.
20

Page 13 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
Table 1: 2000 Final IS/ EA Environmental Significance Checklist July 2025
If Yes, is it
Maybe Checklist Questions
Yes,
yb e
No or
Significant?
Yes or No
PHYSICAL - Will the proposal either directly or indirectly:

1. Appreciably change the topography or ground surface relief features? NO

2. Destroy, cover or modify any unique geologic, palaeontologic, or physical features? NO

3. Result in unstable earth surfaces or increase the exposure of people or property to NO geologic or seismic hazards

4. Result in or be affected by soil erosion or siltation (whether by water or wind)? YES NO

5. Result in the increased use of fuel or energy in large amounts or in a wasteful manner? NO

6. Result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? NO

7. Result in the substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource? NO

8. Violate any published Federal, State or local standards pertaining to hazardous waste, NO solid waste or litter control?

9. Modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any inlet or lake? NO

10. Encroach upon a floodplain or result in or be affected by floodwaters or tidal waves? NO

11. Adversely affect the quantity or quality of surface water, groundwater or public water NO supply?

12. Result in the use of water in large amounts or in a wasteful manner? NO

13. Affect wetlands or riparian vegetation? YES NO

14. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State or local water quality standards? NO

15. Result in changes in air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any climatic NO conditions?

16. Result in an increase in air pollutant emissions, adverse effects on or deterioration of NO ambient air quality?

17. Result in the creation of objectionable odors? NO

18. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State or local air standards or control plans? NO

19. Result in an increase in noise levels or vibration for adjoining areas? NO

20. Result in any Federal, State or local noise criteria being equal or exceeded? NO

21. Produce new light, glare or shadows? NO
BIOLOGICAL - Will the proposal result in (either directly or indirectly):

22. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants ( including trees, NO shrubs, grass, microflora, and aquatic plants)?

23. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment upon the critical habitat of any unique, NO threatened or endangered species of plants?

24. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal NO replenishment of existing species?

25. Reduction in acreage of any agriculture crop or commercial timber stand, or affect NO prime, unique, or other farmland of State or local importance?

26. Removal or deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? NO

27. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals ( birds, land NO animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)?

28. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment upon the critical habitat of any unique, NO threatened or endangered species of animals?

29. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the NO migration or movement of animals?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC - Will the proposal directly or indirectly:

30. Cause disruption of orderly planned development? NO 21

Page 14 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
Checklist Questions

31. Be inconsistent with any elements of adopted community plans, policies or goals?

32. Be inconsistent with a Coastal Zone Management Plan?

33. Affect the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?

34. Affect life- styles, or neighborhood character or stability?

35. Affect minority, elderly, handicapped, transit -dependent or other specific interest groups?

36. Divide or disrupt an established community?

37. Affect existing housing, require the acquisition of residential improvements or the displacement of people or create a demand for additional housing?

38. Affect employment, industry or commerce, or require the displacement of businesses or farms?

39. Affect property values or the local tax base?

40. Affect any community facilities ( including medical, educational, scientific, recreational, or religious institutions, ceremonial sites or sacred shrines)?

41. Affect public utilities, or police, fire, emergency or other public services?

42. Have substantial impact on existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/ or goods?

43. Generate additional traffic?

44. Affect or be affected by existing parking facilities or result in demand for new parking?

45. Involve a substantial risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or otherwise adversely affect overall public safety?

46. Result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?

47. Support large commercial or residential development?

48. Affect a significant archaeological or historic site, structure, object, or building?

49. Affect wild or scenic rivers or natural landmarks?

50. Affect any scenic resources or result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?

51. Result in substantial impacts associated with construction activities ( e. g., noise, dust, temporary drainage, traffic detours and temporary access, etc.)?

52. Result in the use of any publicly -owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge?

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

54. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of longterm, environmental goals? ( A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.)

55. Does the project have environmental effects which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effect of an individual project is considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. It July 2025
If Yes, is it
Yes, No or
Significant?
Maybe
Yes or No
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
O
22

Page 15 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
July 2025
If Yes, is it
Maybe Checklist Questions
Yes,
yb e
or
Significant?
Yes or No
includes the effects of other projects which interact with this project and, together, are considerable.

56. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse NO effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

1. 2. 2 Mitigation Measures
Table 2: 2000 Final IS/ EA Mitigation Measures lists the measures identified in the 2000 Final IS/ EA to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant. These measures would apply to the 2024 Proposed Project.

Table 2: 2000 Final IS/ EA Mitigation Measures
Questions Addressed Mitigation Measure

4. Result in or be Prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) that would include Good Management affected by soil Practices ( GMPs) from the Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook ( May 10, 1996). ( Note:
erosion or siltation specific measures were identified in the 20001S/ EA and are only incorporated by reference in this whether by water or table for the purpose of brevity).
wind)?

13. Affect wetlands or
riparian vegetation?

16. Result in an
Increase in Air
Pollutant
Emissions,
Adverse Effects on
or Deterioration
of Ambient Air
Quality?

The top three to six inches of topsoil shall be scraped off and stockpiled on site, upon completion of construction, the stockpiled soil shall be spread over areas targeted for restoration. Prior to removal of vegetation, cuttings shall be taken from shrubs and trees ( i. e., mulefat, cottonwood, and willows), cuttings shall be rooted and maintained for post -construction planting. Topsoil shall be spread and cuttings planted in areas where adequate water is available for the growth of riparian vegetation. No long- term monitoring of the site shall be required.

Adherence to existing policies, regulations, and/ or design standards would reduce any adverse impact of the project. The following standard measures shall be implemented.

The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment would be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer' s specifications.

The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews would shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season May through October), the overall length of the construction period should be extended, 23

Page 16 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
Questions Addressed I Mitigation Measure

26. Removal or
Deterioration of
Existing Fish or
Wildlife Habitat?
July 2025
thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time.

The following measures would reduce or minimize fugitive dust emissions associated with grading or other soil disturbance:

The SCAQMD rules addressing fugitive dust control measures, Rules 402 and 403, shall be adhered to during the construction process.

A fugitive dust control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the SCAQMD prior to beginning project construction.

The following measure would reduce or minimize air pollutant emissions associated with asphalt paving:

The Construction Contractor shall adhere to the recommendations set forth by the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and adopted by reference by the SCAQMD addressing the emission control measures covering the asphalt paving emissions.

The City will compensate for biological impacts by purchasing mitigation credits from the Calmat Mitigation Bank. Impacts to SBKR and RAFSS will be mitigated by purchasing a total of 4 hectares ( 10 acres) of credits from the bank. The mitigation is for the permanent loss of 0. 17 hectare ( 0. 43 acre) of SBKR habitat at a 3: 1 ratio (. 52 hectare [ 1. 29 acres] of mitigation required) and the temporary loss of 1. 6 hectares ( 4. 0 acres) of SBKR habitat at a 2: 1 ratio ( 3. 2 hectares [ 8. 0 acres] of mitigation required). The total impact area, including permanent and temporary habitat loss, is 1. 77 hectares ( 4. 43 acres), requiring a total of

3. 72 hectares ( 9. 29 acres) of mitigation credits. The proposed mitigation results in the permanent preservation of 0. 28 hectare ( 0. 71 acre) beyond that which is required.

Prior to construction, the limits of construction will be fenced with 1. 25- meter ( 4- foot) silt fencing to provide a barrier to prevent SBKR from entering the construction area and to prevent impacts to alluvial fan sage scrub vegetation outside the construction limits. Access to SBKR habitat outside the construction limits will be prohibited and these areas will be posted accordingly.

The areas within the limits of the construction area will be trapped for SBKR and any trapped animals will be relocated outside the fenced construction limits.

All project -related activities will be monitored by a qualified biologist. The monitoring biologist will be present during all clearing of vegetation to be con- ducted for the project.

The monitoring biologist will ensure that only RAFSS within the construction limits will be removed or disturbed.

Access to SBKR habitat outside the project limits will be prohibited and these areas will be posted accordingly.
24

Page 17 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
Questions Addressed I Mitigation Measure
July 2025
All movement of construction contractors, including ingress and egress of equipment and personnel, will be limited to the designated project limits.

The staging area for construction equipment will be limited to designated locations which are physically separate from potential SBKR habitat areas.

Orientation meetings will be conducted for construction personnel. Contractors' pets will be prohibited in and adjacent to the construction area.

The proper use and disposal of oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel will be enforced Upon completion of construction, the area of temporary impact ( 1. 6 hectares [ 4. 0 acres]) will be recontoured to its original state and the silt fencing will be re- moved. An upland revegetation program will be completed for the areas temporarily disturbed by the proposed project. This revegetation program serves as a one time revegetation effort to encourage the growth of native vegetation in the area that will be affected temporarily. The revegetation program will include the following elements: identifying plant material and seed mix, site preparation and planting implementation, vegetation and topsoil salvage, and planting and seeding methods.

Weed abatement will be conducted twice yearly in the form of hand weeding ( which may include hand held mechanical weeders) to be conducted in the early spring ( March thru April) and fall ( September thru October) for the first two years after the initial revegetation effort. However, no monitoring or success criteria will be applied because of the ( 1) short duration and minimal effects of the pro- posed project, and ( 2) the temporary impacts are being mitigated at a 2: 1 ratio in the unlikely event that habitat temporarily affected is not suitable for use by the SBKR after project completion.

Shielded lighting to direct night- time lighting onto the roadways and away from SBKR habitat will be utilized to minimize potential impacts.

This biological assessment is intended to minimize the potential impact to the SBKR and contribute to its continued existence. The City is committed to provide the necessary funding to support the mitigation as outlined above.
25

Page 18 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION - 2024 PROPOSED PROJECT
The City of Highland ( City) proposes to replace the existing storm drain facilities and the outfall into City Creek Channel that exist on the south side of the 5th Street Bridge at City Creek to accommodate additional storm flows from the City. Storm flows from the City' s existing regional 72- inch storm drain currently are contained at a bulkhead at the 5th Street bridge over City the Creek Channel and pumped out after each storm.

The Project would connect the City' s regional 72- inch storm drain to outlet the City Creek channel by constructing a new underground pipe, new underground box culvert, and a new outfall structure that is designed to slow the velocity of the flows before outletting to the City Creek channel bottom. The Project may also remove or abandoned in place the existing 24- inch pipeline and outfall that currently conveys the other storm flows, that do not originate from the 72- inch regional pipeline, into City Creek. The area of the proposed work is the same area impacted by the construction of the 5th Street Bridge in 2000 ( the 2000 Project). The area of proposed work is also occupied by SBKR which is listed as endangered by the USFWS and the CDFW.

Ground disturbance onsite would not exceed 0. 85 acre, of which 0. 14 acre is occupied SBKR habitat to be restored and is included within the permanent impacts associated with the 2001 Biological Opinion for the 5th Street Bridge Replacement Project. Staging would occur along the shoulders of 51h Street adjacent to the bridge.

2. 1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project would occur on the south side and adjacent to 51h Street and adjacent to the City Creek Bridge in the City of Highland, primarily at latitude 34' 6' 27. 40" N, longitude 117° 12' 6. 72" W. All work will occur within the approximately 8. 48 acre parcel, APN 1210- 371- 17 and possibly within a few square feet of the adjacent APN 1210- 371- 28 both owned by District ( Figure 1: Regional Vicinity Map: 2000 Project and 2023 Project and Figure 2: 2023 Project Location — Aerial View). The site can be found on the U. S.

Geological Survey ( USGS) Redlands. 7. 5' Topographic Map, within Section 4, Township 1 South, Range 3 West.

The Proposed Project plans are provided in Figure 3: 2023 Proposed Project Plan and is in essentially the same location as the 2000 Project assessed by the 2000 Final IS/ EA, as identified in Figure 4: 2000 IS/ EA Project Plan View and 2023 Project and the area that was subject to the original USFWS Biological Opinion Figure 5: 2000 Section 7 Consultation Figure and 2023 Project Location).

Figure 6: 2024 Project Boundary and USFWS LEHCP Area identifies the 2024 Project in relation to the 2018 LEHCP ( as revised in 2024).

2. 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Project Site is an undeveloped area bounded by SR- 210 to the east, City Creek to the west, 5th Street/ Greenspot Road to the north, and additional undeveloped land owned by the District to the south.

Areas of undisturbed suitable SBKR habitat are located approximately 600 feet south of the site on the contiguous undeveloped land. Portions of the undeveloped area are periodically disturbed by the District 26

Page 19 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
when creek and facility maintenance is required following severe storm events. Other portions of the area have remained undisturbed for years and consist of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub ( RAFSS), which is habitat for SBKR.

A portion of the District -owned lands immediately adjacent to the proposed Project Site was previously disturbed as recently as 2011 as it was completely denuded ( mechanically disturbed) and in 2005- 2006 when aerial photography suggest it was used as a stockpile area for sediment removed from City Creek after heavy rainfall.

A focused trapping survey was conducted on five consecutive nights from June 10 through June 15, 2012, and the results were positive, with two SBKR individuals observed. Another focused trapping survey was conducted between September 22, 2022 and September 24, 2022 in a survey area that was larger than the proposed work area. A total of eight individuals were captured, including one near the Project work area ( refer to Appendix B- 1: San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Trapping Results for the Srh Street Storm Drain Connection to City Creek Project, prepared by Origin Biological, dated September 27, 2022, and Figure 7 — 2022 SBKR Locations in Project Vicinity).

Therefore, despite the historical disturbance from the bridge project and District maintenance, the Project area functions as good quality, occupied SBKR habitat.

2. 3 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The Project would connect the City' s regional 72- inch storm drain to outlet the City Creek channel by constructing a new underground pipe, new underground box culvert, and a new outfall structure that is designed to slow the velocity of the flows before outletting to the City Creek channel bottom.

The revised storm drain design transitions through various conduit types, starting with 84 lineal feet of proposed 84- inch reinforced concrete pipe ( RCP) connection to the existing 72- inch RCP located within 5th Street east of 5th Street Bridge. From the 84 inch RCP, the storm drain transitions to approximately 26 lineal feet of 8 foot by 8 foot concrete box culvert, then to approximately 40 lineal feet of an 15- footwide grouted rip -rap open channel. From there, the storm drain transitions to a 20 linear foot 15- footwide irregular channel outfall before joining approximately 1 foot above the existing City Creek channel toe of slope. The existing 24- inch RCP storm drain and outfall adjacent to the 5th Street Bridge would be removed.

The following are included in the Proposed Project and are provided on Figure 3 and Appendix F— Project Plans.

Site Access. The existing disturbed area on the south side of 5th Street would be utilized for the Project.

New disturbance would occur to allow for construction equipment access and materials aydown for a total of approximately 1 acre adjacent to the work area and within the concrete area under the bridge, along the levee top.

Connection to City Creek. The storm drain design transitions through various conduit types: starting at the 72- inch RCP located within 5th Street, east of the 5th Street bridge, an 84- inch reinforced concrete pipe RCP) would extend approximately 84 lineal feet to an 8- foot by 8- foot concrete box culvert that would 27

Page 20 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
be 26 feet long, then transitions to an 15- foot- wide grouted rip -rap open channel for 40 feet, then transitions to a 15- foot- wide irregular open channel outfall for 20 feet where it will outfall in the existing rip rap area along the sideslope. The new stormdrain would vary in depth from 0 to 16 feet, while the outlet would be situated approximately 1 foot above the existing City Creek channel toe of slope. A trash grate would be placed between the box culvert and the grouted rip -rap open channel to prevent unlawful access and to further control debris from flowing into City Creek. Following construction, the area disturbed by the pipe and box culvert would be buried by approximately up to 6 to 8 feet of native soil and restored with native plants. It is anticipated that because the new facilities would be placed adjacent or near the existing facilities, that the existing pipeline and outfall would be removed. The open channel and irregular outfall will remain open because it is designed to reduce the stormwater design velocity from 15 feet per second ( fps) to less than 6 fps for the 100- year storm event, thus reducing and/ or eliminating scour potential to the City Creek Channel.

Construction between the street and the 15- foot- wide grouted rip -rap open channel includes excavating trenches that vary in depth from 16 feet to 0 feet deep and 15 feet wide to place the pipe and box culvert.

The area of the open channel is anticipated to be approximately 0 to 20 feet deep by 15 feet wide and will be cast in place concrete.

Work Method Stockpiles and Equipment Staging/ Storage. Table 3: List of Typical Equipment identifies the typical equipment expected to be utilized for the Project. The City would require the contractor to locate equipment off site and only bring in and store materials to be used for the day, and/ or keeping rip - rap in small quantities overnight only when needed. The contractor would be provided copies of all permits and be required to adhere to all conditions.

It is anticipated that most of the work to remove the rip rap and current culvert would be performed from the top of the channel, with smaller equipment staged at the toe of slope as needed.

Table 3: List of Typical Equipment
Typical Equipment Number
Rubber tire loader 1
Track Excavator 2
Bobcat 2
Water Truck 1
Pile Driver with Shoring Plates 1
Dump Truck 1
Concrete Mix Delivery Truck 1

2. 4 2024 PROPOSED PROJECT STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS
The 2024 Proposed Project would also require permitting from the following State Agencies which require that the Project comply with CEQA prior to issuance of their respective permits:

CDFG Code Section 2081 to authorize the incidental take of SBKR. Ground disturbance onsite will not exceed 0. 85 acre, of which 0. 14 acre is occupied SBKR habitat to be restored ( Exhibit 4A) and 28

Page 21 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
July 2025
is included within the permanent impacts associated with the 2001 Biological Opinion for the 5th Street Bridge Replacement Project ( Exhibit 4b).

CDFG Code Section 1600 for Streambed Alteration
Clean Water Act Section 401 ( Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board), or inclusion in the County and City' s MS- 4 permit
The 2024 Proposed Project would also require permitting from the following Federal Agencies USFWS— Section 10 Endangered Species Act Low Impact Habitat Conservation Act ( LEHCP). As the design does not have an impact on federal jurisdictional waters, and therefore no federal lead agency, the City and the USFWS have completed a Section 10 consultation and developed a draft Low -Effect Habitat Conservation Plan ( LEHCP). The Section 10 LEHCP would be implemented for the area between Fifth Street and the outfall at City Creek as this area is outside of federal/ Corps jurisdiction but still inside critical habitat for the SBKR. The boundary covered by the LEHCP is shown on Figure 6. The LEHCP area includes an assumed onsite area of 0. 85 acre that includes all areas of potential ground disturbance, and within which, 0. 14 acre would be restored.

No federal Clean Water Act Section 404 ( US Army Corps of Engineers) is required because the outfall does not extend into the ordinary high water mark that would impact federal jurisdictional waters. 29

Page 22 ends

Initial5tudy/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
4MUK, . . 1. awI
j•r.5-• \ ( L I ' y'r: " D1WG L111G Ou r,
y- Mel
v:.: \, i1•
C: is
Q`.. ,.,.7.
a `
1 t l .' .'' s' 1
f'o, f h i1• ! dFf, s'J4
H
MesCity Creek Bridge
4 Project Limits
2023 Sth Street Storm Drain Connection
F !'_ •'
to City Creek Project
a '•'" r:;:,,; .

J•--• .

Pro ect Limits
July 2025
St 1'
o ~\\` 1335
East
S •\. rr `%.1 ice.\ 1
J
i=• :` Displ age A':•?:ui'R•r..:;;,{,':'"<.'
tc
16 liV4[illVt1
Figure 1- Regional Vicinity Map: 2000 Project and 2024 Project Not to Scale
N
Source: 2000 IS/ EA
30

Page 23 ends

z0 0 mm
2 2I orq fD N N O N z
O CD n r— O n v
r
O
N
I
0 D
GLQ0 _
v m
Q (
D
A
S
1 1-
4 I .
1 r
IIn
el
11 s
r
co
i
1 1
1 1
I
n
E
31 Z 0 0 C) w m
I =
rn
Q --
4 D
I
Z
J
z
C)
7r
t
m
r :.
p
mm
7 m
I
7M
M Co
i
0 rnv
h
rrl.
wi +
i
I
to
I
z
cc
a
m
t.
11,
1 I'
a
rn
I ,
11 iJ
i_ ,
i_ -
irt (
7 D
y
i
I
00r
I
a
ILc.

J:
r3i
i
1 :
3 _
STA
10+
8B.
86 LINE -
A"=
1`
C--'
STA
1+
0U.

U
LAT "
A"
o
STA,.
1406,
00 BC
END
3C6'
G'
n
3EGIN
RdP
STA.
11+

41. 29
EC
C
CL
PROF'
MH
I
f
n
JOIN
EX.
72" -
tCf'
AT

NEAREST --
1PE
JOINT. ?
u
k
T, m
At
71 rm
x
1 r
LU
t` `
t
j
y
n
3 32
0 Q) 0Cl) CD
z
ZJ> '
T
I
N O 0 O N m D 0
rD n r+
b
D
a
fl.
l
d
n
o
N O
o
v
o
m
o
0 oa
rDD 01
n
r+
1 av c
a
o •
4 I
I
o
I
I
e:

S
eS'`
s ••
N
r
a
Q•
o
Ob +
i °
I
I
i
I
I
m
II
S
N
p -
LL
O
A
V
V
p
NI
E •
m
0 mN
II
O
0 4
Eu
I \
o
n
r
j
o •
o
F
ro
v
o;
y
ro
V
0 N
O
O
m
3 ?
e
n (
D
to
O
rt
ti
Fi0
to
3 ' o ' =
41 M
IQ
o'
i
a
Il
A=$$
RW
II
nE N
O
Ln
33 Z 0 0 U) v CD
i
Z
A
6 s
nE
R. °
P4 "
N -_.--
34 w
T c
L1 D
0) N O 0. D
C) rf- 00 c 0_ v v Z3 C
o
L/)
n
ID R, 70 n ID
m n
0 v
D
NDo
r m rn 0
4 n
G Ni ON
35 zO O CO CD
z
L7.. ',
fir• `
J
1 f
146, tea - "`- -
A
9 rCD
w
UJ
uj
0 =
RD
o
o
CD
y
tQ
O
O
O
m
d
y
z; =
3 Y.

CD
CD
2 O
@
CD
O
i
O
a
In
N
O
a !
0 d
S
N
@
i.
h
j
36 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
3 CEQA/ NEPA DETERMINATION - 2024 PROPOSED PROJECT

3. 1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
July 2025
In 2000, the City of Highland completed an Initial Study/ Environmental Assessment ( IS/ EA) under CEQA and NEPA to construct a new bridge on 5th Street at City Creek and the widening of 5th Street between State Route 30 and Palm Avenue, titled Initial Study/ Environmental Assessment for the Fifth Street Widening and Replacement (# 54C0016) in the City ofHighland, SCH No. 2000061092 ( 2000 IS/ EA). As that project was partially funded through the Federal Highway Administration, an analysis under NEPA was required, and the document approved by Caltrans.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that when a negative declaration has been adopted for a project, no subsequent negative declaration shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more conditions. CEQA Guidelines 15162 states:
a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted fora project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision ( a).

Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency' s role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subdivision a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants 37

Page 30 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1 July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.
d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the some notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 sets out the conditions in which an adopted MND can be revised or amended as follows:
a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 callingfor the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
d) The decision -making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency' s required findings on the project or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.

3. 2 ANALYSIS EVALUATION
Section 4 — Environmental Analysis of this document summarizes the analysis of the 2000 IS/ EA and provides information on how the 2024 Proposed Project impacts would be similar to those assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA. The table also provides columns that provide the conclusions required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 as follows. The conclusions are based on the narrative provided in the analysis.

Do the Proposed Changes Involve New Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. ( a)( 1), this column indicates whether the 2024 Proposed Project will result in new significant environmental impacts not previously identified or mitigated by the 2000 IS/ EA or whether the 2024 Proposed Project will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

New Circumstances Involving New Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. ( a)( 2), this column indicates whether the 2024 Proposed Project results in substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions to the 2000 IS/ EA due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 38

Page 31 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. ( a)( 3)( A- D), this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 2000 IS/ EA was adopted, shows any of the following:

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

If the additional analysis completed as part of this environmental review were to find that the conclusions of the 2000 IS/ EA remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, or additional mitigation is not necessary, then the question would be answered " no" and no additional environmental document would be required.

Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. ( a)( 3), this column indicates whether the 2000 IS/ EA provides mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. Any previously adopted mitigation measures are identified in Table 2. These mitigation measures will be implemented with the construction of the 2024 Proposed Project, as applicable. If " None" is indicated, the 2000 IS/ EA concluded that the impact either does not occur with this project or is not significant, and therefore no mitigation measures are needed.

Any change in an mitigation measure from the 2000 IS/ EA would not trigger additional environmental review as long as the change clarifies or provide for more stringent measures. 39

Page 32 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
4 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: PHYSICAL
The potential impacts associated with Physical changes to the environment as a result of the 2000 Project are identified in the 2000 IS/ EA ( Appendix A), on pages 5- 1 through 5- 17, Questions 1 through 21 represented in each heading as Q and the number). This section provides a summary of the analysis of the 2000 IS/ EA and an analysis of 2024 Project as it compares to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

4. 1 Q1: TOPOGRAPHY

1. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly appreciably change the topography or ground surface relief features?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, or
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybe
No Severe Impacts? More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

4. 1. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

The topography in the project study area is generally flat. The natural terrain has been previously disturbed by the construction of Fifth Street. The project area between SR- 30 and Church Avenue is identified in the General Plan as being within the 100- year floodplain. City Creek flows southwest to the Santa Ana River and is identified in the General Plan as a major natural drainage facility for the City. A mixed use trail is proposed in the General Plan along City Creek connecting to the Santa Ana River Trail system. 2024 Proposed Project:

The Proposed Project will follow the general topography of the area, which is flat between 5th Street and the new outfall will be placed in the existing rip rap slope constructed as part of the bridge project to protect the existing City Creek slope. None of the construction requires a regrading of the channel sideslopes in a manner that would change the flow line properties from the existing condition.

Additionally, the Project has been designed to reduce scour in City Creek from the additional flows, thereby not changing the topography of the City Creek flowline in the future. No aspect of the Project would prohibit the City' s planned Mixed Use Trail. Impacts are similar to those previously assessed, and there would be no change.
40

Page 33 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

4. 1. 2 Mitigation Measures
July 2025
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 1. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

4. Previously identified mitigation measures would be implemented with the 2024 Project, and none have been found infeasible. No new mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts from the 2024 Project.

4. 2 Q2: UNIQUE FEATURES

2. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly destroy, cover or modify any unique geologic, paleontologic, or physical features?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA:
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, No or
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybe
No Severe Impacts? More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

4. 2. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

No unique geologic, palaeontologic, or physical features exist in the project area, therefore no impacts would occur.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Project occurs in the same location as the 2000 IS/ EA assessment. A cultural resources study was performed to update the conditions that may have occurred since the 2000 Project ( Appendix C — 41

Page 34 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
Historical/ Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Fifth Street Storm Drain Improvement Project, City of Highland, prepared by CRM Tech, February 11, 2024). The report identified that there were no new resources discovered since the time of the 2000 Project evaluation. Therefore, there would be no change in impacts.

4. 2. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 2. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

4. 3 Q3: GEOLOGIC/ SEISMIC HAZARDS

3. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly result in unstable earth surfaces or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic or seismic hazards
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, No or
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybe
No Severe Impacts? More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

4. 3. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

The Fifth Street project is subject to ground shaking from regional and local fault activity, as is all of California. The primary potential hazard, in the event of a major earthquake, would be ground motion; 42

Page 35 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1 July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
however, secondary hazards could include soil settlement. The site has a low liquefaction potential due to the quick dissipation of excess pore water pressure and the dense nature of the soils. The project does not include any structures that would increase the risk of exposure to people. Potential geologic and seismic hazards associated with project implementation would be reduced by designing the project to comply with Caltrans' most recent seismic design standards.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Project occurs in the same location as the 2000 IS/ EA assessment, therefore, there would be no change in impacts.

4. 3. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 3. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

4. 4 Q4: SOIL EROSION

4. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly result in or be affected by soil erosion or siltation whether by water or wind)?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

Page 36 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1 July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

4. 4. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Construction activities in the vicinity of City Creek would increase the potential for wind or water erosion of soils and result in short- term changes in deposition, erosion, or siltation that may modify City Creek or the Santa Ana River. Once construction is complete, the erosion rate at the project site would be the same as the existing rate. Short-term soil erosion impacts from demolition and construction of the bridge within the City Creek area would be mitigated through the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) and are not substantial.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Project occurs in the same location as the 2000 IS/ EA assessment, therefore, there would be no change in impacts. The Project does not disturb more than 1 acre of land, therefore, the City does not need to obtain coverage under the 2022 Construction General Permit and a SWPPP is not required. However, given the sensitivity of the Project area, the City will require the contractor to install and maintain erosion and sediment control BMPs for the entire construction phase such that the contractor does violate the City' s NPDES requirements.

4. 4. 2 Mitigation Measures
The 2000 IS/ EA identified that the 2000 Project would prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP) that would include Good Management Practices ( GMPs) from the Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook ( May 10, 1996). ( Note: specific measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA and are incorporated by reference herein for the purpose of brevity).

The Project does not disturb more than 1 acre of land, therefore, the City is not required to obtain coverage under the 2022 Construction General Permit, and a SWPPP is not required. However, given the sensitivity of the Project area, the City will require the contractor to install and maintain erosion and sediment control BMPs for the entire construction phase such that the contractor does violate the City' s NPDES requirements. Many of the BMPs are anticipated to be similar in nature to those identified in the 2000 IS/ EA, and will follow Best Management Practices from the latest version of the Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook.

4. 4. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

Page 37 ends

44 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

4. 5 Q5: FUEL/ ENERGY

5. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly result in the increased use of fuel or energy in large amounts or in a wasteful manner?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, Yes, o oror
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybee
No Severe Impacts? More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

4. 5. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Due to the relatively small scale of the project, construction of the proposed improvements would not require use of large or wasteful amounts of fuel or energy. The use of energy to construct the project would not be a substantial irrevocable commitment of fossil fuel resources. 2024 Proposed Project:

The Proposed Project is small, and construction does not require special processes or equipment that would require use of large or wasteful amounts of fuel or energy.

4. 5. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 5. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification 45

Page 38 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

4. 6 Q6: NATURAL RESOURCES

6. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

4. 6. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Due to the relatively small scale of the project, construction of the proposed improvements would not substantially affect the rate of use of any natural resources. Also, there are no important quantities of natural resources ( e. g., sand and gravel deposits) within the Fifth Street project limits. 2024 Proposed Project:

4. 6. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 6. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts. 46

Page 39 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification July 2025

4. 7 Q7: NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES

7. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly result in the substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

4. 7. 1 Discussion
2000 iS/ EA:

As noted above in Response Nos. 5 and 6, the use of energy to construct the project would not be a substantial irrevocable commitment of fossil fuel resources or natural resources. 2024 Proposed Project:

Refer to Response Nos. 5 and 6. No aspect of the project would represent a substantial depletion of nonrenewable resources.

4. 7. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 7. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

Page 40 ends

47 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification July 2025

4. 8 Q8: WASTE STANDARDS
S. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly violate any published Federal, State or local standards pertaining to hazardous waste, solid waste or litter control? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, No or
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybe
No Severe Impacts.' More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

4. 8. 1 Discussion
200015/ EA:

There are no hazardous sites within the 2024 Proposed Project boundaries. During construction, the City of Highland shall mitigate any areas of contamination found within the Project limits through implementation of standard cleanup and disposal procedures ( i. e., removing and transporting the waste to an appropriate landfill).
2024 Proposed Project:

The Project occurs in the same location as the 2000 IS/ EA assessment, therefore, there would be no change in impacts.

4. 8. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 8. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:
48

Page 41 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

4. 9 Q9: MODIFY STREAM/ RIVER

9. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any inlet or lake?
2000 Project 12024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

4. 9. 1 Discussion
20001S/ EA:

Demolition and reconstruction of the bridge over City Creek would result in minor alterations to surface water within the channel. Implementation of Best Management Practices ( BMPs) during construction would reduce impacts to less than significant.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Proposed Project would occur within the same location within City Creek as the 2000 Project, but within a much smaller footprint by only demolishing and reconstructing a portion of the existing outfall and rip rap slope immediately adjacent to the outfall on the slope on the east side adjacent to the bridge, for the purpose of outfall relocation. The new pipeline, box culvert and open rip rap channel prior to the outfall point are designed to slow flows before they enter City Creek to reduce scour. Project -specific hydrology and hydraulic reports were prepared ( Appendix D- 1 and D- 2) that identify that the new flows from the outlet would be similar in velocity than what the existing outfall experiences. Therefore, the Project would modify City Creek in the same location as the previous project and control flows to what is similar of existing conditions.

Page 42 ends

49 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1 July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

4. 9. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 9. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

4. 10 Q10: FLOODPLAIN ENCROACHMENT

10. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly encroach upon a floodplain or result in or be affected by floodwaters or tidal waves?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

4. 10. 1 Discussion
20001S/ EA:

Portions of the proposed project lie within the 100-year floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps ( FIRM) and are depicted in the Location Hydraulic Study Bridge Project Floodplain Study, which was prepared as part of the 2000 IS/ EA. FIRM panel 8702 of 9400, dated March 18, 1996, shows this reach of City Creek within a Zone A designation. Zone A is applied when no base flood elevations were determined. In addition, the Project area is not proximate to bodies of water large enough to generate tidal waves.

Page 43 ends

50 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
2024 Proposed Project:

July 2025
The 2024 Proposed Project does not change the invert elevation of the City Creek Channel at the Project location and therefore would not result in effects to the floodplain.

4. 10. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 10. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

4. 11 Q11: WATER QUALITY AND SUPPLY

11. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly adversely affect the quantity or quality of surface water, groundwater or public water supply?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA:
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, No or
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybe
No Severe Impacts? More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

4. 11. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

The project would result in a slight increase of surface runoff due to the additional pavement on Sth Street, which can contain various oils and grease, which would be greatest during the " first flush" after a storm. 51

Page 44 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
These constituents would be minimal over the existing conditions, and concentrations would be highly diluted before reaching groundwater. Runoff and erosion during construction would be managed through B M Ps.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Proposed Project would add flows to the system as the pipeline connection represents a larger stormwater collection area than the existing facilities. However, the Proposed Project has been designed new, larger underground pipe, new underground box culvert, and a new outfall structure that is designed to slow the velocity of the flows to near existing conditions before outletting to the City Creek channel bottom and reduces the scour potential from the additional flows. Additionally, overall, the design includes nearly 60 feet of open channel where flows are slowed before entering the channel and whereby sunlight can assist in naturally removing constituents of concern. Potential runoff and erosion during construction would be managed through BMPs.

4. 11. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 11. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

4. 12 Q12: WATER USAGE

12. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly result in the use of water in large amounts or in a wasteful manner?

Page 45 ends

52 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1 July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

4. 12. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Project development is not expected to result in the use of large amounts of water during construction and operation. Application of standard Caltrans specifications for roadway construction and maintenance provides for installation of water conserving designs and maintenance programs. 2024 Proposed Project:

Project development is not anticipated to use large amounts of water during construction or operation.

Application of water for dust control as necessary is anticipated during construction. No supplemental water is anticipated for operation.

4. 12. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 12. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

Page 46 ends

53 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1 July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

4. 13 Q13: WETLANDS/ RIPARIAN VEGETATION

13. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly affect wetlands or riparian vegetation? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

4. 13. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Based on the wetland delineation analysis conducted for the project area, a small area of wetland would be displaced by the proposed project. A total of 318. 5 linear meters ( 1. 045 linear feet) of streambed, including 0. 27 hectare ( 0. 67 acre) of jurisdictional water of the U. S, consisting of 0. 22 hectare ( 0. 55 acre) of wetland water, and 0. 05 hectare ( 0. 12 acre) of non -wetland water, was identified as being affected by the project. The benefits provided by the wetland sites within the project area are minimal because of the limited acreage and, therefore, the impact is not considered substantial. However, this adverse impact would be reduced to ensure no net loss of riparian habitat and wetlands after implementation of a mitigation measure. The project is also subject to the conditions of a CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement which serves to reduce impacts on wetlands and/ or riparian vegetation. The Streambed Alteration Agreements were subsequently issued for the project. 2024 Proposed Project:

While Proposed Project activities are anticipated to primarily occur in the upland area and along the existing rip rap slope, some minor impacts may occur to the riparian vegetation that exists at the toe of the slope so equipment can better access the work area. The Proposed Project' s work area would be limited to that which is necessary to perform the current Project, or approximately 0.04 acre of CDFW jurisdictional waters, which does not exceed the 0. 67 acre impacted by the project assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA. The mitigation measures identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the previous project would also apply to the Proposed Project. Additionally, the Proposed Project would also obtain a CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement for the currently proposed work that would also reduce impacts. A Biological Assessment/ Jurisdictional Waters Delineation was prepared for the Proposed Project and is provided in Appendix B- 2: Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Assessment for the 5th Street Storm Drian Connection at City Creek Project Located in the City of Highland, San Bernardino, County, California.

4. 13. 2 Mitigation Measures
The 2000 IS/ EA identified the following mitigation measure that was applicable to the 2000 Project:

Page 47 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
July 2025

1. For direct impacts ( temporary disturbance of up 0. 27 hectare [ 0. 67 acre] of waters/ streambed) construction activities shall be limited to the minimal area necessary and that upon completion of construction, impacted areas be restored to replicate existing conditions. A one- time revegetation of the site shall be required. At the onset of construction topsoil ( where present) and plant materials shall be salvaged for use in restoration activities. The top three to six inches of topsoil shall be scraped off and stockpiled on site, upon completion of construction, the stockpiled soil shall be spread over areas targeted for restoration. Prior to removal of vegetation, cuttings shall be taken from shrubs and trees ( i. e., mulefat, cottonwood, and willows), cuttings shall be rooted and maintained for post -construction planting. Topsoil shall be spread and cuttings planted in areas where adequate water is available for the growth of riparian vegetation. No long- term monitoring of the site shall be required.

Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, this mitigation measure would apply, and no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 13. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

4. 14 Q14: WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

14. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State or local water quality standards?

Page 48 ends

55 Initial5tudy/ EA Addendum 1 July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA:
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, No or
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybe
No Severe Impacts. More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

4. 14. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

The project is not anticipated to have a substantial impact on local water quality with implementation of City of Highland design standards for controlling storm runoff. Runoff and erosion during construction would be controlled by contract specifications and BMPs. Construction industry standard stormwater BMPs can be found in the State of California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook, Construction Activity. With implementation of BMP measures, the potential for increased runoff during construction would not be substantial.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Proposed Project is not anticipated to have a substantial impact on local water quality with implementation of all Federal, State, and Local guidelines and regulations. Flows into City Creek are regulated by Clean Water Act Section 401 ( Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board), by inclusion in the County and City' s National Pollutant Elimination System ( NPDES) MS- 4 permit.

4. 14. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 14. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

Page 49 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

4. 15 Q15: AIR PROPERTIES
July 2025

15. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly result in changes in air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any climatic conditions?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
20001E/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

4. 15. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Due to the relatively limited scale of the project, construction of the proposed facility would not affect existing local air movement patterns, or alter temperature or other climatic conditions in the Project study area.
2024 Proposed Project:

4. 15. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 15. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification 57

Page 50 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
July 2025

4. 16 Q16: AIR EMISSIONS/ AIR QUALITY

16. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly result in an increase in air pollutant emissions, adverse effects on or deterioration of ambient air quality?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, No or
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybe
No Severe Impacts. More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No Yes

4. 16. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

An Air Quality Analysis was preformed for the project. The project would not increase air pollutant emissions or a deterioration in Air Quality. However, a mitigation measure was required to ensure construction maintained equipment and followed procedures to reduce potential emissions. 2024 Proposed Project:

An Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Energy Impact Study was prepared for the 2024 Project ( Appendix E 5th Street Storm Drain Connection, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, September 18, 2024 ) that determined that the 2024 Project, during construction and operation, would not result in an increase of air emissions or a deterioration of ambient air quality. The Mitigation Measure for the previous project would also apply to the 2024 Proposed Project.

4. 16. 2 Mitigation Measures
The 2000 IS/ EA identified the following mitigation measure to reduce impacts to less than significant:

Adherence to existing policies, regulations, and/ or design standards would reduce any adverse impact of the project. The following standard measures shall be implemented.

Page 51 ends

58 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
July 2025
The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews would shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season ( May through October), the overall length of the construction period should be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time.

The following measures would reduce or minimize fugitive dust emissions associated with grading or other soil disturbance:

The SCAQMD rules addressing fugitive dust control measures, Rules 402 and 403, shall be adhered to during the construction process.

A fugitive dust control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the SCAQMD prior to beginning project construction.

The following measure would reduce or minimize air pollutant emissions associated with asphalt paving:

The Construction Contractor shall adhere to the recommendations set forth by the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and adopted by reference by the SCAQMD addressing the emission control measures covering the asphalt paving emissions.

4. 16. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

Page 52 ends

59 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

4. 17 Q17: ODORS

17. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly result in the creation of objectionable odors? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

4. 17. 1 Discussion
20001S/ EA:

The proposed project would not generate new odors, in and of itself; however, short-term odor impacts i. e., diesel fumes) associated with Project construction may occur adjacent to the project right-of-way during construction. These fumes would dissipate quickly, and do not pose a potentially substantial odor impact.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Proposed Project would also not generate odors in of itself, but may generate short-term odors associated with project construction, which would dissipate quicky and do not result in the creation of objectionable odors.

4. 17. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 17. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

Page 53 ends

60 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

4. 18 Q18: AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

18. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State or local air standards or control plans?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation` Yes, No or
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybe
No Severe Impacts'. More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

4. 18. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

As discussed under Response No. 16, the Fifth Street project is included in the existing RTIP, does not require amendment to any local General Plan, and is considered consistent with the air quality related regional plan. The FHWA and FTA issued a conformity determination on the SCAG 1998 Regional Transportation Plan and Fiscal Year 1998/ 99 - 2004/ 5 Regional Transportation Improvement Program RTIP) on October 5, 1998.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Air Quality analysis in Appendix C assessed the 2024 Project' s consistency with current applicable air Federal, State or local air standards or control plans and found the 2024 Project would be consistent with those plans.

4. 18. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 18. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

Page 54 ends

61 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

4. 19 Q19: NOISE LEVELS

19. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly result in an increase in noise levels or vibration for adjoining area?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

If Yes, is it Changes involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, No or
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybe
No Severe Impacts? More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No F None

4. 19. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

The widening of 5th Street and associated bridge may increase traffic, which may increase noise levels and vibration for adjoining areas. However, along this segment of 5th Street, there are no residential or commercial uses where sensitive receptors would be disturbed by the noise. Additionally, the incremental noise did not meet the Caltrans requirement to perform a noise study or install noise attenuation structures.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Proposed Project is the replacement of an existing storm drain, and would not introduce new traffic trips to the Project site. Temporary noise associated with construction is anticipated, but any noise would dissipate and is temporary in nature. Along this segment of Fifth Street, there are no residential uses or commercial uses with outdoor activities that would have frequent human use. Therefore, there are no exterior receptors that would be impacted by the temporary construction noise.

Page 55 ends

62 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

4. 19. 2 Mitigation Measures
July 2025
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 19. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

4. 20 Q20: NOISE STANDARDS

20. Result in any Federal, State or local noise criteria being equal or exceeded? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

4. 20. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

During construction activities, nearby land uses may be exposed to periodic short-term noise levels in excess of the City of Highland' s threshold levels when construction occurs near the Project construction boundaries. Due to the short- term nature of construction activities, the absence of sensitive receptors adjacent to the project, and the restrictions on nighttime and weekend work ( as imposed by the City of Highland Noise Ordinance), potential noise impacts are not considered substantial. 63

Page 56 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
2024 Proposed Project:

July 2025
The Proposed Project would generate noise during construction, but there are no receptors nearby. The Project would abide by the City of Highland' s noise ordinance.

4. 20. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 20. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

4. 21 Q21: LIGHT/ GLARE

21. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly produce new light, glare or shadows? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

4. 21. 1 Discussion
200015/ EA:

The proposed project would provide new lights on the bridge. Street lighting is provided as a safety feature and would not create a substantial intrusion of light into the area. Lighting sources would be shielded to

Page 57 ends

64 Initial5tudy/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
July 2025
prevent spillover of light from the bridge to adjacent lands so as not to affect the SBKR. Therefore, no impact is anticipated.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Proposed Project does not propose or include new lighting.

4. 21. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

4. 21. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

Page 58 ends

65 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1 July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
5 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: BIOLOGICAL
The potential impacts associated with Physical changes to the environment as a result of the 2000 Project are identified in the 2000 IS/ EA ( Appendix A), on pages 5- 17 through 5- 21, Questions 22 through 29 represented in each heading as Q and the number). This section provides a summary of the analysis of the 2000 IS/ EA and an analysis of 2024 Project as it compares to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

5. 1 Q22: SPECIES DIVERSITY

22. Will the proposal result in (either directly or indirectly) change in the diversity of species or number of any species ofplants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora, and aquatic plants)? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA:
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, No or
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybe
No Severe Impacts? More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

5. 1. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

The proposed project would have temporary impacts on plant communities within City Creek. The areas adjacent to the roadway that would be affected by the roadway widening are disturbed, contain nonnative landscaping or ruderal species. Temporary impacts include grubbing, clearing, and grading operations that result from construction operations, but would not result in a permanent conversion of habitat to human use. Permanent conversion of habitat will occur in the areas where the pylons of the bridge would be permanently widened in City Creek.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Proposed Project would occur within the same footprint as assessed by the 2000 IS/ EA. Temporary impacts would include grubbing, clearing, and grading operations that result from construction operations, but would not result in a permanent conversion of habitat to human use. All areas where native plants are disturbed would be restored to pre -construction condition through hydroseeding and planting of native plants. Permanent impacts of areas that would not be restored represents approximately 800 SF, which is the 40 feet of the 15- foot- wide grouted rip -rap open channel and 20 feet of the the 15- foot- wide irregular open channel adjacent to the sideslope. This area would not be revegetated. This 800 SF in the upland area is not significant and would not cause a change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants ( including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora, and aquatic plants). This 800 SF in the upland area is designed to reduce impacts, including plants, in City Creek, due to the increased flows.

Page 59 ends

66 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

5. 1. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

5. 1. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

5. 2 Q23: CRITICAL HABITAT

23. Will the proposal result in ( either directly or indirectly) reduction of the numbers of or encroachment upon the critical habitat of any unique, threatened or endangered species of plants? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

5. 2. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

As discussed in the Natural Environmental Study Report, the area of the City Creek Bridge contains habitat for the federally listed endangered SBKR. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) had not officially designated " critical" habitat for the SBKR . Twelve of the species were trapped during focused surveys for the species both north and south of the existing bridge. The loss of alluvial fan sage scrub habitat on the site itself is not considered substantial because of the relatively small amount of this habitat within the

Page 60 ends

67 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1 July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
proposed project area. However, because the alluvial fan sage scrub is occupied by the SBKR, any impacts to this species are considered substantial.

The proposed project would impact approximately 0. 22 hectare ( 0. 55 acre) of mulefat riparian habitat associated with defined channels and approximately 0. 05 hectare ( 0. 12 acre) of unvegetated drainages.

Impacts to drainages are not considered substantial because the riparian vegetation is of low habitat value to wildlife species and because the impact to the drainage will be temporary. However, these drainages are protected under the provisions of the Clean Water Act and Section 1600 seq. of the California Fish and Game Code and mitigation is provided in Response No. 13 to reduce the proposed project' s temporary effects on wetlands.
2024 Proposed Project:

A Section 7 consultation was conducted for the 5th Street Bridge Project, and all mitigation measures were implemented at that time which avoided, minimized and mitigated for SBKR and SBKR habitat.

The 2024 Proposed Project has been in various stages of planning and design since 2005, resulting in the final design which is the subject of this 2024 Proposed Project. In 2009, the US Army Corps determined that the Proposed Project would not impact federally jurisdictional waters. As such, in 2018, the City initiated a consultation with USFWS for a Section 10 Low Effect HCP to reduce impacts to critical habitat and the SBKR as a result of the 2024 Proposed Project. The City is required to implement the measures proposed in the HCP to ensure that impacts to SBKR and its habitat are avoided or minimized. In September 2022, the City conducted SBKR trapping in the Project area of the proposed 72- inch RCP connection from 5th Street to the City Creek outfall, and within the area of the LEHCP, which is the same area of work disturbed by the 2000 project. The survey yielded positive results of two individuals in the proposed area of work. The 2024 Proposed Project is situated within the same footprint as the 2009 determination, therefore, the 2024 Proposed Project would not result in a different determination from the US Army Corps. As such, the City is in the process of completing its consultation with the USFWS for the Low Effect HCP to ensure that the 2024 Proposed Project continues to minimize and avoid potential impacts to SBKR and critical habitat.

5. 2. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

5. 2. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

Page 61 ends

68 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1 July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

5. 3 Q24: NEW SPECIES INTRODUCTION

24. Will the proposal result in ( either directly or indirectly) introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

5. 3. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Existing properties east of Palm Avenue and west of City Creek Bridge are currently landscaped with nonnative and ornamental vegetation. Landscaping will be established or replaced in this area as required.

Landscaping materials will consist of species common to the City of Highland and the region in general.

The introduction of non- native landscaping materials would not result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing native species.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Proposed Project would restore with native plant species those areas disturbed by construction. The existing conditions consist of rocks and vegetation. An 800 SF area that represents an open rip rap channel would not be restored but the rip rap would not be dissimilar to the rocky portions of the existing area.

This 800 SF of grouted rip rap would be available for wildlife to traverse and would not represent a barrier or designed in a manner that these species would become trapped that would result in a barrier of normal replenishment of existing species.

5. 3. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

Page 62 ends

69 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

5. 3. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

July 2025

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

5. 4 Q25: AGRICULTURE

25. Will the proposal result in (either directly or indirectly) reduction in acreage of any agriculture crop or commercial timber stand, or affect prime, unique, or otherfarmland ofState or local importance? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

5. 4. 1 Discussion
20001S/ EA:

No prime, unique, or State or locally important agricultural land, cultivation of agricultural crops or timber stands are present within the project study area and, therefore, no impacts to these resources would occur.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Project occurs in the same location as the project assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA. There are no impacts to these resources.
70

Page 63 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

5. 4. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

5. 4. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

5. 5 Q26: WILDLIFE HABITAT

26. Will the proposal result in ( either directly or indirectly) removal or deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

5. 5. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Impacts to wildlife in general are not considered substantial because of the relatively small amount of wildlife habitat present on site and because project impacts are relatively minor. However, the area of the City Creek Bridge contains habitat for the SBKR, a federally listed endangered species. The City, Corps, and FHWA are currently in Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. Mitigation measures for project impacts to the SBKR were discussed with the USFWS ( Jack Easton. of LSA, pers comm. Arthur Davenport of the USFWS, April 14, 1998 and field visit Denise Woodard of LSA pers comm. P. J. White, Scott Eliason), and two Section 7 consultations were initiated which resulted in two Biological Opinions where mitigation

Page 64 ends

71 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1 July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
measures were implemented for a total disturbance area of 5. 69 acres were disturbed for the construction of the bridge and sideslopes.
2024 Proposed Project:

In 2018, the City and the USFWS prepared a Low -Effect HCP for the USFWS to authorize incidental take of the species to construct the Project and to authorize avoidance and minimization measures of the construction area, which has been determined to be 0. 84 acre, located within the 5. 69 acres previously disturbed. As the previous project abided by the Section 7 Biological Opinions for that project, so will the 2024 Proposed Project abide by the terms of the Section 10 Low Effect HCP, which includes but is not limited to revegetation of all construction areas and relocating SBKR out of the construction zone, installing SBKR fencing around the construction site, and providing a biological monitor during construction and restoration.

Additionally, because the CDFW formally listed the SBKR as an endangered species in September 2023, the City is now required to comply with Fish and Game Code Section 2081 to obtain an Incidental Take Permit ( ITP) from the CDFW. The City would also be required to abide by the terms and conditions of the ITP which would serve to avoid and minimize impacts to the SBKR and its habitat. Because the Low Effect HCP also serves to conserve the SBKR, it is assumed that the measures of the Low Effect HCP would also be applied to the ITP.

5. 5. 2 Mitigation Measures
The 2000 IS/ EA identified the following mitigation measure to reduce impacts to less than significant:

Prior to construction, the limits of construction will be fenced with 1. 25- meter (4- foot) silt fencing to provide a barrier to prevent SBKR from entering the construction area and to prevent impacts to alluvial fan sage scrub vegetation outside the construction limits. Access to SBKR habitat outside the construction limits will be prohibited and these areas will be posted accordingly.

The areas within the limits of the construction area will be trapped for SBKR and any trapped animals will be relocated outside the fenced construction limits.

All project -related activities will be monitored by a qualified biologist. The monitoring biologist will be present during all clearing of vegetation to be con- ducted for the project.

Page 65 ends

72 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
July 2025
The monitoring biologist will ensure that only RAFSS within the construction limits will be removed or disturbed.

Access to SBKR habitat outside the project limits will be prohibited and these areas will be posted accordingly.

All movement of construction contractors, including ingress and egress of equipment and personnel, will be limited to the designated project limits.

The staging area for construction equipment will be limited to designated locations which are physically separate from potential SBKR habitat areas.

Orientation meetings will be conducted for construction personnel. Contractors' pets will be prohibited in and adjacent to the construction area.

The proper use and disposal of oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel will be enforced.

Upon completion of construction, the area of temporary impact ( 1. 6 hectares [ 4. 0 acres]) will be recontoured to its original state and the silt fencing will be removed. An upland revegetation program will be completed for the areas temporarily disturbed by the proposed project. This revegetation program serves as a one- time revegetation effort to encourage the growth of native vegetation in the area that will be affected temporarily. The revegetation program will include the following elements: identifying plant material and seed mix, site preparation and planting implementation, vegetation and topsoil salvage, and planting and seeding methods.

Shielded lighting to direct night-time lighting onto the roadways and away from SBKR habitat will be utilized to minimize potential impacts.

Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, this mitigation measure would apply. The City worked with the USFWS during the preparation of the Low Effect HCP to develop measures that would be applicable and appropriate for the 2024 Project.

The Low Effect HCP contains a number of measures that are similar in nature to the measures from the Biological Opinion, which are defined in the mitigation measure outlined in the 2000 IS/ EA. Because the City purchased credits from the Cajon Mitigation Bank for the 2000 Project, and the City is disturbing the

Page 66 ends

73 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1 July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
same area, the USFWS will not require additional credits to be purchased in the mitigation bank as part of the Low Effect HCP conditions.

The City is required to comply with Fish and Game Code Section 2081 to obtain an ITP from the CDFW.

Because the Low Effect HCP also serves to conserve the SBKR, it is assumed that the measures of the Low Effect HCP would also be applied to the ITP. Compliance with State, Federal and local regulations, and the permit conditions that result from compliance with regulations, which include obtaining an ITP from the CDFW, is not considered mitigation. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required.

5. 5. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

5. 6 Q27: CHANGE IN DIVERSITY

27. Will the proposal result in ( either directly or indirectly) change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals ( birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

5. 6. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

The proposed improvements to the existing Fifth Street facility would not result in a change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals.

Page 67 ends

74 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
2024 Proposed Project:

July 2025
The proposed improvements to the existing Fifth Street facilities would not result in a change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals.

5. 6. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

5. 6. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

5. 7 Q28: CRITICAL HABITAT FOR SENSITIVE SPECIES

28. Will the proposal result in (either directly or indirectly) reduction of the numbers ofor encroachment upon the critical habitat of any unique, threatened or endangered species of animals? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

5. 7. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Refer to Response to Section 5. 5, Question 26.

Page 68 ends

75 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
2024 Proposed Project:

Same as previously identified in Section 5. 5, Question 26.

5. 7. 2 Mitigation Measures
July 2025
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

5. 7. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

5. 8 Q29: INTRODUCTION OF NEW SPECIES

29. Will the proposal result in ( either directly or indirectly) introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

5. 8. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

The proposed improvements to the existing Fifth Street facility would not result in either the introduction of new species of animals into the area or the formation of a barrier to wildlife movement. Contractor' s dogs or other domestic animals would not be allowed on site during construction activities.

Page 69 ends

76 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
2024 Proposed Project:

July 2025
The proposed improvements to the existing Fifth Street stormwater facilities would not result in either the introduction of new species of animals into the area or the formation of a barrier to wildlife movement.

Contractor' s dogs or other domestic animals would not be allowed on site during construction activities.

5. 8. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

5. 8. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

Page 70 ends

77 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1 July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
6 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
The potential impacts associated with Social and Economic changes to the environment as a result of the 2000 Project are identified in the 2000 IS/ EA ( Appendix A), on pages 5- 21 through 5- 24, Questions 30 through 52 ( represented in each heading as Q and the number).. This section provides a summary of the analysis of the 2000 IS/ EA and an analysis of 2024 Project as it compares to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

6. 1 Q30: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

30. Will the proposal directly or indirectly cause disruption of orderly planned development? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

6. 1. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

The area in the vicinity of City Creek and Fifth Street is presently developed with industrial, commercial, and residential uses. The proposed project would not disrupt the development or divide an existing community.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Project is located in the same area as the previous project. No major changes or shifts in land use have occurred between the 2000 IS/ EA assessment and the current assessment.

6. 1. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 1. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

Page 71 ends

78 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification July 2025

6. 2 Q31: CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED PLANS

31. Will the proposal directly or indirectly be inconsistent with any elements of adopted community plans, policies or goals?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA:
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, or
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybe
No Severe Impacts? More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

6. 2. 1 Discussion
2000 iS/ EA:

The project would not result in a conflict with the City' s General Plan designation, zoning, applicable environmental plans, or policies.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Project is located in the same area as the previous project. No major changes or shifts in land use have occurred between the 2000 IS/ EA assessment and the current assessment.

6. 2. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 2. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

Page 72 ends

79 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
July 2025

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

6. 3 Q32: COASTAL ZONE PLAN

32. Will the proposal directly or indirectly be inconsistent with a Coastal Zone Management Plan? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA:
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, No or
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybe
No Severe Impacts? More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

6. 3. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

The project study area is not within the Coastal Zone.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Project is located in the same area as the previous project, which is not within or near a Coastal Zone.

6. 3. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 3. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

Page 73 ends

80 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1 July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

6. 4 Q33: POPULATION

33. Will the proposal directly or indirectly affect the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

6. 4. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Improvements to Fifth Street and reconstruction of the bridge over City Creek would not affect the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of human population in the area, since Fifth Street is an existing facility.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Project is located in the same area as the previous project, and no aspect of the project would impact the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of human population in the area, since the Fifth Street stormdrain facilities are existing facilities.

6. 4. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 4. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

Page 74 ends

81 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
July 2025

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

6. 5 Q34: NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER

34. Will the proposal directly or indirectly affect life-styles, or neighborhood character or stability? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

6. 5. 1 Discussion
200015/ EA:

Fifth Street is an existing facility. Widening the street and replacing the bridge would not affect personal lifestyles and neighborhood character.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Project is located in the same area as the previous project, and no aspect of the project would affect personal lifestyles and neighborhood character.

6. 5. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 5. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

Page 75 ends

82 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

6. 6 Q35: DISADVANTAGED PERSONS

35. Will the proposal directly or indirectly affect minority, elderly, handicapped, transit -dependent or other specific interest groups??
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

6. 6. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Due to the limited disruption of people during construction from the widening of Fifth Street through the project study area, minority, elderly, handicapped, transit dependent or other specific interest groups would not be affected.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Project is located in the same area as the previous project. Construction staging would occur within the shoulder of 5th Street, however, any lane and sidewalk closures would be in accordance with Caltrans and City of Highland guidelines and be temporary in nature. The Proposed Project therefore would not effect minority, elderly, handicapped, transit -dependent or other specific interest groups.

6. 6. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.
83

Page 76 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

6. 6. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

July 2025

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

6. 7 Q36: DISADVANTAGED PERSONS

36. Will the proposal directly or indirectly divide or disrupt an established community? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

6. 7. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Fifth Street is an existing facility. Widening the street and replacing the bridge would not divide or disrupt an established community.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Project is located in the same area as the previous project, and the purpose is to replace existing facilities which would not divide or disrupt an established community.

6. 7. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.
84

Page 77 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

6. 7. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

July 2025

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

6. 8 Q37: HOUSING

37. Will the proposal directly or indirectly affect existing housing, require the acquisition of residential improvements or the displacement of people or create a demand for additional housing? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

6. 8. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Fifth Street is an existing facility. Widening the street and replacing the bridge would not divide or disrupt an established community. The proposed project would not displace any residences. 2024 Proposed Project:

The Project is located in the same area as the previous project, and no aspect of the project would displace residences.

6. 8. 2 Mitigation Measures
85

Page 78 ends

Initial5tudy/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 8. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

6. 9 Q38: BUSINESSES

38. Will the proposal directly or indirectly affect employment, industry or commerce, or require the displacement of businesses or farms?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, No or
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybe
No Severe Impacts? . More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

6. 9. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Additional right- of-way would be required to accommodate the widening of Fifth Street. Property would be acquired from nine adjacent industrial and commercial land uses. However, because the area to be acquired from each parcel is small ( 0. 92 meter [3 feet] in width for the length of each of the nine parcels, the project would not prohibit the current uses from continuing operation during construction, nor after the proposed project is completed. Access to properties along Fifth Street would be maintained during construction.
2024 Proposed Project:
86

Page 79 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
The Project is located in the same area as the previous project. The land underlying the Proposed Project is owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. The City of Highland would acquire an easement over the District' s land for construction and maintenance of the Proposed Project. No aspect of the project would affect employment, industry or commerce, or require the displacement of businesses or farms.

6. 9. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 9. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

6. 10 Q39: PROPERTY VALUES/ TAX

39. Will the proposal directly or indirectly affect property values or the local tax base? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

6. 10. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Widening Fifth Street and reconstructing the bridge over City Creek would have an imperceptible effect on property values and the local tax base.
87

Page 80 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
2024 Proposed Project:

July 2025
The Project is located in the same area as the previous project, and no aspect of the project affect property values or the local tax base.

6. 10. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 10. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

6. 11 Q40: COMMUNITY FACILITIES

40. Will the proposal directly or indirectly affect any community facilities ( including medical, educational, scientific, recreational, or religious institutions, ceremonial sites or sacred shrines)? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

6. 11. 1 Discussion
20001S/ EA:

Page 81 ends

88 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
July 2025
There are no medical, educational, scientific, recreational, or religious institutions in the project study area. The proposed project would not impact religious institutions, ceremonial sites, or sacred shrines. 2024 Proposed Project:

The Project is located in the same area as the previous project, and no aspect of the project affect religious institutions, ceremonial sites, or sacred shrines.

6. 11. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 11. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

6. 12 Q41: PUBLIC SERVICES

41. Will the proposal directly or indirectly affect public utilities, or police, fire, emergency or other public services?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, Yes, o oror
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybee
No Severe Impacts? More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

Page 82 ends

89 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1 July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

6. 12. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Construction of the bridge is anticipated to enhance police, fire and emergency access across City Creek.

During construction, portions of 5th Street and the surrounding streets would be temporarily closed as needed in accordance with all requirements for closures and maintaining business and emergency access. 2024 Proposed Project:

The Project is located in the same area as the previous project. Some construction activities may require lane closures and/ or shoulder and sidewalk closures. However, all traffic closures would be in accordance with State and Local traffic guidelines, which includes maintaining emergency access and access to businesses.

6. 12. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 12. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

6. 13 Q42: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

42. Will the proposal directly or indirectly have substantial impact on existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/ or goods? 90

Page 83 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
July 2025
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
20001S/ EA:

6. 13. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

As stated in question 41, long- term operation of the Fifth Street improvements is anticipated to have a beneficial effect on the transportation system, existing circulation patterns, and movement of people and goods by providing improved access between SR- 30 and Palm Avenue. However, short- term construction impacts would affect circulation patterns throughout the area. SR- 30 will be used as a detour to maintain access during construction.
2024 Proposed Project:

Refer to the answer for Question 41, Section 6. 12 of this document.

6. 13. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 13. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

Page 84 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

6. 14 Q43: TRAFFIC GENERATION

43. Will the proposal directly or indirectly generate additional traffic? July 2025
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA:
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, No or
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybe
No Severe Impacts? More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

6. 14. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

The objective of the proposed project is to improve the safety and congestion along this segment of Fifth Street. The project would not generate additional traffic. 2024 Proposed Project:

All Proposed Project is to replace existing underground storm drain facilities that are located off -highway.

The project would not generate additional traffic.

6. 14. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 14. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

Page 85 ends

Initial5tudy/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

6. 15 Q44: PARKING
July 2025

44. Will the proposal directly or indirectly affect or be affected by existing parking facilities or result in demand for new parking?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
20001S/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, No or
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybe
No Severe Impacts., More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

6. 15. 1 Discussion
20001S/ EA:

There are no parking facilities substantially affected by the project. 2024 Proposed Project:

All Proposed Project is to replace existing underground storm drain facilities that are located off -highway.

The project would not affect or be affected by existing parking facilities or result in demand for new parking.

6. 15. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 15. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification

Page 86 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

6. 16 Q45: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

45. Will the proposal directly or indirectly involve a substantial risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or otherwise adversely affect overall public safety? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

6. 16. 1 Discussion
200015/ EA:

The proposed project is not anticipated to involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances. Risk of upset caused by a traffic accident involving a vehicle carrying hazardous materials is unlikely. Fifth Street is defined as a major highway in the City' s General Plan and, therefore, truck traffic does utilize this road. However, the future roadway would be designed to meet City of Highland roadway safety standards, thus reducing any potential risk of upset. Because the proposed project improves the safety of the Fifth Street, the potential for a spill along the road- way would be reduced. Best management practices would be employed during construction to ensure that impacts from a release of hazardous substance do not occur to adjacent lands and the City Creek bed. 2024 Proposed Project:

The Project occurs in the same location as the previous project and would have similar impacts during construction because similar equipment would be used.

6. 16. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 16. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.
94

Page 87 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification July 2025

6. 17 Q46: TRAFFIC PATTERNS

46. Will the proposal directly or indirectly result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

6. 17. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

The project would not affect waterborne, rail, or air traffic. 2024 Proposed Project:

The Project occurs in the same location as the previous project and would have no impacts because no waterborne rai or air traffic exist in the Project area.

6. 17. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 17. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

Page 88 ends

95 Initial5tudy/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification July 2025

6. 18 Q47: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

47. Will the proposal directly or indirectly support large commercial or residential development? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

6. 18. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

The proposed Fifth Street project provides infrastructure improvements to support existing development and anticipated growth of the San Bernardino International Airport/ Inland Valley Redevelopment Agency Specific Plan area, consistent with adopted local and regional plans. 2024 Proposed Project:

The Project occurs in the same location as the previous project. The purpose of the Project is to consolidate storm flows from the City of Highland' s eastern portion and outfall them to City Creek and complete the intent of the 2000 Project.

6. 18. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 18. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

Page 89 ends

96 Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification July 2025

6. 19 Q48: HISTORICAL/ ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

48. Will the proposal directly or indirectly affect a significant archaeological or historic site, structure, object, or building?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

6. 19. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

No archaeological or historic resources were identified within or immediately adjacent to the APE. A Negative Archaeological Survey Report and Negative Historic Property Survey Report were signed by the FHWA Transportation Engineer.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Project occurs in the same location as the previous project. The Proposed Project would not affect a significant archaeological or historic site, structure, object, or building because none exist in the Project area.

6. 19. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 19. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:
97

Page 90 ends

Initial5tudy/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
July 2025

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification.

6. 20 Q49: SCENIC RIVERS/ NATURAL LANDMARKS

49. Will the proposal directly or indirectly affect wild or scenic rivers or natural landmarks? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, Yes, o oror
Significant? Yes or New or More or . New Analysis Measures Maybee
No Severe Impacts? More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

6. 20. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

City Creek through the Fifth Street area is not designated as a scenic river and no natural landmarks are present within the project area. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. 2024 Proposed Project:

The Project occurs in the same location as the previous project. Therefore, no impact is anticipated.

6. 20. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 20. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:
98

Page 91 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification.

6. 21 Q50: SCENIC VISTAS

50. Will the proposal directly or indirectly affect any scenic resources or result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

6. 21. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Fifth Street is not designated as a scenic highway and would not affect a scenic vista. Improvements to Fifth Street would be at grade. No scenic views would be altered by the project. Surface improvements are not expected to present any aesthetically offensive views. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. 2024 Proposed Project:

The Project occurs in the same location as the previous project, and all improvements are also underground or at grade. Therefore, no impact is anticipated.

6. 21. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.
99

Page 92 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

6. 21. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification.

6. 22 Q51: CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS

51. Will the proposal directly or indirectly result in substantial impacts associated with construction activities (e.g., noise, dust, temporary drainage, traffic detours and temporary access, etc.)? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
If Yes, is it Changes Involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, Yes, o oror
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybee
No Severe Impacts? More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

6. 22. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Construction of the project would potentially result in the following environmental impacts: soil erosion and siltation, air quality, noise, lane closures, and traffic detours. These impacts are not considered substantial due to the limited area affected, and the temporary nature of the construction schedule ( nine months). Standard construction practices identified in Responses 4, 16, 19, and 41 would reduce construction related impacts.
2024 Proposed Project:

The Project occurs in the same location as the previous project, would result in similar environmental impacts as previously addressed, and are not considered substantial because standard construction practices would also be implemented to reduce impacts.
100

Page 93 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

6. 22. 2 Mitigation Measures
July 2025
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 22. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification.

6.23 Q52: PUBLIC LANDS

52. Will the proposal directly or indirectly result in the use of any publicly -owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA:
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
If Yes, is it Changes involve Involving New Requiring Mitigation Yes, No or
Significant? Yes or New or More or New Analysis Measures Maybe
No Severe Impacts? More Severe or
Impacts? Verification?
NO No No No None

6. 23. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

No parks or recreational opportunities exist within the project vicinity; therefore, no impact is anticipated on recreational uses or plans.
101

Page 94 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
2024 Proposed Project:

July 2025
The Project occurs in the same location as the previous project. The underlying lands are owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, and the City would be provided an easement for construction and operation/ maintenance of the new facilities. The District does not operate these lands as a park, recreation or wildlife or waterfowl refuge. Therefore, no impact is anticipated on recreational uses or plans.

6. 23. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

6. 23. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification.

Page 95 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1 July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
7 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION — MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The 2000 IS/ EA ( Appendix A) addressed findings of significance on pages 5- 24 through 5- 25 and are based on the questions found in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G Checklist for Mandatory Findings of Significance. This section provides a summary of the analysis of the 2000 IS/ EA and an analysis of 2024 Project as it compares to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

7. 1 Q53: HABITAT AND LANDS

7. 1. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

The endangered SBKR was found in the project area within the construction right of way. Impacts to the SBKR and its habitat are short-term and temporary. The measures specified in Response No. 26 would be implemented to reduce potential impacts of the project on the endangered SBKR. There would be no impacts on cultural resources with implementation of the proposed project. 2024 Proposed Project:

The Project occurs in the same location as the previous project, but will only occur over approximately

0. 84 acre of the 5. 62 acres disturbed by the previous project. A portion of the District -owned lands immediately adjacent to the proposed area was previously disturbed as recently as 2011 as it was completely denuded ( mechanically disturbed) in 2005- 2006 when aerial photography suggest it was used as a stockpile area for sediment removed from City Creek after heavy rainfall. 103

Page 96 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1 July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
A focused trapping survey was conducted on five consecutive nights from June 10 through June 15, 2012, and the results were positive, with two SBKR individuals observed. Another focused trapping survey was conducted between September 22, 2022 and September 24, 2022 in a survey area that was larger than the proposed work area. A total of eight individuals were captured, including one near the project work area.

Therefore, despite the historical disturbance from the bridge project and District maintenance, the site functions as good quality, occupied SBKR habitat.

The Proposed Project would comply with the terms of the USFWS LEHCP and an ITP from the CDFW which will further avoid and minimize impacts to SBKR. This is similar to implementation of mitigation measures identified in the 2000 IS/ EA response to Question 26.

No cultural resources existing within the Project area, and the Project would occur within lands that were previously disturbed.

Therefore, with the implementation of the LEHCP and the ITP, the Proposed Project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

7. 1. 2 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures were identified for Question 13 ( Section 4. 14 Q14: Water Quality Standards of this document) that identifies small amounts of riparian vegetation may be impacted, and that the City is required to comply with the laws, which require obtaining permits from the CDFW, the Corps of Engineers and RWQCB. For the 2024 Project, the City also must comply with the requirement to obtain permits and/ or authorizations from the applicable agencies, which include but are not limited to the CDFW, the Corps of Engineers and RWQCB
Mitigation was also required for Question 26 ( Refer to Section 5. 5 Q26: Wildlife Habitat of this document) regarding impacts to SBKR. The mitigation measures outlined in the 2000 IS/ EA follow the USFWS Biological Opinion measures that included purchasing credits in a conservation bank, pre -construction trapping and relocation, and protective measures during construction.

Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, these mitigation measures would still be applicable. For the 2024 Project, the City worked with the USFWS during the preparation of the Low Effect HCP to develop measures that would be applicable and appropriate for the 2024 Project.

The City is also required to comply with Fish and Game Code Section 2081 to obtain an ITP from the CDFW.

Page 97 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
Therefore, as the impacts of the 2024 Project are similar to those assessed in the 2000 Project, there are no additional impacts, no new mitigation measures are required, and the existing mitigation measures are appropriate and would be updated or modified to represent the 2024 Project.

7. 1. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification.

7. 2 Q54: SHORT- TERM AND LONG- TERM IMPACTS

54. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.)? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
20001S/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

7. 2. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

Project implementation would not achieve short- term goals to the disadvantage of long- term environmental goals. The project is consistent with applicable local and regional plans. 2024 Proposed Project:

The Project occurs in the same location as the previous project, and the purpose is to modify and reconstruct existing facilities. The project is consistent with applicable local and regional plans. 105

Page 98 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

7. 2. 2 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures were identified for Question 13 ( Section 4. 14 Q14: Water Quality Standards of this document) that identifies small amounts of riparian vegetation may be impacted, and that the City is required to comply with the laws, which require obtaining permits from the CDFW, the Corps of Engineers and RWQCB. For the 2024 Project, the City also must comply with the requirement to obtain permits and/ or authorizations from the applicable agencies, which include but are not limited to the CDFW, the Corps of Engineers and RWQCB
Mitigation was also required for Question 26 ( Refer to Section 5. 5 Q26: Wildlife Habitat of this document) regarding impacts to SBKR. The mitigation measures outlined in the 2000 IS/ EA follow the USFWS Biological Opinion measures that included purchasing credits in a conservation bank, pre -construction trapping and relocation, and protective measures during construction.

The City is also required to comply with Fish and Game Code Section 2081 to obtain an ITP from the CDFW.

Therefore, as the impacts of the 2024 Project are similar to those assessed in the 2000 Project, there are no additional impacts, no new mitigation measures are required, and the existing mitigation measures are appropriate and would be updated or modified to represent the 2024 Project.

7. 2. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification.

Page 99 ends

Initiol Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

7. 3 Q55: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

55. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.)? 2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

7. 3. 1 Discussion
2000 IS/ EA:

The proposed project does not have environmental effects that are cumulatively considerable.

Implementation of the project would modify an existing facility for safety purposes and to be consistent with the City' s General Plan. The City of High- land General Plan Circulation Element ( June 1992) includes a policy to systematically improve the public roadway system to meet existing and future demands within the planning area. The proposed project will facilitate land use planning and economic development by providing circulation infrastructure consistent with local and regional plans. Cumulative impacts of the proposed project were analyzed in the City' s General Plan EIR. 2024 Proposed Project:

The Project occurs in the same location as the previous project, and the purpose is to modify and reconstruct existing facilities. The project is consistent with applicable local and regional plans.

7. 3. 2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 IS/ EA. Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

7. 3. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts. 107

Page 100 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification.

July 2025

7. 4 Q56: IMPACTS TO HUMAN BEINGS

56. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
2000 Project 2024 Project
New New
2000 IS/ EA: Do the Proposed Circumstances Information
2000 IS/ EA:

7. 4. 1 Discussion
20001E/ PA:

Project implementation would not cause direct or indirect substantial adverse effects on human beings.

See responses to Question 16 and Question Nos. 30 to 52. 2024 Proposed Project:

The Project occurs in the same location as the previous project, and the purpose is to modify and reconstruct existing facilities. Refer to the responses for Question No. 16 ( Section 4. 16 Q16: Air Quality/ Air Emissions in the document) and Questions 30 to 52 located in Section 6 Environmental Evaluation:

Social and Economic. Mitigation was recommended in response to Question 16 which was placed as a preventative measure only to ensure minimal impacts to air quality. The air quality impacts of construction were also evaluated for the Proposed Project, and it was determined that the Proposed Project emissions would not exceed thresholds that would cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly. However, a mitigation measure was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA to ensure emissions during construction would not be significant. The Proposed Project would abide by the mitigation identified in the response to Question 16.
108

Page 101 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

7. 4. 2 Mitigation Measures
July 2025
Based on the similarity of the 2024 Project impacts to the impacts of the 2000 Project, as assessed in the 2000 IS/ EA, the mitigation measure applied to Question 16 measure would apply to the 2024 Project, and no new mitigation measures are required to implement the 2024 Project.

7. 4. 3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis, the following is concluded:

1. The 2024 Project does not propose changes that involve new or more severe impacts than what was identified in the 2000 IS/ EA for the 2000 Project.

2. There are no new circumstances that involve new or more severe impacts.

3. There is no new information requiring new analysis or verification.

Page 102 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
July 2025
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening
8 DETERMINATION SUMMARY - 2024 PROPOSED PROJECT
The 2024 Proposed Project will make the final storm drain connection to City Creek by replacing the existing 24- inch RCP connection between 5th Street and the outfall, as well as the 24- inch RCP outfall structure, with an 84-inch RCP and proposed grouted riprap outfall structure. The area of disturbance for the extension of the proposed 84- inch RCP and riprap outfall structure, as well as the area of disturbance for the replacement of the outfall structure and grouted rip -rap, is within the same area which was disturbed by the 5th Street/ City Creek Bridge Project in 2000. No federal funding is proposed.

The Project Area for the 2024 Proposed Project is within the same disturbance area as identified in the Initial Study/ Environmental Assessment For the Fifth Street Widening and Replacement (# 54C0016) in the City of Highland, prepared in 2000, ( 2000 IS/ EA, State Clearinghouse Number 2000061092, on file with the City). Had plans for the regional storm drain been more than conceptual at the time of construction, the outfall and connection would have been upgraded during the construction of that project.

Because none of the circumstances set forth in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred, and because only minor changes and additions are necessary to make the 2000 IS/ EA adequate for purposes of approving the 2024 Proposed Project, an Addendum is the appropriate environmental document. Pursuant to Section 15164( c) of the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR. This Addendum, together with the Final IS/ EA, is being considered by the City prior to approving the 2024 Proposed Project.

8. 1 DETERMINATION
There are no substantial changes proposed by the 2023 Proposed Project to upgrade the storm drain outfall structure or in the circumstances in which the 2023 Proposed Project will be undertaken that require major revisions of the 2000 IS/ EA. The proposed 2023 Proposed Project does not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR, ND, or MND, due to either the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As illustrated herein, the proposed 2023 Proposed Project is consistent with the previous 2000 IS/ EA and would involve only minor changes; therefore, an Addendum is appropriate CEQA compliance for the proposed project.
110

Page 103 ends

Initial Study/ EA Addendum 1
City Creek Bridge/ Fifth Street Widening

8. 2 FINDING
July 2025
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2000 IS/ EA, the potential impacts of the proposed 2023 Proposed Project remain within the impacts previously analyzed and disclosed in the 2000 IS/ EA and none of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist ( CEQA Guidelines § 15164). Therefore, an addendum to the 2000 IS/ EA is the appropriate environmental document for the 2023 Proposed Project and no further analysis is required under CEQA before undertaking the proposed project.

Signature
Name
Date
Title
111
Page104

INITIAL STUDY/

FIFTH STREET WIDENING AND REPLACEMENT
OF THE CITY CREEK BRIDGE (# 54C0016)

IN THE CITY OF HIGHLAND,

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
October 2000
112

INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR

THE FIFTH STREET WIDENING AND REPLACEMENT
OF THE CITY CREEK BRIDGE (#54C0016) IN THE

CITY OF HIGHLAND
Construction of a new bridge on Fifth Street at City Creek and the widening of Fifth Street between State Route 30 and Palm Avenue
in the City of Highland, San Bernardino County.

City of Highland
27215 Base Line
Highland, California 92346
Pursuant to 42 U.S. C. 4332 ( 2)( C)
J-' --
Em est Y.T. Won g
City ofHighland
S er Baker
altrans Envij" ental Planning
ouis Flores
Caltrans Local Assistance
Michael G_ Ritchie
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
f-/'?— da
Date
5--ZZ
Date
Date
Date
Comments on this document are due by August 2, 2000 and should be sent to:

Mr. Sumner Baker
Environmental Chief
Caltrans, District 8
464 W. Fourth Street, 60 Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401- 14000
909) 383- 4079
909) 383- 6494 Fax
Mr. Ernest Wong Mr. C. Glen Clinton
City Engineer Team Leader Prog. Delivery Team S.
27215 Base Line Federal Highway Administration
Highland, CA 92346 980 Ninth Street, Suite 400
909) 864- 8732, ext. 212 Sacramento, CA 95814- 2724
909) 862- 3180 Fax 916) 498- 5037
916) 498- 5009 Fax
113
TO: Clerk of the Board
385 N. Arrowhead Ave., 2" d Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92411

CITY OF HIGHLAND
27213 Bast Line, Highl2nd. CA 9230
relq*, wo ( 909) Wj732 . Fm ( 909) 962- 3180
FROM: City of Highland
Community Development Department
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA 92346
Telephone: ( 909) 864- 8732

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROPOSAL: Fifth Street Widening and Replacement of the City Creek Bridge (# 54C0016) in the City of Highland, San Bernardino County, California.

APPLICANT: City of Highland
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed street widening and bridge replacement will improve Fifth Street to be consistent with the City' s General Plan Circulation Element, remove the traffic bottle neck on Fifth Street at City Creek Bridge to improve traffic flow and safety, increase roadway capacity to support anticipated continued growth ofSan Bernardino International Airport/ Inland Valley Redevelopment Agency Specific Plan Area, and replace 50- year old City Creek Bridge with a modern structure that will fully meet current load and seismic requirements.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ LOCATION: The City of Highland, Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering proposes construction of a new bridge on Fifth Street at City Creek and the widening of Fifth Street between State Route 30 and PalmAvenue. The proposed project consists ofthe demolition ofthe existing two-lane City Creek Bridge (# 54C0016) and construction of a four -lane bridge 26.8 meters ( 88 feet) wide curb to curb and 30. 5 meters 100 feet) wide railing to railing. The project also includes completing street improvements to Fifth Street between SR30 and Palm Avenue, including new curb, gutter, sidewalk, and future installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Fifth Street and Church Avenue. Fifth Street will be widened to 26.8 meters ( 88 feet) from Church Avenue to the ramps on the west side of SR- 30. From Church Avenue east to Palm Avenue, Fifth Street will be widened to 24. 4 meters ( 80 feet). The project length is approximately 0. 64 kilometer ( 0. 4 mile).

The proposed project would include the acquisition of right- of-way for completion and the detour of traffic during construction_
FINDING OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE: Based on the analysis performed in the Initial Study/ Environmental Assessment by the City ofHighland, it has been determined that the proposed project with mitigation incorporated will not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons:

1. The project will not have an effect on land use, aesthetics, economic activities, housing, businesses or recreational activities.

2. There will be no effect on a flood plain, air quality (long- term impacts), noise, open space, public services/utilities, or energy use.

3. The project will not have an effect on fish or sensitive plants.

4. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the project tc reduce short-term impacts of construction activities to less than significant levels for air quality, soil erosion and siltation (water quality), wetlands, the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and wildlife habitat.

DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT FINDING STATEMENT: The finding statement is supported by the analyses presented in the combined Initial Study/Environmental Assessment completed for the proposed project.

Bmest Y.T. Wong, City Engineer Date
114

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ACRONYMS .......... ........ iv

1. 0 PURPOSE AND NEED ......... ..... .............. .. ..... 1- 1

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

1. 2 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITY .. ... 1

1. 3 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ....... .... 1- 9

1. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ............ .... .... 1- 9

1. 5 SUPPORTING PERMIT APPROVALS AND AGREEMENTS .. 1- 10

2. 0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT .......... ... ... 2- 1

2. 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................... 2- 1

2. 2 ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION ............... 2- 1

2. 3 ALTERNATIVES WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION ... 2- 3

2.4 RELATED PROJECTS .................... ... ... ..... 2- 4

3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ... ... .......................... 3- 1

3. 1 TOPOGRAPHY ............. ........... ..... ......... 3- 1

3. 2 SOILSISEISMICITY ...... .............................. 3- 1

3. 3 HYDROLOGY ...... ............... ....... .... ..... 3- 1

3. 4 AIR QUALITY ...................... .. .... ......... 3- 2

3. 5 NOISE ............................. ....... ... ... 3- 5

3. 6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......... .. .... ... _ ... . 3- 5

3. 7 LAND USE/ PLANNING ....... ..... ... .... ... 3- 7

3. 8 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES .. 3- 8

3. 9 HAZARDOUS WASTE .............. ........ . ....... 3- 8

3. 10 SOCIOECONOMICS/ DEMOGRAPHICS ... .. . . .. .. • . 3- 9

4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION .............. ......... 4- 1

4. 1 TECHNICAL STUDIES .............. ... ........ ...... 4- 1

4. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST ........... 4- 1

5. 0 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
RESPONSES......... ........... ........................ 5- 1

6. 0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................. ..... 6- 1

7. 0 LIST OF PREPARERS ................. .. ... ... .... ...... 7- 1

8. 0 REFERENCES ........ ... ... ... ... ... .............. . 8- 1

9.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST . ..... .... .... .. ... ... ... .... . 9- 1

10. 0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ............... 10- 1

10. 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW ........ ... 10- 1

10. 2 RESPONSE TO GENERAL WRITTEN COMMENTS ...... 10- 1

10. 3 WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED AND SPECIFIC
RESPONSES TO THIS COMMENTS . ..... .......... 10-)
l0/5/ 00(RACOH73ZEAWinal EATinal EA October.wpd) III
115

11. 0 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN..... . ............ _ .... 11- 1

ATTACHMENT A - CORRESPONDENCE

ATTACHMENT B - PUBLIC NOTICES

ATTACHMENT C - MEETING MINUTES
to/ 5/ 00( R3COH732\ EA\ Final EATina1 EA October. wpd) 1V
116

LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
1 - Regional Location ..................... .. .......... .. .. 1- 1 2 - Project Vicinity Map ........ . ..... ................. .. 1- 2 3 - Proposed Project Plan View .. .... ................. .. 1- 3 4 - Proposed Project Elevation ............................ ... .. 1- 4 5 - Proposed Project Typical Section ......... ............... 1- 5 6 - City Creek Bridge and 5" Street Proposed Right -of -Way ............ 1- 6 7 - City Creek Bridge and 51b Street Roadway Improvements . .... .. .. 1- 7 8 - City Creek Bridge and 5" Street Roadway Improvements ............ 1- 8

LIST OF TABLES

2.A - Right -of -Way (ROW) Acquisition for the City Creek Bridge Project ... 2-2

3. A - Ambient Air Quality San Bernardino Air Monitoring Station ......... 3- 4

3. B - Surrounding Land Uses ...... ........... 3- 8

5. A - Daily Construction Equipment Exhaust Emissions ................ 5- 12 APPENDICES ( BOUND SEPARATELY IN VOLUME I1)
Appendix A - Draft Foundation Report
Appendix B - Floodplain Study
Appendix C - Air Quality Technical Report
Appendix D - Natural Environment Study Report and Delineation of Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Appendix E - Cultural Resources Study
Appendix F - Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment
10/ 5100( RACOH7321EATinal EANFinal EA October. wpd) V
117

LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
APE Area of Potential Effect
Basin South Coast Air Basin
BMP Best Management Practice
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon Monoxide
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
dBA decibels
DOF Department of Finance
EA Environmental Assessment
EDA Economic Development Agency
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EVWD East Valley Waster District
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps
GMPS Good Management Practices
HPSR Historic Property Survey Report
BUD Housing and Urban Development
ISA initial Site Assessment
IS/ EA Initial Study/ Environmental Assessment
kg kilograms
kph kilometers per hour
Leq Equivalent -Continuous Sound Level
Lmax maximum noise level
LOS level of service
mph miles per hour
l,ig/m3 micrograms/ cubic meter
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems
OHWM ordinary high water mark
PM10 Particulate Matter
ppm
RTIP
parts per million
Regional Transportation Improvement Program
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
ROW right-of-way
SANBAG San Bernardino Associated Governments
SBCH San Bernardino County Hospital
5/ 18/ 00<<RAC0H732\ EA\ Admin IDEA\ version 4-00\ 5THISEA. RPT- C) n. wpd)> iv
118
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SIP State Implementation Plan ( SIP)
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOz Sulfur Dioxide
SR- 30 State Route 30
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
5/ 18t00(( KACOH732\ EA\ Admin DEA\ version_ 4- 00\ 5THISEA. RPT- cln. wpd» v 119

1. 0 PURPOSE AND NEED

1. 1 INTRODUCTION
The. proposed project is located on Fifth
Street within the City of Highland (Figures 1
and 2), The City ofHighland is located in the
eastern portion ofthe San Bernardino Valley,
east of the City of San Bernardino and north
of the City of Redlands. The City of Highland is bounded by the San Bernardino Mountains to the north, agricultural lands to
the east, and the Santa Ana River and
floodplain to the south. The City of Highland
is predominately a residential community.

The proposed project is located in the south- Figure i -Regional Location ern portion of the City of Highland, just west
of State Route 30 ( SR- 30). Fifth Street crosses City Creek between SR- 30 and Church Avenue. Fifth Street west of the City Creek Bridge is predominately fronted by industrial uses on the north, and commercial on the south. Residential neighborhoods lie further to the north and east. The City Creek area is identified as open space.

The City of Highland proposes to widen Fifth Street to be consistent with the City' s General Plan Circulation Element and improve traffic operations.

Two alternatives have been studied by the City of Highland, the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative. The Build Alternative consists of the demolition of the existing two-lane City Creek Bridge (# 54C0016) and construction of a four -lane bridge 26. 8 meters ( 88 feet) wide curb to curb and 30. 5 meters ( 100 feet) wide railing to railing.

The project also includes completing street improvements to Fifth Street between SR30 and Palm Avenue, including new curb, gutter, sidewalk, and future installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Fifth Street and Church Avenue ( Figures 3 through 8). Fifth Street will be widened to 26. 8 meters ( 88 feet) from Church Avenue to the ramps on the west side of SR- 30. From Church Avenue east to Palm Avenue, Fifth Street will be widened to 24.4 meters ( 80 feet). The project length is approximately

0. 64 kilometer ( 0. 4 mile).

1. 2 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITY
Fifth Street is designated as a two-lane major highway and extends east -west from the City of San Bernardino on the west through the City of Highland, becoming Greenspot Road east of Church Street and continuing to the eastern city limits and into the County unincorporated lands, and eventually the City of Redlands, south of the Santa Ana River. The existing bridge over City Creek is a two-lane facility which is 9. 8 meters ( 32 feet) wide. A diamond type interchange with SR- 30 exists east of the bridge. Fifth Street is designated as a truck route in the City of Highland General Plan.

There are no designated bicycle lanes on Fifth Street or the City Creek Bridge. 5/ 18/ 000R:\ C0H732\ EA\ Admin DEA\ version_ 4- 00\ STHISEA. RPT- cln. wpd» 1- 1
120
P
Base tifie J— a . . . . . .

A AI 1A 4
n ... SIR
Z, 3
PMCreek
Bridge ig' L
S
City Project
Limits elf' 16.
4•
6 UbSfjtWn
Ygi A,
vnpm %
111 B 11216,
24-mm ILA=
1Z 3
1_ 2
re irrojw%
7?
F' Wv
1A.

AWNUE
30-

HIGHLYM
1 3
PACIM
ST A4TH
Jka -,;-;
R isPsl
p
tte
116
am It 5TH
jr
L
P)
RO. TECr 1z; -
0 W.- CATION Base
Map Source; Redlands, California USGS Topographic Quadrangle' 1988' 5/ 16)/ H732- 5th St/EA) Figure 24),
City
Creek Bridge project
Vicinity Map 0.
1, 000' 2. 000* 121
L)
cd
3 I
tp,,- 64
it
Q "• 0G
0 by
coEn m
I
ro
Nn
1 C
1 a
CL
Cc
to
UYVmO
N
mo
or
00 P o
inp
r
mV
C~
V .

O
pa ` O O ZP
O (
1 \
ED
NI WmVw
Dr '
Lf
t $ • ioO
8i
Ilk
Y_
g
1 O ++ OIp
ro
Of
tn
N \ 1Ob
II
o
I
y
ronn
I
G ~
t3D
O °
11mliu
iz
iz mo0oec
Yd
d
i
O
F
g (
A=7
122
VN O
mW
InN O
4 vBa L r Y0
d a
m «
N
o
A
0 0
a rs
I
z
123
CIP Prestressed
concrete Box Girder
FG
y72 00(COH732- Sth StJEA )
N
14'- 0"
2 .O,
Fifth Sreet
100'- 0"
1 8'- 0" 14'- 0"
5' - 0"
I
I
I
I_ _ _ _ _--.------
I .
f _ _-
r _,-__ __ ___________ _ _- -- _ nI
11 Figure 5
City Creek Bridge
Proposed Project Typical Section
0' t0' 24l'
124
h
S
Gz
10 125
Bike
P tIbt AVENUE
F
Lane I
r
t4
7—;
DO
Il i fi
Curb and Gu
tz Sidewalk
r
Z
Sidewalk
a /
to Curb and Gutter —,: Left Tu
iiii Pocket
5/ 16100( COH7321PAIF. f)
k
Gutter -
Source: John Egan & Associates, Inc., May 8, 2000.

Figure 7
0 City Creek Bridge and
W 40' go, N 5th Street Roadwav Improvements
126
Source; John Egan &
511" O( COH73215thlEA)
Mo.

Figure 8
4N City Creek Bridge and
o 4V 8o, N 5th Street Roadway Improvements
127
Fifth Street currently operates at level of service ( LOS) C. Average daily traffic on Fifth Street is projected to drastically increase from the current level of 9,500 to 18, 300 by year 2015, and could reach 25, 700 as a result ofanticipated development of the San Bernardino International Airport/ Inland Valley Redevelopment Agency Specific Plan Area. Due to the close proximity of the City Creek Bridge to the freeway ramps, and the significant reduction of pavement width on Fifth Street, safe traffic operation at the ramps can only be maintained by construction of a wider street section at the bridge to avoid traffic backing up from the bridge to the ramps. A traffic signal will facilitate safer traffic turning movements at Fifth Street and Church Avenue west of the bridge.

History ofthe City Creek Bridge
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( Corps) constructed the existing bridge in 1960 under the title " City Creek Levee at AT & SF Railway to Third Street". It was designed for the Standard Project Flood of 420 cubic meters per second ( 15, 000 cubic feet per second). Fifth Street was called Third Street at the time of improvements.

There was an existing bridge at the West Bank that was approximately 30.5 meters 100 feet) long. In 1960, the Corps added approximately 10 8. 2 8 meters ( 355 feet) to the structure including eight piers and two abutments. The channel both upstream and downstream of the bridge was excavated to a width of 125. 05 meters ( 410 feet) with a low flow channel. The levees were lined with rock riprap protection. The west levee upstream and downstream of the bridge does not match the bridge opening. The existing bridge constricts to a width of 79. 3 meters ( 260 feet).

1. 3 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The purpose of the proposed roadway and bridge improvement project is as follows:

1. Improve Fifth Street to be consistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element.

2. Remove the traffic bottle neck on Fifth Street at City Creek Bridge to improve traffic flow and safety.

3. Increase roadway capacity to support anticipated continued growth of San Bernardino International Airport/ Inland Valley Redevelopment Agency Specific Plan Area.

4. Replace 50- year old City Creek Bridge with a modern structure that will fully meet current load and seismic requirements.

1. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
Since the proposed project is partially funded by federal funds, it is subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), in addition to the 5/ 18/ 000KNCOH732\ 13MAdmin DEAlversion_ 4-00l5THISEA, RPT- cln,wpd» 1- 9
128
California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA). The City is the Lead Agency for CEQA and is responsible for the Initial Study; the Federal Highway Administration FHWA) will be the Lead Agency pursuant to NEPA and is responsible for the review and approval of the Environmental Assessment, with Caltrans providing oversight through the Local Assistance Engineer. This environmental evaluation has been prepared as a combined Initial Study/ Environmental Assessment ( IS/EA).

Environmental review of the project has been conducted in accordance with Caltrans' Local Assistance Programs Procedures Manual, Environmental Handbook, and FHWA' s Technical Advisory T-6640. 8A. This Initial Study/ Environmental Assessment ( IS/EA) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, established in 1970, as amended ( Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq.), the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA ( California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.), and NEPA. This environmental document also complies with the procedures of the City of Highland for implementing CEQA and the procedures of Caltrans and FHWA for implementing NEPA.

In accordance with CEQA and NEPA, this IS/EA will be made available for public review. The document will be circulated to all responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals for a 30- day review period. Substantive comments received within the review period will be formally responded to and incorporated into the Final IS/ EA.

1. 5 SUPPORTING PERMIT APPROVALS AND AGREEMENTS
This environmental document has been prepared to support the following permits and agreements:

United States Department of Transportation - Right -of -Way Amendments to the 1975 Deed ( US DOT 9- 26- 75 Highway Easement Deed).

United States Army Corp of Engineers ( Corps) - Section 404 Permit ( Nationwide Permit Nos. 13, 25, and 33). A permit application (File No. 199915016- AJS) was submitted to the Corps on November 13, 1998. According to the Corps, because the permit was submitted prior to June 7, 2000, it remains eligible for a Nationwide Permit under the old regulations and is not subject to new Nationwide Permit regulations.`
California Department of Fish and Game - Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement.

Regional Water Quality Control Board - National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems ( NPDES) Permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Section 7 Consultation and Issuance of a Biological Opinion.

Federal Register Volume 65, Number 47, March 9, 2000, page 12818 and personal conversation with Antal Szijj on May 8, 2000.
5/ 18/ 00« RAC0H7321EAWdmin DEAlversion_ 4-00\ 5THISEA. RPT-cln.wpd» 1- 10 129

2. 0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

2. I INTRODUCTION
This section presents the proposed project ( Build Alternative) in detail, and discusses the No Build Alternative. The project description defines those elements of the project that were evaluated to determine whether the project would result in any substantial adverse environmental impacts.

2.2 ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION
Build Alternative
As shown in Figure 3, the proposed project includes the demolition ofthe existing twolane ( 9. 8 meters [ 32 feet] wide) City Creek Bridge and reconstruction of a four -lane bridge 26. 8 meters ( 88 feet) wide ( curb to curb). The project also includes completing street improvements to Fifth Street between SR- 30 and Palm Avenue, including new curb, gutter, sidewalk, and future installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Fifth Street and Church Avenue. The project length is approximately 0.64 kilometer

0. 4 mile).

Specific project elements include the following:

Structures. The proposed improvements include the demolition of the existing 9. 8- meter (32- foot) wide, 150-meter (492-foot) long steel girder/concrete deck of the City Creek Bridge. A 26. 8- meter ( 88- foot wide [ curb to curb],

30.5 meters [ 100 feet] outside ofrailing to outside ofrailing), 150-meter (492- foot) long prestressed cast -in -place concrete bridge will be constructed in the same location as the existing structure. The proposed structure will include four lanes of through traffic, curb and gutter, lighting, and sidewalks ( refer to Figures 3 though 5). The estimated cost to remove the existing bridge and construct a new bridge would be $ 3, 540, 000. 00 ( McDaniel Engineering, 1998a). Although the widened bridge will be capable of accommodating bicycle traffic, dedicated bike lanes will not be installed as part of the proposed project. All proposed improvements will comply with applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Roadway. As shown in Figures 6, 7, and 8, Fifth Street will be widened to accommodate two through lanes in each direction and left turn pockets on Fifth Street at Church Avenue and Palm Avenue. The majority of the widening ofFifth Street will occur between SR-30 and Church Avenue. Fifth Street between Church Avenue and Palm Avenue will require only a small increase in roadway width to accommodate the proposed project width of 24.4 meters 80 feet). Fifth Street will not contain dedicated bike lanes. All proposed improvements will comply with applicable provisions of the ADA. 5/ 18/ 000RAC0H7321EA\ Admin DEA\ vmion 4- 00\ 5THISEA. RPT- cln. wpd» 2- 1
130
Right -Of -Way. Fifth Street right- of-way will be expanded to a total of 31. 7 meters ( 104 feet). Small linear portions (up to 30. 5 meters [ 10 feet] in width) of nine properties adjacent to Fifth Street will be required from the north and south sides of Fifth Street, west ofthe bridge, to accommodate the widening refer to Figure 6). The structural improvements on the adjacent parcels will not be affected by the proposed project; thus, displacement is not considered an issue. Access to the properties fronting Fifth Street will remain; some modifications of driveway approaches will be required. Easements of 0. 92 meter ( 3 feet) on nine parcels will also be required to construct driveway approaches. Table 2.A presents the right- of-way acquisition for the City Creek Bridge project.

Table 2. A - Right -of -Way ( ROW) Acquisition
for the City Creek Bridge Project
ROW Required
Lot No. ( Square Meters/ Square Feet) Assessor Parcel Number 9 9. 31 / 100.05 290- 201- 20
10 5 8. 97/ 634. 05 290- 201- 19
11 69. 98/ 752. 50 290- 201- 18
13 69. 98/ 752. 50 290- 201- 16
14 59,99/ 645. 00 290- 201- 15
15 59. 99/ 645. 00 290- 201- 14
16 59. 99/ 645. 00 290- 201- 13
32 59, 99/ 645. 00 290- 211- 06
Kienast Property 12. 14/ 130.49 290- 221- 61
Utilities. The proposed project will require relocation of some existing telephone, electric, gas, water, and cable lines. Existing water and sewer lines to the north of City Creek Bridge will be protected in place. All work will be coordinated with the appropriate utility company and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District.

Replacement Plantings. The proposed improvements will require removal of some adjacent landscaping. Vegetation to be removed is within the City' s right- of-way, and the area will be either paved or revegetated according to the desires of the business owners. Existing vegetation will be preserved in place whenever possible.

Funding. Funding for the widening of the City Creek Bridge will be provided from a variety of sources including: a $ 3. 0 million grant from the U-S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD), a $ 750, 000. 00 grant from 5/ 18/ 0WR: IC0H73ZEA\ Admin DEA\ version_ 4- 00\ 5THISEA. RPT- ein. wpd» 2- 2 131
the FHWA, $ 2. 3 million of San Bernardino County Measure " I" funds, and 197, 000. 00 of State of California matching funds. The balance of the funding required for the bridge widening will be provided by the City of Highland.

No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative would maintain the existing arterial ( Fifth Street) and bridge widths. This alternative does not address existing or future deficiencies resulting from continued growth projected in the City' s General Plan and increasing traffic levels.

Traffic conditions would continue to deteriorate under the No Build Alternative. The No Build Alternative would provide no street or drainage improvements, or improvements to traffic safety along Fifth Street.

2.3 ALTERNATIVES WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION
Alternative Bridge Alignment
Alternatives to the proposed project were influenced by the existing location of Fifth Street. Alternative alignments of the bridge to be reconstructed over City Creek were withdrawn from further consideration due to the existing location of Fifth Street and the need to tie into the existing street.

Alternative Bridge Construction
This alternative would demolish the existing bridge and build a new bridge which would include the widening of the existing abutment on the west side of City Creek under the existing bridge. Currently, there is a bulge in the bank under the bridge in this area. This alternative would require the new bridge to be longer by approximately

30.5 meters ( 100 feet) and, therefore, more costly to build. This alternative would also change the course of City Creek as it passes under the bridge. The proposed bridge has been designed to eliminate scour ( erosion). By widening the bank, creek flows will cause scour upstream and downstream of the bridge. Based on an average cost of 100.00 per square foot to build a bridge of this type, it would cost an additional 1, 000, 000.00. This alternative was not considered further because the additional cost to add approximately 30. 5 linear meters ( 100 linear feet) of bridge structure does not incorporate the efficient use of public funds.

Widen Existing Bridge on Two Sides
This alternative would salvage the existing bridge and widen it on both sides to the ultimate width of Fifth Street. The new widened portions of the bridge were assumed to be precast prestressed concrete girders or steel girders. The span arrangement and deck joints would match the existing structure. The existing superstructure of the bridge has been retrofitted for earthquakes; however, it is expected that the substructure ( pilings) would require retrofit for seismic loads. The anticipated life of the resulting bridge would be from 50 to 60 years for the widened portion and approxi- mately 20 years for the existing portion. At the end of 20 years, the center portion of 5/ 18/ 000R:\ COH732\ EA\ Admin DEAlversion_ 4- 00\ 5THISEA. RPT- cln. wpd» 2- 3 132
the bridge would need to be replaced_ The estimated cost for this alternative is 6,742, 200. 00 including future replacement of the center of the bridge in 20 years Simon Wong Engineering 1994). This alternative was not considered further because the cost to replace the center section does not incorporate the efficient use of public funds.

Widen Existing Bridge on One Side
This alternative would salvage the existing bridge and widen it on one side to the ultimate width of Fifth Street. Widening of one side of the bridge would be more cost effective for the bridge construction; however, it would add cost for the realignment of the roadway. Just as with the alternative to widen the bridge on two sides, this alternative would require the substructure to be retrofitted for seismic loads; anticipated life of the resulting bridge would be from 50 to 60 years for the widened portion and approximately 20 years for the existing portion; and at the end of 20 years, the center portion ofthe bridge would need to be replaced. The estimated cost for this alternative is $ 6,234, 200. 00 including future replacement of the center of the bridge in 20 years Simon Wong Engineering 1994). This alternative was not considered further because the cost to replace the center section of the bridge and to realign Fifth Street do not incorporate the efficient use of public funds.

Other Alternatives
Alternatives to the proposed project were influenced by the existing location of Fifth Street. Alternative locations of the bridge to be reconstructed over City Creek were withdrawn from further consideration due to the existing location of Fifth Street and the need to tie into the existing street. The bridge has also been designed to avoid a water and sewer line that parallels the north side of the existing bridge in the City Creek channel.

2.4 RELATED PROJECTS
Related Projects
Disposal and Reuse ofNorton Air Force Base
The widening of the City Creek Bridge to four lanes is a mitigation measure required in the Final Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS) for the Disposal and Reuse of Norton Air Force Base dated June 1993 to accommodate anticipated future growth.

Norton Air Force Base has now been transferred to the local reuse agency ( Inland Valley Development Agency) and is no longer owned by the federal government; however, the EIS is still valid.

The widening of the City Creek Bridge was required as mitigation in the Final EIS to reduce projected traffic impacts on local roadways by the proposed action and maintain a LOS E or above along Fifth Street. 5/ 181000RACOR732TMAdmin DEAlversion_ 4- 00\ STHtSEA. RPT-cln. wpd» 2- 4 133
City ofHighland General Plat
The City of Highland General Plan Circulation Element ( June 1992) includes a policy to systematically improve the public roadway system to meet existing and future demands within the planning area. The proposed project will facilitate land use planning and economic development by providing circulation infrastructure consistent with local and regional plans.
5IIMO« R:\COH732\ EA\ Admin DEA\version_ 4- 00\ 5THISEA. RPT-cln.wpd» 2- 5 134

3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following is a discussion of the existing environmental conditions of the study area that would either affect or be affected by project implementation.

3. 1 TOPOGRAPHY
The topography in the project study area is generally flat. The natural terrain has been previously disturbed by the construction of Fifth Street. The project area between SR30 and Church Avenue is identified in the General Plan as being within the 100-year floodplain. City Creek flows southwest to the Santa Ana River and is identified in the General Plan as a major natural drainage facility for the City. A mixed use trail is proposed in the General Plan along City Creek connecting to the Santa Ana River Trail system.

3. 2 SOILSISEISMICITY
Soils
The soil in the proposed project area is described as alluvial fan deposits and artificial fill. The existing subsurface data near the project site show dense to very dense sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. Liquefaction potential is low in this area. The subsurface materials would allow the immediate dissipation of excess pore water pressure during intense ground shaking. The quick dissipation of excess pore water pressure and the dense nature of the soils at this site would support a low liquefaction potential
Regional Seismicity
The project area is west of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone for seismic activity.

The San Jacinto Fault is located about 8. 5 kilometers ( 5. 3 miles) south of the project site, and the South Eastern Branch of the San Andreas Fault is approximately 3 kilometers ( 1. 9 miles) to the north.' The project area as is ( approximately 54 percent of the City) lies within Mineral Resource Zone 2, describing the area as one where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or likely to be present.

3.3 HYDROLOGY
Surface Waters
City Creek is a second order tributary to the Pacific Ocean via the Santa Ana River.

City Creek is confined by levees and consists of several meandering stream channels Earth Mechanics, Inc. Draft Foundation Report for Fifth Street Improvernents. April 1998.

Volume II, Appendix A)
5/ 18/ 00« R:\ COH7321EA\ Admin DEAlversion_ 4- 0015THISEA. RPT- cln. wpd» 3- 1 135
Groundwater
within the boundaries of the levees. The average of the mean annual flow for City Creek from 1925 to 1988 was 0. 3 cubic meter ( 11. 14 cubic feet) per second.' Two channels within the creek bed are considered jurisdictional wetland waters.

The City of Highland is serviced by the East Valley Water District ( EVWD), which relies on local groundwater, surface runoff from natural watershed and drainage areas, and State Water Project sources for domestic, commercial, and agricultural uses. A majority of the water used in the study area is currently obtained from the San Bernardino Groundwater Basin. The groundwater is extracted from an aquifer known as the Bunker Hill Basin. Most of the EVWD' s wells currently pump water from depths exceeding 183 meters ( 600 feet). Groundwater in the project area was found between 346. 6 and 347. 5 meters ( 1, 137 and 1, 140 feet) during surveys conducted for the Bridge Foundation Report.'

3.4 AIR QUALITY
Climate
The project site is located in southwestern San Bernardino County in the City of Highland, an area within the South Coast Air Basin ( Basin) that includes Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Air quality conditions in the Basin are under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), a regional agency that regulates stationary sources of pollution throughout the Basin.

The Basin climate is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The Basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The Pacific Ocean forms the southwestern border, and high mountains surround the rest of the Basin. The region lies in the semipermanent high pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. The resulting climate is mild and tempered by cool ocean breezes. This climatological pattern is rarely interrupted. However, periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana wind conditions do exist.

The annual average temperature varies little throughout the Basin, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit ( OF). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station nearest to the site that LSA Associates, Inc., Delineation of Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters Subject to U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and California Department of Fish & Game Regulatory Authority for City Creek Bridge. February 1998. ( Volume I1, Appendix D) Earth Mechanics, Inc. Draft Foundation Report, Fifth Street Improvements. April 1998. ( Volume 11, Appendix A)
5118l00« RAC0H7321EA\ AdrHn DEAlversion_ 4- oo\ 5THISEA. RPT- cin. wpd» 3- 2
136
monitors temperature is the San Bernardino County Hospital ( SBCH) station.' The SBCH station monitored monthly average temperatures ranging from 19° C ( 67° F) in January to 35. 5 ° C ( 96° F) in August in 1999. January is typically the coldest month in this area of the Basin.

The majority of annual rainfall in the Basin occurs between October and March.

Summer rainfall is minimal and generally is limited to scattered thundershowers in coastal regions and slightly heavier showers in the eastern portion of the Basin and along the coastal side of the mountains. The climatological station nearest to the site that monitors precipitation is the SBCH station. Rainfall measured in the San Bernardino area in 1999 varied from 7.26 cm (2.86 inches) in January to 0.20 cm (0.78 inch) between April and December. Moreover, monthly and yearly rainfall totals are extremely variable.

Even though the Basin has a semi -arid climate, air near the surface is generally moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. With very low average wind speeds, there is a limited capacity to disperse air contaminants horizontally. The dominant daily wind pattern is an onshore 11. 26 to 12. 87 kilometers per hour ( kph) ( 8 to 12 miles per hour [ mph]) daytime breeze and an offshore 4. 8 to 8. 05 km ( 3 to 5 mph) nighttime breeze. The typical wind flow pattern fluctuates only with occasional winter storms or strong northeasterly Santa Ana winds from the mountains and deserts northeast ofthe Basin. Summer wind flow patterns represent worst case conditions, as this is the period of higher temperatures and more sunlight, which results in ozone formation.

Existing Air Quality
Both the State and federal governments have established health based Ambient Air Quality Standards ( AAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and suspended particulate matter. The Basin does not attain State and federal AAQS for four of the six criteria air pollutants. The Basin is in compliance with federal sulfur dioxide and lead standards, but ambient carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate levels (PMI0) exceed twice the standards. In addition, the Basin has been the only area in the country that does not attain the federal nitrogen dioxide standard. However, because nitrogen dioxide levels have met the federal standard within the past few years, the SCAQMD is in the process of requesting redesignation. The State AAQS are more stringent than the federal AAQS.

The site is located within SCAQMD jurisdiction. The SCAQMD maintains ambient air quality monitoring stations throughout the Basin. The San Bernardino air quality monitoring station monitors four criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen Califomia Climatological Data Annual Summary, 19991 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 5/ 18/ 00(( RACOH732\ EMAdmin DEA\ vcmion_ 4- 00\ 5TH[ SEA. RPT- cln.%*)) 3` 3 137
dioxide, and suspended particulates.' Air quality trends identified from data collected at the San Bernardino air quality monitoring station between 1992 and 1998 are listed in Table 3. A and discussed below. From the ambient air quality data listed, it can be seen that carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide levels are below the relevant State and federal standards. Ozone levels exceeded the State and federal standard in each of the past seven years. Ozone exceeded the State 1- hour standard from 76 to 141 times a year during the last seven years and exceeded the federal 1- hour standard from 35 to 96 times a year. The PMto level in the project area exceeded the State standards in each of the past seven years, but exceeded the federal standards only twice in 1995.

PW O levels exceeded the State standard from 19 to 38 times a year in the past seven years. The Basin is in compliance with federal lead and sulfur dioxide levels. The ambient level of lead and sulfur dioxide is low enough as to not require analysis; therefore, levels of this pollutant are not reported by the San Bernardino air quality monitoring station.

Table IA - Ambient Air Quality San Bernardino Air Monitoring Station' Fine Suspended Nitrogen
Carbon Monoxide Ozone Particulates Dioxide
Max. Max.

Number
Max.
1- Hour Number
Max.
24- Hour Number
Max.
1- hour Numbero
Conc,
Number 8- Hoar
of Days Conc. of Days Conc. of Day Conc. of Days Conc. Days p pm) Exceeded
ppm) Exceeded ( ppm) Exceeded pp-) d p g/ mr) ceeded
5o ug/ m3, 24 hrs 25 ppm/ 1- hr
State Stds. 20 ppm/ 1- hr a 9.] ppm/ 8- hr 09 ppn 1- hr 76 97 19
I 998
22 20 108 103 23
1997
0 4. 6 0 24 113 136 35 15 0
1996 6. 0

6. 3 0 22 ill 178 35 17'
1995 8. 0
0 0 6. 5 0 25 132 147 38 18 0
1994 9. 0
0 6. 0
0 21 132 139 37 15 0
1993 7. 0
0 5. 9 0 28 141 136 36 13 0
1992 7. 0
178 18
MAXI- 9. 0 6.5
28 MUM
35 z 9. 5 ppm/ 8- hr 2 pprrt/ l- hr 150 u m', 24 hrs 0. 053 ppm, annual average
Federal ppn 1- hr
Stds.
22 43 97 0
1998
20 35 103 0
1997
0 4. 6 0 24 63 136 0 0. 0380 0
1996 6.0
0 6] 178 2 0.0424' 0
199 8. 0 0 6. 3
0 22
96 147 0 0. 0411 0
1994 9. 0
0 6. 5
0 25
65 139 0 0. 0376 0
1993 7. 0
0 6.0
0 21
85 136 0 0. 0356 0
1992 7. 0
0 5. 9
28 28 178 0. 0424
MAXI- 9. 0

6. 5
MUM_
f '
Station does not monitor for lead or sulfur dioxide.

Notes: The San Bernardino East valley Monitoring
Less than 12 full months of data. May not be representative. ppm - parts per million.

Pollutant not monitared.
µg/ m, = micograms/cubic meter
Source: SCAQMD Air Quality Data, 1992 to 1998.

Air Quality Tables, 1992- 1998 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 5/ l8/00(( R:\C0H732\ EA\ Admin DEA\ version 4- 00\ 5THISEA. RPT- cIn- wpd)) 3- 4
138

3. 5 NOISE
Existing Noise Environment
The California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) has set noise abatement criteria for land uses along highways/ freeways. When considering potential traffic noise impacts, primary consideration is given to exterior uses, with the exception of residences, schools, and hospitals which have interior noise criteria. Transportation sources are the major contributing factors to the ambient noise in the project vicinity.

Vehicular traffic along SR- 30, Fifth Street, Palm Avenue, Church Avenue, and other local streets, and aircraft operations associated with the San Bernardino International Airport are the major contributing transportation sources in the project vicinity. Along this segment of Fifth Street, there are no existing residential uses or commercial uses with outdoor activity areas that would have frequent human use. Therefore, there are no exterior receivers that will be affected by noise associated with the proposed project and a noise study is not required.

3. 6 BIOLOGICAL RESOUJ? CES
Vegetation and Soils
The City Creek Bridge project site is characterized by the City Creek flood plain. The site lies between the City Creek levee and is relatively flat with exception to the existing bridge infrastructure and levee walls. The site ranges in elevation from 366 to 372 meters ( 1, 200 to 1, 220 feet) above mean sea level. The vegetation on site consists of three primary plant communities; the mule fat series ( Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf, 1995), the California annual grassland series ( Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf, 1995), and alluvial fan sage scrub ( Holland, 1986). The mule fat series occurs along two of four drainages that meander within the City Creek floodplain and is dominated by mulefat Baccharis salicifolia). Fremont' s cottonwood ( Populus fremontii) and willow ( Salix sp.) were present on the extreme northern boundary along the main drainage channel.

The two other drainages are virtually unvegetated and show evidence of occasional water flow. The California annual grassland series occurs predominantly on the northeastern portion of the site and is also understory to the alluvial fan sage scrub present on site. Dominant grassland species identified include red brome (Bromus madritensis rubens), ripgut grass ( Bromus diandrus), short podded mustard ( Hirschfeldia incana), and storksbill ( Erodium cicutarium). The alluvial fan sage scrub plant community occurs on the northwestern and southeastern portions of the project site. The northwestern portion of the site is dominated almost solely by California buckwheat Eriogonum fasciculatum) whereas the southeastern portion of the site is vegetated by species of yerba santa ( Eriodictyon trichocalyx), California buckwheat and deerweed Lotus scoparius), and scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum).

Plant species observed in the vicinity of the proposed project site are identified in the Natural Environment Study Report, included as Appendix D ofthis report. Non-native and potentially invasive species are further identified in the listing of plant species 5/ 18/ 00« RAC0H732\ EA\Admin DEA\ version_ 4- 0015TMSEA. RPT-cln.wpd» 3- 5 139
Wildlife
observed on site and include tocalote ( Centaurea melitensis)', short -podded mustard Hirschfeldia incanaf, Castor bean ( Ricinus communis)', tree tobacco ( Nicotiana glauea) 2, slender wild oats ( Avena barbala) 3, red brome (Bromus madritensis rubensy, and common sunflower ( Helianthus annus) 5.

The soils in City Creek flood plain at City Creek Bridge are mapped as Psamments and Fluvents (Soil Conservation Service 1979). These soils consist of sandy and gravelly material and are found in large creeks and their major tributaries. The on -site inspection of soils was consistent with the mapped soil description.

Wildlife activity at the City Creek Bridge project site was relatively low because the site has a relatively low vegetative cover and is dominated by riverwash soils consisting of boulders, rocks, and cobbles. The more dense upland vegetation occurred along the levee banks and the more dense riparian vegetation occurred along two drainage channels present on site.

A complete list of wildlife species observed is provided in Appendix D.

Sensitive Biological Resources
Appendix D contains detailed information on the sensitive plant and animal species potentially present on the project site, including the species' habitat and distribution, activity period, State and federal status designations, and probability of occurrence.

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
Trapping studies were conducted for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat ( SBKR) to determine its presence/ absence on the City Creek Bridge project site. The SBKR was emergency listed as endangered on January 27, 19% ( U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998).

Trapping studies were conducted according to protocol established for the SBKR. The protocol calls for five nights of trapping. However, because of positive findings, List B: Wildland Pest Plants of Lesser Invasiveness, California Exotic Pest Plant Council ( CalEPPC).
2 Need more information. Plants for which current information applies does not adequately describe nature of threat to wildlands, CalEPPC. 3 A species of annual grass abundant and widespread in California, that poses a significant threat to wildlands, Ca] EPPC.

List A-2: Most Invasive Wildland Pest Plants; Regional, CaIEPPC. 5 Not rated, California Department of Food and Agriculture, Noxious Weed Index. s/ 181000R:\COH732\ EA\Admin DEA\ version_4-00\5THISEA. RPT-c1n.wpd» 3- b
140
trapping was conducted on only three nights, May 20, 21, and 22, 1998. Traps were placed in suitable habitat areas containing potential SBKR sign in the area of the City Creek Bridge. A total of 12 SBKRs were trapped on the project site.

Plant Species Surveys
Four sensitive plant species were identified as potentially occurring on the project site:
the slender -horned spineflower (Dodechenia leptoceras), Santa Ana River woollystar Eriastrum densifolium var. sanctorum), Nevin' s barberry ( Berberis nevinit), and Parry' s spineflower ( Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi). Two of the plant species, Nevin' s barberry and Santa Ana River woollystar, are readily identifiable year round and were not observed during the general biological assessment conducted on the project site in January 1998. Focused surveys for the slender -horned spine flower and Parry' s spine flower were conducted in June 1998 and were not observed on the project site.

Delineation of Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters ofthe U.S.

On -site examination of vegetation, soils, and hydrology was conducted according to the U.S. Corps of Engineers' three parameter method and is described in detail in Appendix D. Based on this analysis, a total of 318. 5 linear meters ( 1, 045 linear feet) of stream bed was identified, composed of 0.27 hectare ( 0. 67 acre) of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. consisting of 0.22 hectare ( 0. 55 acre) of wetland waters, and 0. 05 hectare ( 0. 12 acre) of non -wetland waters. A total of 0. 27 hectare ( 0.67 acre) was found to fall under California Department of Fish and Game ( CDFG) jurisdiction.

Functions and values of wetlands within the project area include providing groundwater recharge and discharge, flood control, water quality enhancement, and wildlife habitat. The benefits provided by the wetland sites within the project boundary are minimal because ofthe limited area of wetland habitat.

3. 7 LAND USEIPLANNING
The project area is composed of predominately commercial and industrial land uses adjacent to Fifth Street with residential neighborhoods to the north. As shown in Table

3. B, commercial and industrial uses exist adjacent to Fifth Street. The large planned development of East Highlands Ranch, consisting of both residential and commercial uses, lies 3. 2 kilometers ( 2. 0 miles) east of the project area. The project is within the City of Highland.
5/ 18/ 0DORAC0147321EMAdmin DEAlvmion_4-00\ SMSEA.RPT-cln. wpd)) 3- 7 141

3. 8

3. 9
Table 3.B - Surrounding Land Uses
Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Industrial/GeneralIndustrial/General Industrial
Commercial Commercial
South Industrial/ General Industrial/ General Industrial/ General Commercial Commercial Commercial ( GC)
East Business Park/ Open Space Business Park/
opm Openn Space Devel rated
West Residential Residential Planned Commercial/
Planned Development

HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
An Area ofPotential Effect (APE) map was approved by Caltrans and FHWA in 1998.

Historic studies were performed by qualified persons and no prehistoric or historic cultural resources were identified in the APE. A Negative Archaeological Survey Report and Negative Historic Property Survey Report were signed by the FHWA Transportation Engineer. A copy of the reports is included in Appendix E.

HAZARDOUS WASTE
A Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (ISA) was prepared for this project and is included as Appendix F. A site survey did not reveal any evidence of hazardous material contamination or significant hazardous waste concerns within the areas proposed for construction and/ or right- of-way acquisition.

The governmental records search conducted for the proposed project found 16 proper- ties within a 2.4-kilometer ( 1. 5- mile) radius of the project site that either store hazardous materials or have hazardous materials contamination on site. One of these sites has a significant history of hazardous materials violations and is located within close proximity of the project alignment. However, due to relatively deep depth to groundwater in the area ( greater than 40 meters [ 131. 24 feet]), it is unlikely that any contarnination at this site could have migrated to within the project alignment or impacted near surface soils to be graded as part of the project. Based on the details of the records search results, it is unlikely that any other nearby sites have impacted the project area or have the potential to affect proposed construction activities.

Lead was found in the paint on the existing bridge girders. A technical specification will be included in the design documents directing the removal and deposition of the lead coated portions in accordance with State and federal regulations. 5118/ 00« RAC014732\WAdmin DEA\vcrsion_4-00 5THISEA.RPT-cln.wpd)> 3- 8
142

3.10 SOCIOECONOMICS/ DEMOGRAPHICS
Development in the vicinity of the proposed project, including the reuse of the former Norton Air Force Base will require improvements in local roadway infrastructure. The widening of the City Creek Bridge was identified as a mitigation measure in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal and Reuse of Norton Air Force Base Final EIS for Norton Reuse June 1993); therefore, socioeconomic and demographic issues associated with the proposed project have been previously addressed in that document. Businesses in the vicinity of the proposed project will not be affected during project construction. Adequate access to businesses will be maintained throughout the construction period. No commercial or residential structures will be demolished.

The Final EIS for the former Norton Air Force Base Reuse predicted that employment resulting from civilian use of the deactivated air base would total 7,269 ( direct) and 6, 783 ( indirect) jobs in the year 2000. Population increases resulting from these uses were estimated to equal 7, 220 persons in the San Bernardino - Riverside County area.

By the year 2015, direct and indirect employment at Norton were estimated to total 30, 624 and 22,962, jobs, respectively. It was estimated that population growth in the San Bernardino - Riverside County region would increase by approximately 34, 300 persons as a result of civilian jobs at the former air base. The Final EIS for the former Norton Air Force Base Reuse stated that the reuse of Norton Air Force Base would, generate positive economic benefits by increasing employment and earnings in the region."
The California Department of Finance ( DOF) states the City' s population to be 44, 450 persons ( January 2000). The City' s population grew at an annual average rate of 2. 9 percent during the 1990s. The population of the City is anticipated to grow to approxi- mately 66, 941 persons by the year 2020. The current population resides in approximately 14, 171 dwelling units. A majority ( 73 percent) of dwelling units in the City are single- family detached units. By the year 2020, approximately 21, 714 dwelling units will be occupied within the City. The San Bernardino Associated Governments SANBAG) estimates current ( 2000) employment in the City of Highland to be 7, 206 jobs. Employment is expected to reach 19, 771 jobs by the year 2020. The San Bernardino County Economic Development Agency ( EDA) states the City' s largest employer is Western Entertainment Corporation ( 288 employees). Other major employers in the City include Robertson' s Ready Mix, Sunwest Sand and Gravel, and Rogers Drywall, each with approximately 200 employees each.

Improvements to Fifth Street, including the replacement of City Creek Bridge will facilitate the passage of persons and goods through the City, and will accommodate growth anticipated and planned for in the City' s General Plan. 5/ 18/ 00KR:ICOH732\ EAWdmin DEA\ version_ 4-0015THt5EA. RPT- ein.wpd» 3- 9 143

4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

4. 1 TECHNICAL STUDIES
The technical studies listed below were prepared to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Fifth Street improvement project. The technical studies are in the Technical Appendices, bound separately in Volume II, and are available for review at Caltrans District 8, 464 W. Fourth Street, San Bernardino, California and at the City of Highland, 27215 Base Line, Highland, California 92346.

Appendix A - Draft Foundation Report
Appendix B - Floodplain Study
Appendix C - Air Quality Technical Report
Appendix D - Natural Environment Study Report and Delineation of Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Appendix E - Cultural Resources Study
Appendix F - Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment
In addition to the technical studies prepared for the project, the previous documents listed below, prepared by the City ofHighland, were also used as reference documents in this evaluation for general setting information, such as topography, climate, noise, and land use.

City of Highland, General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. October 27, 1992.

City of Highland, City Creek Bridge Type Selection Report. February, 1998.

Prepared by McDaniel Engineering.
4,2 ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST
The following checklist was used to identify physical, biological, social, and teconomic
factors
that might be impacted by the proposed project. In many cases, the ground studies performed inconnection with this project clearly indicate that the project will not affect aparticular item. A "NO" answer inthe first column documents this determination. Where there is a need for clarifying discussion, the discussion is provided in Section 5.0 following the checklist. The
checklist is based on the Environmental Checklist from the CEQA Guidelines and Caltrans Environmental Handbook. In the checklist, the significance determination applies to CEQA. Section
15064 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the determination asto whether aproject may have asignificant effect on the environment calls for careful judgement onthe part of the public agency involved based, to the extent possible, on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not possible, because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. 5I18/
00KR:\ C0H732\ EA\Admin DEA\ version_ 4-00\ 5THISEA. RPT-cln.wpd» 4- 1 144
The NEPA regulations ( Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ] Regulations, Section 1508. 27) define " significantly" in terms of two considerations: context and intensity.

The regulations state that context is the setting within which the proposed project and its impacts should be considered. Context encompasses all aspects of the project setting, including physical, social, political, and geographic factors. Consideration of context puts the magnitude of impacts into their proper perspective.

IF YES, IS IT
YES, NO OR SIGNIFICANT?

MAYBE YES OR NO
PHYSICAL - Will the proposal either directly or indirectly:

1. Appreciably change the topography or ground surface relief features? NO

2. Destroy, cover or modify any unique geologic, paleontologic, or physical features? NO

3. Result in unstable earth surfaces or increase the exposure of people or property to geoNO logic or seismic hazards?

4. Result in or be affected by soil erosion or siltation (whether by water or wind)? YES

5. Result in the increased use of fuel or energy in large amounts or in a wasteful mariner? NO

6. Result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? NO

7. Result in the substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource? NO

8. Violate any published Federal, State or local standards pertaining to hazardous waste, NO solid waste or litter control?

9. Modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any inlet or lake? NO

10. Encroach upon a floodplain or result in Or be affected by floodwaters or tidal waves? NO

11. Adversely affect the quantity or quality of surface water, groundwater or public water NO
supply?

12. Result in the use of water in large amounts or in a wasteful manner? NO

13. Affect wetlands or riparian vegetation?
YM

14. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State or local water quality standards? NO

15. Result in changes in air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any climatic conditions? NO

16. Result in an increase in air pollutant emissions, adverse effects on Or deterioration of NO ambient air quality?

17. Result in the creation of objectionable odors?
NO

18. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State or local air standards or control plans? NO

19. Result in an increase in noise levels or vibration for adjoining areas? NO

20. Result in any Federal, State or local noise criteria being equal or exceeded? NO

21. Produce new light, glare or shadows?
NO
BIOLOGICAL Will the proposal result in ( either directly or indirectly):

22. Change in the diversity of species or number of any species ofplants ( including trees, NO shrubs, grass, microflora, and aquatic plants)?

23. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment upon the critical habitat of any unique, NO threatened or endangered species ofplants?

24. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal reNO plenishment of existing species?
5( 18/ 00S<R:\ C0H732\ BA\ Adn» n DEA\ version_ 4- 00\ 5THISEA. RPT- eln. wpd» NO
NO
4- 2
145
1F YES, IS IT
YES, NO OR SIGNIFICANT?
MAYBE YES OR No

25. Reduction in acreage of any agriculture crop or commercial timber stand, or affect prime, NO
unique, or other farmland of State or local importance? 26_ Removal or deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? NO

27. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals ( birds, land ani- insects or microfauna)? NO
mals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms,

28. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment upon the critical habitat of any unique, NO
threatened or endangered species of animals?

29. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration NO
or movement of animals?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC - Will the proposal directly or indirectly:

30. Cause disruption of orderly planned development?
NO

31. Be inconsistent with any elements of adopted community plans, policies or goals? NO

32. Be inconsistent with a Coastal Zone Management Plan? NO

33. Affect the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an NO
area?

34. Affect life- styles, or neighborhood character or stability? NO

35. Affect minority, elderly, handicapped, transit -dependent or other specific interest groups? NO

36. Divide or disrupt an established community.

37. Affect existing housing, require the acquisition of residential improvements or the dis NO
placement of people or create a demand for additional housing?

38. Affect employment, industry or commerce, or require the displacement of businesses or NO
farms?

39. Affect property values or the local tax base?
NO

40. Affect any community facilities ( including medical, educational, scientific, recreational, NO or religious institutions, ceremonial sites or sacred shrines)?

41. Affect public utilities, or police, fire, emergency or other public services? NO

42. Have substantial impact on existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of NO circulation or movement of people and/ or goods?
NO

43. Generate additional traffic?

44. Affect or be affected by existing parking facilities or result in demand for new parking? NO

45. Involve a substantial risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the NO event of an accident or otherwise adversely affect overall public safety?

46. Result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? NO

47. Support large commercial or residential development? YES NO

48. Affect a significant archaeological or historic site, structure, object, or building? NO

49. Affect wild or scenic rivers or natural landmarks?
NO

50. Affect any scenic resources or result in the obstruction of any scenic vista view? or view open to NO
the public, or creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public

51. Result in substantial impacts associated with construction activities ( e.g., noise, dust, NO
temporary drainage, traffic detours and temporary access, etc.)? 5/ l8/ 000R:\ COH732\ EA\ Admin DEA\ version_ 4- 00\ 5THISEA_ RPT- cln. wpd)> 4- 3
146
1F YES, tS IT
YES, I OR SIGNIFICANT?

MAYBE YES OR NO

52. Result in the use of any publicly -owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife and NO waterfowl refuge?

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

53. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality ofthe environment, NO substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 54, Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long- NO term, environmental goals? ( A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.)

55. Does the project have environmental effects which are individually limited, but cumula- NO tively considerable? Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effect of an individual project is considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.

It includes the effects ofother projects which interact with this project and, together, are considerable.

56. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects NO on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
5/ l9/000R: 1CO147321EA1Admin DEA\ version_ 4-00\ 5THISEA. RPT- cln. wpd» 4- 4 147

5. 0 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

FORM RESPONSES
The discussion of the environmental evaluation checklist answers describes in detail the potential impacts associated with the proposed improvements to Fifth Street and identifies mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts.

I. Appreciably Change the Topography or Ground Surface Relief Features? No. As described in Section 3. 1 ( Topography), the topography of the area would not be affected by the proposed improvements. The project would include widening of the existing Fifth Street at grade and replacing the bridge at the existing height, thereby not changing geologic features, topography or ground surface relief.

1. Destroy, Cover or Modify Any Unique Geologic, Paleontologic, or Physical Features? No. No unique geologic, paleontologic, or physical features exist in the project area; therefore, adverse impacts to such resources as a result of project implementation would not occur.

3. Result in Unstable Earth Surfaces or Increase the Exposure ofPeople or Property to Geologic or Seismic Hazards? No. The Fifth Street project is subject to ground shaking from regional and local fault activity, as is all of California. The primary potential hazard, in the event of a major earthquake, would be ground motion; however, secondary hazards could include soil settlement. The site has a low liquefaction potential due to the quick dissipation of excess pore water pressure and the dense nature of the soils. The project does not include any structures that would increase the risk of exposure to people. Potential geologic and seismic hazards associated with project implementation would be re- duced by designing the project to comply with Caltrans' most recent seismic design standards.

4. Result in or be Affected by Soil Erosion or Siltation ( Whether by Water or Wind)? Yes. Construction activities in the vicinity of City Creek would increase the potential for wind or water erosion of soils and result in short-term changes in deposition, erosion, or siltation that may modify City Creek or the Santa Ana River. Once construction is complete, the erosion rate at the project site would be the same as the existing rate. Short -teen soil erosion impacts from demolition and construction ofthe bridge within the City Creek area would be mitigated through the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) and are not substantial. 5/ IS/000R:IC0H7321EMAdmin DEA\ version_4-oo\5THISEA. RPT- In.wpd» 5- 1
148
Short-term construction effects of the Fifth Street widening improvements on soil erosion would be minimal due to the limited amount of exposed soil anticipated with the road widening; therefore, mitigation is not required.

To reduce potential project impacts to water quality, a SWPPP will be implemented after a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed with the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB), in accordance with the NPDES permit requirement of the Federal Clean Water Act. The NOI and the SWPPP are required prior to commencing construction of the project. The SWPPP will address reduction of excessive erosion and sedimentation caused by construction activities, prevention of off -site contamination from construction materials used at the site, and reduction ofnon-stormwater discharges from the construction site, and will provide appropriate measures to reduce impacts to waterways resulting from the finished project.

The SWPPP will include, at a minimum, the following Good Management Practices GMPs) summarized from the Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook ( May 10, 1996).

Infiltration
Infiltration systems percolate stormwater runoff from small storms into the ground rather than discharging to a surface water body. Infiltration systems include buffer strips, swales, porous pavement, and infiltration trenches.

The primary function of infiltration systems is to remove pollutants from storm - water runoff by infiltration. The systems remove pollutants in both the suspended and dissolved form by absorption on soil particles and through biological activity.

Secondary benefits include the recharge or replenishment of groundwater and a reduction in total annual surface runoff volumes.

Scheduling
A specified work schedule coordinates the timing ofland disturbing activities and the installation of erosion and sedimentation control practices to reduce on -site erosion and off -site sedimentation. For some critical situations, specific scheduling requirements may need to be included in the contract special provisions rather than left to the construction contractor.

Preservation ofExisting Vegetation
Protection of desirable plants and trees in any areas subject to land disturbing activities is beneficial. Existing vegetation can be used as an effective form of erosion and sediment control, as well as watershed protection, landscape beautification, dust control, pollution control, noise reduction, and shade.

Permanent Seeding and Planting
Permanent seeding and planting should be completed to establish a permanent perennial vegetative cover on areas that have been disturbed by construction.

The establishment of permanent vegetation is beneficial for long- term aesthetics, reducing erosion by slowing runoff velocities, enhancing infiltration and transpi5/ 18/ 00(<R:\ COH7321EA1Admin DEAlversion 4- 0015THISEA. RPT-cin. wpd>> 5- 2 149
ration, trapping sediment and other particulates, protecting soil from raindrop impact, and providing habitat for wildlife. Some permanent vegetation is selfsustaining, requires low maintenance, and is compatible with the surrounding environment.

Mulching
Loose bulk materials should be applied to the soil surface as a temporary cover to reduce erosion by protecting bare soil from rainfall impact, increasing infiltration, and reducing runoff. Mulches also moderate soil temperature, a characteristic that is beneficial for plant establishment and growth.

Mulches are generally used to complement seeding and vegetation establishment techniques, although some mulches such as wood/ bark chips have been used in lieu of long- term established vegetation.

Soil Stabilizers
Stabilizing materials should be applied to the soil surface to prevent the movement of dust from exposed soil surfaces on construction sites as a result of wind, traffic, and grading activities. The purpose of dust control on a construction site is to reduce the potential for soil particles being transported into surface water bodies, resulting in reduced water quality.

Stabilized Construction Roadway
A stabilized access road to construction areas off existing public roads, for temporary access during the construction period, and the control of dust and erosion created by vehicular tracking, should be considered:

For all construction sites where vehicles travel across unpaved areasFor construction during wet weather conditions.

For construction during dry weather conditions where dust is a problem or where mud may be tracked from the site.

For short- term detour roads.

Earth Dikes, Drainage Swales, and Lined Ditches
Structures that intercept, divert, and convey surface runoff, generally sheet flow, to prevent erosion and reduce pollutant loading should be used for the following:

To convey surface runoff down sloping land.

To intercept and divert runoff, to avoid sheet flow over sloped surfaces. 5/ 18/ 000R: 1COH732\ EA\ Admin DEA%version_ 40015THTSEA. RPT- cln. wpd» 5- 3
150
To direct runoff towards a stabilized watercourse, drainage pipe, or channel.

Below steep grades where runoff begins to concentrate.

Along roadways and around facility improvements that are subject to flood damage.

Slope Drains and Subsurface Drains
A slope or subsurface drain is a pipe used to intercept and direct surface runoff or groundwater into a stabilized watercourse, trapping device, or stabilized area.

Slope drains can also be a lined channel. Slope drains are slope stabilization measures designed to protect cut or fill slopes. Slope drains should be used where slopes may be eroded by surface runoff.

Subsurface drains are improvements designed to allow proper drainage and soil stabilization in sloping areas where excessive soil saturation exists. Subsurface drains should be used where subsurface water must be removed from the soil, to lower groundwater table, or to prevent excessive soil saturation. outlet Protection/ Velocity Dissipation Devices
Physical devices should be placed at outlets of pipes and channels to reduce the velocity and/ or energy of exiting water. outlet protection helps to prevent scour and to minimize the potential for downstream erosion by reducing the velocity and/ or energy of concentrated stormwater flows.

Flared Culvert End Selections
Physical devices should be placed at inlets and outlets of pipes and channels to improve the hydraulic operation and retain the embankment near pipe conveyances. Flared end sections help prevent scour and minimize erosion at inlets and outlets.

Check Danis
A check dam is a small, usually temporary, dam constructed of rocks, logs, or timbers placed across a natural or man-made channel or drainage ditch. Check dams reduce drainage ditch erosion caused by stormwater runoff by restricting the velocity offlow in the ditch. Check dams can also be used to prevent erosion, even after a channel has been permanently lined with vegetation or other materials. They should be provided in the following circumstances:

In small open channels that drain 4 hectares ( 10 acres) or less.

In steep channels where stormwater runoff velocities exceed 1. 5 meters/ second (5 feet/ second) and must be reduced to protect against erosion. 5/ 18/00« RACO14732\EA\Admin DEA\ version_4- 00\ 5THISFA.RPT-cln.-*)» 54 151
During the establishment of grass linings in drainage ditches or channels.

In temporary ditches or channels, where the short length of service does not allow or warrant establishment or construction of an erosion resistant lining.

Slope Roughening/ Terracing/Rounding
Roughening and terracing are techniques for creating unevenness on bare soil through the construction of furrows running across a slope, creation of stair steps, or by utilization of construction equipment to track the soil surface. Surface roughening or terracing reduces erosion potential by decreasing runoff velocities, trapping sediment, and increasing infiltration of water into the soil, aiding in the establishment of vegetative cover from seed. These techniques should be used as follows:

All construction slopes require surface roughening or terracing of some kind to facilitate long- term stabilization with vegetation, particularly slopes steeper than 3. 1 ( horizontal to vertical) and greater than 1. 5 meters 5 feet) in height.

Where seeding, planting, and mulching to stabilize exposed soils will benefit from surface roughening.

On graded areas with smooth, hard surfaces.
j, Result in the Increased Use ofFuel or Energy in Large Amounts or in a Wasteful Manner? No. Due to the relatively small scale of the project, construction of the proposed improvements would not require use of large or wasteful amounts of fuel or energy.

The use of energy to construct the project would not be a substantial irrevocable commitment of fossil fuel resources.

6. Result in an Increase in the Rate of Use ofAny Natural Resource? No. Due to the relatively small scale of the project, construction of the proposed improvements would not substantially affect the rate of use of any natural resources.

Also, there are no important quantities of natural resources ( e. g., sand and gravel deposits) within the Fifth Street project limits.

7. Result in the Substantial Depletion ofAny Nonrenewable Resource? No. As noted above in Response Nos. 5 and 6, the use of energy to construct the project would not be a substantial irrevocable commitment of fossil fuel resources or natural resources.
5/ 18/ 00« R:\C011732\ EA\ Admin DEAiversion_ 4- 00\ 5THISEA. RP7- cln. wpd» 5- 5
152

8. Holate any Published Federal, State or Local Standards Pertaining to Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste or Litter Control?
No. A site survey was conducted as part of the Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment ( ISA), Appendix F; no evidence of hazardous waste contamination that could substantially impact project implementation was observed. The site survey did not reveal any substantial hazardous waste concerns within the areas proposed for construction and/ or right-of-way acquisition. The majority of new right-of-way acquisition would occur below the City Creek Bridge and on vacant land east of Church Avenue. No visual evidence of surface contamination was observed below the bridge or on the adjacent vacant lands.

The governmental records search conducted for the proposed project found 16 properties within a 2.4- kilometer ( 1. 5- mile) radius of the project site that either store hazardous materials, or have hazardous materials contamination on site. One of these sites, the Safety Kleen Corporation property located at 7979 Palm Avenue, has had a substantial history of hazardous materials violations and is located within close proximity of the project alignment. Due to relatively deep depth to groundwater in the area greater than 346. 6 and 347. 5 meters [ 1, 137 and 1, 140 feet]), it is unlikely that any contamination at this site could have migrated to within the project alignment or impacted near surface soils to be graded as part of the project. During construction, the City of Highland shall mitigate any areas of contamination found within the Fifth Street project limits through implementation of standard cleanup and disposal procedures (i. e., removing and transporting the waste to an appropriate landfill). Based on the details of the records search results, it is unlikely that any other nearby sites have impacted the project area or have the potential to affect proposed construction activities.

9. Modify the Channel of a River or Stream or the Bed ofthe Ocean orAny Inlet or Lake? No. Demolition and reconstruction of the bridge over City Creek would result in minor alterations to the surface water within the channel. Appendix C contains a detailed wetland delineation conducted for the proposed project. As indicated under Response No. 13, the proposed project would remove approximately a total of 318. 5 linear meters ( 1, 045 linear feet) of streambed, including 0.27 hectare ( 0.67 acre) of jurisdictional water ofthe U.S. consisting of0.22 hectare (0.55 acre) ofwetland water, and 0.05 hectare (0. 12 acre) of non -wetland water.

Surface water levels and flow movements during construction would be controlled by contract specifications and Best Management Practices ( BMPs). With implementation of these measures, the potential for adverse alterations to surface waters during construction would not be substantial.

10. Encroach upon a Floodplain or Result in or Be Affected by Floodwaters or Tidal Waves? No. Portions of the proposed project lie within the 100- year Foodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps FIRM) and are depicted in the Location Hydraulic Study Bridge Project Floodplain 5A 8/ 00« R:\ C0H732\ EA\ Admin DEAlvenion 4-00\ 5THISEA. RPT- cln. wpd» 5- 6 153
Study, Appendix B. FIRM panel 8702 of 9400, dated March 18, 1996, shows this reach of City Creek within a Zone A designation. Zone A is applied when no base flood elevations were determined; therefore, the approximate limit is 30. 5 meters ( 100 feet) wide at the City Creek Bridge. The proposed bridge improvements would not create an impact to the floodplain. The proposed bridge would be constructed with

0.76 meter (2, 5 feet) of freeboard for the 100-year storm and pass the 434 cubic meters 15, 500 cubic feet per second) discharge as required by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District.

In addition, the project area is not proximate to bodies ofwater large enough to generate tidal waves.

IL Adversely Affect the Quantity or Quality ofSurface Water, Groundwater or Public Water Supply?
Surface Water
No. The proposed project would result in a slight increase in the amount of surface runoff due to the additional roadway pavement on Fifth Street and the widened bridge area. However, the increase is not anticipated to result in an impact since the increase in impervious surfaces over existing conditions is minor. The additional runoff anticipated with the expansion of the bridge would be accommodated by the design of the bridge storm drain system.

Storm runoff from the roadway surfaces may contain oil, grease, petroleum products, or other pollutants. Zinc, and to a lesser extent copper, lead, cadmium, iron and other trace metals, may also accumulate on
road surfaces. The concentrations of these
pollutants in stormwater runoff would be greatest during the " first flush" storm event, at the end of the dry season. The amount of contaminants reaching groundwater is expected to be minimal over existing conditions in the project area, and any concentrations would be highly diluted. Thus, no substantial impacts to groundwater quality or its beneficial uses are expected.

Runoff and erosion during construction would be controlled by contract specifications and BMPs. Construction industry standard stormwater BMPs can be found in theState ofCalifornia Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook, Construction Activ- ity, With implementation ofBMP measures, the potential for increased runoff during construction would not be substantial.

Groundwater
No. The proposed project would not result in changes to groundwater. Groundwater in the project area was found between 346. 6 and 347. 5 meters ( 1, 137 and 1, 140 feet) during surveys conducted for the Bridge Foundation Report.' Earth Mechanics, Inc. Draft Foundation Report, Fifth Street Improvements, April 1998. 5/ 1%/ 00« RACOH7321EA\ Admin DEAWersion_ 4- Oo15THisEA. RPT-cln.wpd» 5- 7
154
Public Water Supply
No. The City of Highland' s public water supplies are from the EVWD whose sole water source is groundwater. The proposed project would not have an effect on groundwater, alter water movement, or surface waters. Therefore, the proposed project would not have an effect on public water supplies.

12. Result in the Use of Water in Large Amounts or in a Wasteful Manner? No. Project development is not expected to result in the use of large amounts ofwater during construction and operation. Application of standard Caltrans specifications for roadway construction and maintenance provides for installation of water conserving designs and maintenance programs.

13. Affect Wetlands or Riparian Vegetation?
Yes. Based on the wetland delineation analysis conducted for the project area ( Appendix D), a small area of wetland would be displaced by the proposed project. A total of 318. 5 linear meters ( 1, 045 linear feet) of strearnbed, including 0. 27 hectare ( 0. 67 acre) of jurisdictional water of the U. S. consisting of 0.22 hectare ( 0.55 acre) of wetland water, and 0.05 hectare ( 0. 12 acre) of non -wetland water, was identified as being affected by the project. The benefits provided by the wetland sites within the project area are minimal because of the limited acreage and, therefore, the impact is not considered substantial.

However, this adverse impact would be reduced to ensure no net loss ofriparian habitat and wetlands after implementation of the following mitigation measure.

Mitigation Measure
For direct impacts ( temporary disturbance of up 0.27 hectare [ 0.67 acre) of waters/streambed) construction activities shall be limited to the minimal area necessary and that upon completion of construction, impacted areas be restored to replicate existing conditions. A one- time revegetation ofthe site shall be required. At the onset of construction topsoil ( where present) and plant materials shall be salvaged for use in restoration activities. The top three to six inches of topsoil shall be scraped off and stockpiled on site, upon completion of construction, the stockpiled soil shall be spread over areas targeted for restoration. Prior to removal of vegetation, cuttings shall be taken from shrubs and trees ( i.e., mulefat, cottonwood, and willows), cuttings shall be rooted and maintained for post -construction planting. Topsoil shall be spread and cuttings planted in areas where adequate water is available for the growth of riparian vegetation. No long -tern monitoring ofthe site shall be required.

Impacts to waters of the U. S. and streambed would require authorization from the Corps, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFG. As part ofthe authorization process, the regulatory agencies would review and approve appropriate mitigation measures. It is anticipated that the measure outlined above would satisfy the requirements of the involved agencies.
5118/ 00<<R:\ COH732\ EA\ Admin DEA\ version 4- 00\ 5THISEA. RPT- cin. wpd» 5- 8 155
Measures to Minimize Harm
The proposed project includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands.

The project also proposes mitigation in the form of restoring wetland and riparian habitats, resulting in no net loss of these natural resources.

Wetlands Finding
Pursuant to federal Executive Order 11990 ( Protection of Wetlands), a discussion of practicable alternatives to the proposed project, measures to minimize harm to wetlands, and a wetlands finding are provided below.

Alternatives
There are no practicable alternatives to the proposed action. Alternative alignments would impact the same drainages, but at different locations. Section 2. 0 (Alternatives) discusses previous alternatives and alternatives withdrawn from consideration. Alter- native crossings would not match the existing roadway alignment and, therefore, would not be feasible.

Finding
Based upon the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed new construction in wetlands, and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands that may result from such use.

14. Violate or Be Inconsistent with Federal, State or Local Water Quality Standards? No. The project is not anticipated to have a substantial impact on local water quality with implementation ofCity ofHighland design standards for controlling storm runoff.

Runoff and erosion during construction would be controlled by contract specifications and BMPs. Construction industry standard ston-nwater BMPs can be found in theState ofCalifornia Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook, Construction ,Activ- ity. With implementation of BMP measures, the potential for increased runoff during construction would not be substantial.

15. Result in Changes in Air Movement, Moisture, or Temperature, orAny Climatic Conditions? No. Due to the relatively limited scale of the project, construction of the proposed facility would not affect existing local air movement patterns, or alter temperature or other climatic conditions in the project study area.
51161000R:\ C0H732\ EA\ Admmn DEA\ version_ 4 \ 5THISEA. RPT- cln. wpd)) 5- 9
156

16. Result in an Increase in Air pollutant Emissions, Adverse Effects on or Deterioration of Ambient Air Quality?
Appendix C contains a detailed air quality analysis conducted for the proposed Fifth Street project. The air quality impacts of the proposed project are summarized below.

No. Air pollutants would be generated during project construction, primarily from construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust caused by earth disturbance. Construction emissions are expected to be typical of a project of this type, and no unusually high levels of pollutants are expected to be generated by construction activities.

Because the proposed project would not generate new traffic trips, no new long-term regional emissions would result from implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project would widen this segment of Fifth Street, moving travel lanes out- wards from the centerline. However, no existing sensitive receptors are located along the affected segment, and no significant local air quality impact is anticipated. The following discusses the possible emissions generating activities associated with the proposed project and their significance ( CEQA).

Construction Emissions
Thresholds for Construction Emissions
The following significance thresholds for construction emissions have been established by the SCAQMD:

2. 5 tons per quarter or 75 pounds per day of ROC

2. 5 tons per quarter or 100 pounds per day ofNOx

24. 75 tons per quarter or 550 pounds per day of CO

6.75 tons per quarter or 150 pounds per day ofPM 10

6. 75 tons per quarter or 150 pounds per day of SOX.

Projects in the Basin with construction related emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds above are considered to have a substantial impact on air quality by the SCAQMD.

Thresholdsfor Operational Emissions
Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are substantial are set forth in the SCAQMD' s CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and conformity with the existing SIP or consistency with the current AQMP. The daily operational emissions thresholds are as follows:

Regional Emissions Thresholds
55 pounds per day of ROC
55 pounds per day of NOx
550 pounds per day of CO
5/ 18/ 00« RAC0H732\ EA\ Adnun DEA\ version_4- 0415THISEA. RPT- eln.wpd3> 5- 10 157
150 pounds per day of PM10
150 pounds per day of SOx.

Projects in the Basin with operation related emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds are considered to have a substantial effect on air quality by the SCAQMD.

Local Emission Standards
California State 1- hour CO standard of 20.0 parts per million (ppm) California State 8- hour CO standard of 9. 0 ppm.

Localized project impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity ofthe project are above or below State and federal CO standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have an impact on air quality if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more ofthese standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or federal standard, project emissions are considered substantial if they increase 1- hour CO concentrations by 1. 0 ppm or more or 8- hour CO concentrations by 0. 45 ppm or more.

The potential air quality impacts of the proposed project were assessed using guide- lines developed by Caltrans Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook and the CALINE4 CO hot spot analysis model.

Standard Conditions. There are standard requirements with which all development projects in the Basin are required to comply. The following summarizes these standard requirements applicable to the proposed project.

The project would be required by law to comply with regional rules 403 and 402, which would assist in reducing short- term air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires imple- mentation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site.

These dust suppression techniques are summarized below. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques, as required by the SCAQMD, can reduce the fugitive dust generation ( and thus the PM10 component) by 50 to 75 percent. Compliance with these rules would reduce impacts on any nearby sensitive receptors.

Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be seeded and watered until vegetation cover is grown.

All active portions of the construction site shall be watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 24.2 kph ( 15 mph). 5/ 18/ o0« R:\COH732\ EA\ Adnnn DEA\ version_ 4- 00\STHISEA- RPT- cln. wpd» 5- 11
158
All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.

All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering, with complete coverage, shall occur at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day.

All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds ( i. e., greater than 40. 3 kph [ 25 mph] averaged over one hour) or during Stage i or Stage 2 episodes.

All material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times.

Equipment Exhausts
Construction activities would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, on -site heavy- duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment for the project would result in localized exhaust emissions. Based on analysis of similar projects, construction emissions associated with the proposed project have been estimated and are shown in Table S. A.

As shown, when properly coordinated, construction equipment emissions would not exceed the daily thresholds for the criteria pollutants ofNO,,, ROC, CO, SO., and PM, o.

Table 5.A - Daily Construction Equipment Exhaust Emissions Number and
Equipment Type'
No. of
Hours in
Operation CO
Pollutants ( Lbs/day)
ROC NO, SO, PM10
1 - Off -Hwy Trucks 4 10. 8 1. 2 25. 0 2. 7 1. 5
2 - Motor Graders 6 1. 8 0. 5 8. 6 1. 0 0. 7
1 - Scrapers 4 5. 1 1. 2 15. 4 1. 9 1. 6
2 - Tracked Loaders 4 1. 6 0. 8 6. 6 0. 6 0. 5
1- Wheeled Dozers 6 10. 8 1. 2 25. 0 2. 7 1. 0
2 - Tracked Tractors 4 2. 8 1. 0 10. 0 1. 2 1. 0
TOTAL 33 6 91 10 6
Threshold 550 75 100 150 150
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO
Note: ' Emission factors provided in EPA, AP-42, Volume II.

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 1998.
5118/ 000RACOH732\ EA\ Admin DEA\ version_4- 00\ 5THISEA. RPT-cln. wpd» 5- 12 159
Fugitive Dust
Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with land clearing, exposure, and cut and fill operations. Dust generated during construction activities would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather condi- tions. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity and construction crew may be exposed to blowing dust, depending upon prevailing wind conditions. A near balance ofproject related soil is anticipated. Therefore, a limited amount of debris would be imported or exported from the project site, minimizing the exhaust emissions from haul trucks and dust from soil transfer.

Based on a method developed by the SCAQMD, each acre of graded surface creates about 12 kilograms ( 26. 4 pounds) of PM, o per workday during the construction phase of the project and 9. 9 kilograms ( 21. 8 pounds) of PM, o per hour from dirt/ debris pushing per dozer. The project area covers approximately 2 hectares ( 5 acres). It is, therefore, assumed as a worst case scenario that the entire site would be under construction or exposed on any one day. It is also assumed that one dozer would be used six hours a day each, together with -other equipment. Therefore, a total of 263 pounds 119 kg) of PMio per day would be generated from soil disturbance without mitigation during the construction phase. This level .ofdust emission would exceed the threshold of 150 pounds ( 68 kg) per day for fine particulates. The SCAQMD rules 403 and 402 addressing the regulation and corresponding dust suppression techniques would be adhered to during the construction process. Implementation ofthe recommended dust suppression measures would reduce 50 to 75 percent of the fugitive dust during construction. A fugitive dust control plan would be submitted to and approved by the SCAQMD prior to beginning project construction.

Asphalt Paving Emissions
Implementation of the proposed project would involve the pavement of the widened road and bridge with asphalt. There would be VOC emissions associated with asphalt paving process. The standard SCAQMD rules that address the regulation and mitiga- tion measures for asphalt paving during road development would be adhered to during the construction process.

Local CO Hot Spot Impact Analysis
There would be no new vehicular trips associated with the proposed project. The proposed widening would help mitigate the anticipated congestion at intersections along Fifth Street in the project vicinity.

The primary mobile source pollutant oflocal concern is CO. CO is a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, traffic flow conditions. CO transport is extremely lim- ited; it disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations proximate to a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels affecting local sensitive receptors ( residents, school children, the elderly, hospital 5/ 18/ 000R:\ COH732\ EA\ A4Jnun DEA\ vcrsion_ 4-00\ 5THISEA. RPT- cln.wpd» 5- 13
160
patients, etc.). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. In areas with high ambient background CO concentration, modeling of CO concentrations is recommended in determining a project' s effect on local CO levels.

Existing CO concentrations in the immediate project vicinity are not available. However, ambient CO levels monitored at the San Bernardino Air Quality Monitoring Station, the closest station with monitored CO data, are generally low, with the highest recorded 1- hour concentration of 9. 0 ppm ( State standard is 20 ppm) and 8- hour concentration of 6. 5 ppm (State standard is 9 ppm) during the past seven years ( both 1- hour and 8-hour maximum CO concentrations monitored occurred in 1994). The second highest CO concentrations were 8. 0 ppm for the 1- hour and 6. 3 ppm for the 8- hour concentrations. These second highest CO levels have been used in this analysis as the existing and future background CO concentrations. Actual background CO concentrations in the project vicinity would possibly be lower given the greater relative distance from the urbanized City of Highland area.

Because the highest CO concentrations occur during peak traffic hours, CO impacts calculated under peak traffic conditions represent a worst case analysis. Modeling of the CO hot spot analysis was based on traffic volumes provided by the City of Highland engineer ( City of Highland, April 1998), which identified the existing and projected future traffic conditions, during afternoon peak hours, generated in the project area. CO concentrations were calculated for the 1- hour averaging period and then compared to the State 1- hour CO standard of 20 ppm. CO 8- hour averages were extrapolated from the 1- hour CO calculations, using techniques outlined in the Air Quality Technical Analysis Notes ( California Department of Transportation, 1988).

Concentrations are given in parts per million ( ppm) at each receptor location.

The Screening Procedure for CO hot spot analysis in Caltrans Transportation Project - Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol ( Caltrans, May 1996) has been used to assess the CO concentrations along Fifth Street in the project vicinity, at the intersections of Fifth Street and Palm Avenue. Although there are no existing sensitive receptors located near that intersection, this CO hot spot analysis provides an example oflocal CO levels along Fifth Street.

Data in Appendix C, CO Concentrations Fact Sheet, show that there would be no exceedance of either the State or federal CO standards for the 1- hour or the 8- hour durations. The 1- hour CO. concentration near this intersection is 10. 2 ppm for the existing ( 1998) and 9. 9 ppm for the future ( 2010) conditions, both much lower than the 20 ppm State standard and the 35 ppm federal standard. The 8- hour CO concentration is 7. 8 ppm for the existing ( 1998) and 7. 6 ppm for the future ( 2010) conditions, both also lower than the 9.0 ppm State and federal standards. Therefore, implementation of the project would not have an adverse impact on local air quality. Because no CO hotspots were identified, no nearby sensitive receptors would be affected by project related local air quality impacts.
511 B{00<<RACOH732\EA\ Admin DEA\version_4-00\5THISEA.RPT-eln.wpd» 5- 14 161
Air Quality Conformity Analysis
A consistency determination plays an essential role in local agency project review by linking local planning and unique individual projects to the AQMP. It fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing local agency decision makers of the environmental costs of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are addressed. Only new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significantly unique projects need to undergo a consistency review due to the AQMP strategy being based on projections from local General Plans.

The proposed widening project has been included in the Regional Transportation improvement Program ( RTIP), and does not require amendment to any local General Plan and is considered consistent with the air quality related regional plan. The FHWA and FTA issued a conformity determination on the SCAG 1998 Regional Transportation Plan and Fiscal Year 1998/ 99 - 2004/ 5 Regional Transportation Improvement Program ( RTIP) on October 5, 1998.

The Fifth Street widening project is included in the 1998 SCAB Transportation Plan and the 1998/99 - 2004/ 5, Regional Transportation Improvement Program. The Fifth Street widening project does not create any new CO violations but decreases the frequency and severity ofexisting CO violations.

Therefore, it is determined that the Fifth Street widening project is in conformance with the SIP and is consistent with the requirements of the Transportation Conformity Rule.

Mitigation Measures
Adherence to existing policies, regulations, and/ or design standards would reduce any adverse impact of the project. The following standard measures shall be implemented.

The following measures are provided to reduce air pollutants generated by vehicle and equipment exhaust during the project construction phase:

The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews would shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season ( May through October), the overall length of the construction period should be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time.

The Construction Contractor shall time the construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways.
5/ 18/ 00KRAC0H732\ EA\ Adrnin DEA\ version_ 4- 00\ 5THISEA. RPT- cln. wpd» 5- 15 162
The following measures would reduce or minimize fugitive dust emissions associated with grading or other soil disturbance:

The SCAQMD rules addressing fugitive dust control measures, Rules 402 and 403, shall be adhered to during the construction process.

A fugitive dust control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the SCAQMD prior to beginning project construction.

The following measure would reduce or minimize air pollutant emissions associated with asphalt paving:

The Construction Contractor shall adhere to the recommendations set forth by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and adopted by reference by the SCAQMD addressing the emission control measures covering the asphalt paving emissions.

17. Result in the Creation of Objectionable Odors?
No. The proposed project would not generate new odors, in and of itself; however, short- term odor impacts ( i.e., diesel fumes) associated with project construction may occur adjacent to the project right-of-way during construction. These fumes would dissipate quickly, and do not pose a potentially substantial odor impact.

18. Violate or be Inconsistent with Federal, State or Local Air Standards or Control Plans? Na. As discussed under Response No. 16, the Fifth Street project is included in the existing RTIP, does not require amendment to any local General Plan, and is considered consistent with the air quality related regional plan. The FHWA and FTA issued a conformity determination on the SCAG 1998 Regional Transportation Plan and Fiscal Year 1998/ 99 - 2004/5 Regional Transportation Improvement Program ( RTIP) on October 5, 1998.

19. Result in an Increase in Noise Levels or libration for Adjoining Areas? No. Implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new traffic nips to the project site; therefore, it would not add a new traffic noise source along this seg- ment of Fifth Street_ However, due to the improvements of traffic flow on Fifth Street, traffic speed in the project vicinity may increase slightly from its current level. Traffic noise has the potential to increase slightly.

The California Department ofTransportation ( Caltrans) has set noise abatement criteria for land uses along highways/ freeways. When considering potential traffic noise impacts, primary consideration is given to exterior uses, with the exception of residences, schools, and hospitals which have interior noise criterion. Along this segment ofFifth Street, there are no existing residential uses or commercial uses with outdoor activity areas that would have frequent human use. Therefore, there are no exterior receivers that would be substantially disturbed by the construction or use of the wid5/ 1 8/ 00<<RAC0H732\ EA\ Admin DEA\ version_ 4- 00\ 5THISEA. RPT- cln.wpd» 5- 16
163
ened roadway and a noise study is not required. The increase in traffic speed in this area is not anticipated to increase the traffic noise by a substantial amount, and is not expected to result in a substantial traffic noise impact; therefore, no mitigation for long- term traffic noise is required.

20. Result in Any Federal, State or Local Noise Criteria Being Equal or Exceeded? No. During construction activities, nearby land uses would be exposed to periodic short- term noise levels in excess of the City of Highland' s threshold levels when construction occurs near the project boundaries. Due to the short-term nature of construction activities, the absence of sensitive receptors adjacent to the project, and the restrictions on nighttime and weekend work (as imposed by the City ofHighland Noise Ordinance), potential noise impacts are not considered substantial. 1I. Produce New Light, Glare or Shadows?
No. The proposed project would provide new lights on the bridge. Street lighting is provided as a safety feature and would not create a substantial intrusion of light into the area. Lighting sources would be shielded to prevent spillover of light from the bridge to adjacent lands so as not to affect the SBKR. Therefore, no impact is anticipated.

22. Change in the Diversity ofSpecies or Number ofAny Species ofPlants ( Including Trees, Shrubs, Grass, Microlora, and Aquatic Plants)?
No. The proposed project would have temporary impacts on plant communities within City Creek. The areas adjacent to the roadway that would be affected by the roadway widening are disturbed, contain non- native landscaping or ruderal species. Temporary impacts include grubbing, clearing, and grading operations that result from construction operations, but would not result in a permanent conversion of habitat to human use. Permanent conversion of habitat will occur in the areas where the pylons of the bridge would be permanently widened in City Creek.

23. Reduction of the Numbers ofor .Encroachment upon the Critical Habitat ofAny Unique, Threatened or Endangered Species ofPlants?
No. As discussed in the Natural Environmental Study Report ( Appendix D). The area of the City Creek Bridge contains habitat for the federally listed endangered SBK-R. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) has not officially designated " critical" habitat for the SBKR . Twelve of the species were trapped during focused surveys for the species both north and south of the existing bridge. The loss of alluvial fan sage scrub habitat on the site itself is not considered substantial because of the relatively small amount of this habitat within the proposed project area. However, because the alluvial fan sage scrub is occupied by the SBKR, any impacts to this species are considered substantial. 5/ 18/ 00KRACOH732\EA\A.dmin DEAlversion_4-OMTHISEA.RPT-cln.wpd» 5- 17 164
The proposed project would impact approximately 0. 22 hectare ( 0. 55 acre) of mulefat riparian habitat associated with defined channels and approximately 0. 05 hectare ( 0. 12 acre) of unvegetated drainages. Impacts to drainages are not considered substantial because the riparian vegetation is of low habitat value to wildlife species and because the impact to the drainage will be temporary. However, these drainages are protected under the provisions of the Clean Water Act and Section 1600 seq. of the California Fish and Game Code and mitigation is provided in Response No. 13 to reduce the proposed project' s temporary effects on wetlands.

The project site, however, does not contain any endangered or threatened species of plants; therefore, the project would not have any impacts on sensitive plant species.

24. Introduction of New Species ofPlants into an Area, or Result in a Barrier to the Normal Replenishment ofExisting Species?
No. Existing properties east of Palm Avenue and west of City Creek Bridge are currently landscaped with non-native and ornamental vegetation. Landscaping will be established or replaced in this area as required. Landscaping materials will consist of species common to the City of Highland and the region in general. The introduction of non-native landscaping materials would not result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing native species.

25. Reduction in Acreage ofAny Agriculture Crop or Commercial Timber Stand, or Affect Prime, Unique, or tither Farmland ofState or Local Importance? No. No prime, unique, or State or locally important agricultural land, cultivation of agricultural crops or timber stands are present within the project study area and, therefore, no impacts to these resources would occur.

26. Removal or Deterioration ofExisting Fish or I-Yildlife habitat? No. Impacts to wildlife in general are not considered substantial because of the relatively small amount of wildlife habitat present on site and because project impacts are relatively minor. However, the area of the City Creek Bridge contains habitat for the SBKR, a federally listed endangered species. The City, Corps, and FHWA are currently in Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. Mitigation measures for project impacts to the SBKR were discussed with the USFWS ( Jack Easton of LSA, pens comm. Arthur Davenport of the USFWS, April 14, 1998 and field visit Denise Woodard ofLSA pens comm. P. J. White, Scott Eaason). Per this discussion, appropriate mitigation would require maintaining the " status quo" of existing habitat on site or increasing the extent of occupied and/ or suitable habitat on site. During formal consultation, the USFWS evaluates information relating to potential project effects on the listed species. At the conclusion of this evaluation, the USFWS formulates a Biological Opinion as to whether the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species. If a " jeopardy opinion" is issued, the USFWS is to include reason5/ 18/ 00(( RAC0H732\ EA\ Admin DEA\ vcrsion 4- 00 5THISEA. RPT- cln.wpd)) 5- 18 165
able and prudent alternatives to the federal action. In the case of a " no jeopardy opinion" ( or with the implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives), the USFWS may also issue an incidental take" statement, which allows the incidental take of a Iisted species in accordance with terms and conditions specified in the Biological Opinion.

Because the new bridge structure will replace the existing bridge and no substantial changes to the already leveed City Creek are proposed, no changes to City Creek stream dynamics are anticipated as a result ofthe proposed project ( pers. comm. David Hunt, Engineer with Willdan Associates, November 1998). The City agrees to implement the following measures.

Mitigation Measures
The City will compensate for biological impacts by purchasing mitigation credits from the Calmat Mitigation Bank. Impacts to SBKR and RAFSS will be mitigated by purchasing a total of4 hectares ( 10 acres) of credits from the bank. The mitigation is for the permanent loss of 0. 17 hectare ( 0.43 acre) of SBKR habitat at a 3: 1 ratio (.52 hectare [ 1. 29 acres] of mitigation required) and the temporary loss of 1. 6 hectares ( 4.0 acres) of SBKR habitat at a 2: 1 ratio ( 3. 2 hectares [ 8. 0 acres] of mitigation required). The total impact area, including permanent and temporary habitat loss, is 1. 77 hectares ( 4. 43 acres), requiring a total of 3. 72 hectares ( 9. 29 acres) of mitigation credits. The proposed mitigation results in the permanent preservation of 0.28 hectare ( 0.71 acre) beyond that which is required.

Prior to construction, the limits of construction will be fenced with 1. 25- meter (4- foot) silt fencing to provide a barrier to prevent SBKR from entering the construction area and to prevent impacts to alluvial fan sage scrub vegetation outside the construction limits. Access to SBKR habitat outside the construction limits will be prohibited and these areas will be posted accordingly.

The areas within the limits of the construction area will be trapped for SBKR and any trapped animals will be relocated outside the fenced construction limits.

All project related activities will be monitored by a qualified biologist. The monitoring biologist will be present during all clearing of vegetation to be conducted for the project. The monitoring biologist will ensure that only RAFSS within the construction limits will be removed or disturbed.

Access to SBKR habitat outside the project limits will be prohibited and these areas will be posted accordingly. All movement of construction contractors, including ingress and egress of equipment and personnel, will be limited to the designated project limits.

The staging area for construction equipment will be limited to designated locations which are physically separate from potential SBKR habitat areas. 51I S/ 00<<RACOH7321EA\ Adtnin DEAlvcminn_4-0015THISEA. RP'r ln.wpd» 5- 19
166
Orientation meetings will be conducted for construction personnel. Contractors' pets will be prohibited in and adjacent to the construction area.

The proper use and disposal of oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel will be enforced.

Upon completion of construction, the area of temporary impact ( 1. 6 hectares [ 4.0 acres]) will be recontoured to its original state and the silt fencing will be removed. An upland revegetation program will be completed for the areas temporarily disturbed by the proposed project. This revegetation program serves as a one time revegetation effort to encourage the growth of native vegetation in the area that will be affected temporarily. The revegetation program will include the following elements: identifying plant material and seed mix, site preparation and planting implementation, vegetation and topsoil salvage, and planting and seeding methods.

Weed abatement will be conducted twice yearly in the form of hand weeding which may include hand held mechanical weeders) to be conducted in the early spring (March thru Apri]) and fall (September thru October) for the first two years after the initial revegetation effort. However, no monitoring or success criteria will be applied because of the ( 1) short duration and minimal effects of the proposed project, and ( 2) the temporary impacts are being mitigated at a 2: 1 ratio in the unlikely event that habitat temporarily affected is not suitable for use by the SBKR after project completion.

Shielded lighting to direct night-time lighting onto the roadways and away from SBKR habitat will be utilized to minimize potential impacts.

27. Change in the Diversity of Species, or Numbers ofAny Species of Animals ( Birds, Land Animals Including Reptiles, Fish and Shellfish, Benthic Organisms, Insects or Micro - fauna)?
No. The proposed improvements to the existing Fifth Street facility would not result in a change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals_

28. Reduction of the Numbers of or Encroachment upon the Critical Habitat ofAiry Unique, Threatened or Endangered Species ofAnimals?
No. Refer to discussion in response to Question No. 26 above.

29. Introduction ofNew Species ofAnimals Into an Area, or Result in a Barrier to the Migration or Movement ofAnimals? No. The proposed improvements to the existing Fifth Street facility would not result in either the introduction of new species of animals into the area or the formation of a 5/ 181000RAC014732EMAdmin DEA\ version_ 4. 00\ 5TH] SEA. RPT- cln. wpd)> 5- 20 167
barrier to wildlife movement. Contractor' s dogs or other domestic animals would not be allowed on site during construction activities.

30. Cause Disruption ofOrderly Planned Development?
No. The area in the vicinity of City Creek and Fifth Street is presently developed with industrial, commercial, and residential uses. The proposed project would not disrupt the development or divide an existing community.

31. Be Inconsistent With Any Elements ofAdopted Community Plans, Policies or Goals? No. The project would not result in a conflict with the City' s General Plan designation, zoning, applicable environmental plans, or policies.

32. Be Inconsistent with a Coastal Zone Management Plan? No. The project study area is not within the Coastal Zone.

33. Affect the Location, Distribution, Density, or Growth Rate ofthe Human Population ofan Area?
No. Improvements to Fifth Street and reconstruction of the bridge over City Creek would not affect the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of human population in the area, since Fifth Street is an existing facility.

34. Affect Lifestyles, or Neighborhood Character or Stability? No. Fifth Street is an existing facility. Widening the street and replacing the bridge would not affect personal lifestyles and neighborhood character.

35. Affect Minority, Elderly, Handicapped, Transit -Dependent or Other Specific Interest Groups?
No. Due to the limited disruption of people during construction from the widening of Fifth Street through the project study area, minority, elderly, handicapped, transit dependent or other specific interest groups would not be affected.

36. Divide or Disrupt an Established Community?
No. Fifth Street is an existing facility. Widening the street and replacing the bridge would not divide or disrupt an established community.
5/ 18/W(( R:1COH7321EA\Admin DEAwersion_4-W\5TH1SEA.RPT-cln.wpd)> 5- 21 168

37. Affect Existing Housing, Require the Acquisition ofResidential Improvements or the Displacement ofPeople or Create a DemandforAdditional Housing? No. The proposed project would not displace any residences.

38. Affect Employment, Industry or Commerce, or Require the Displacement ofBusinesses or Farms?
No. Additional right- of-way would be required to accommodate the widening of Fifth Street. Property would be acquired from nine adjacent industrial and commercial land uses. However, because the area to be acquired from each parcel is small ( 0.92 meter 3 feet] in width for the length of each of the nine parcels, see Figure 6), the project would not prohibit the current uses from continuing operation during construction, nor after the proposed project is completed, Access to properties along Fifth Street would be maintained during construction.

39. Affect Property Values or the Local Tax Base?
No. Widening Fifth Street and reconstructing the bridge over City Creek would have an imperceptible effect on property values and the local tax base. 40 Affect Any Community Facilities (Including Medical, ,Educational, Scientific, Recreational, or Religious Institutions, Ceremonial Sites or Sacred Shrines)? No. There are no medical, educational, scientific, recreational, or religious institutions in the project study area. The proposed project would not impact religious institutions, ceremonial sites, or sacred shrines.

41. Affect Public Utilities, or Police, Fire, Emergency or Other Public Services? No. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to enhance police, fire, and emergency access in the vicinity once completed. However, during construction, lane and bridge closures would be necessary, thereby having a temporary impact on access.

The existing two-lane bridge would be demolished, and the new four -lane bridge constructed in its place. This process is anticipated to take nine months. Access through the area would be maintained via detours; traffic over City Creek would be diverted north to Base Line Street. Detours and temporary lane closures ofFifth Street would be done by the Construction Contractor in accordance with City of Highland standards, including notification of lane restrictions and detours to adjacent uses.

Improvements proposed to Fifth Street between the bridge and Palm Avenue would not require full closure of the road. Access to industrial and commercial properties along Fifth Street would be maintained during construction. 5/ I8/ 00« R:1C0H7321EA\ Admin DEAlversion_ 4- 40\ 5THISEA. RPT- cln. wpd» 5- 22 169
Construction traffic would be limited to existing streets, paved areas, and areas within the right- of-way, including both construction equipment and personal vehicles. Barriers ( e. g., fencing) would be placed to prevent vehicular access into habitat areas.

42. Have Substantial Impact on Existing Transportation Systems or Alter Present Patterns of Circulation or Movement of People and/ or Goods?
No. As stated in question 41, long- term operation of the Fifth Street improvements is anticipated to have a beneficial effect on the transportation system, existing circulation patterns, and movement of people and goods by providing improved access between SR- 30 and Palm Avenue. However, short- term construction impacts would affect circulation patterns throughout the area. SR-30 will be used as a detour to maintain access during construction.

43. Generate Additional Traffic?
No. The objective of the proposed project is to improve the safety and congestion along this segment ofFifth Street. The project would not generate additional traffic.

44. Affect or be Affected by Existing Parking Facilities or Result in Demand for New Parking? No. There are no parking facilities substantially affected by the project.

45. Involve a Substantial Risk ofan Explosion or the Release ofHazardous Substances in the Event ofan Accident or Otherwise Adversely Affect Overall Public Safety? No. The proposed project is not anticipated to involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances. Risk of upset caused by a traffic accident involving a vehicle carrying hazardous materials is unlikely. Fifth Street is defined as a major highway in the City's General Plan and, therefore, truck traffic does utilize this road. However, the future roadway would be designed to meet City of Highland roadway safety standards, thus reducing any potential risk of upset. Because the proposed project improves the safety of the Fifth Street, the potential for a spill along the roadway would be reduced. Best management practices would be employed during con- struction to ensure that impacts from a release of hazardous substance do not occur to adjacent lands and the City Creek bed.

46. Result in Alterations to Waterborne, Rail or Air Traffic? No. The project would not affect waterborne, rail, or air traffic.

47. Support Large Commercial or Residential Development? Yes. The proposed Fifth Street project provides infrastructure improvements to support existing development and anticipated growth of the San Bernardino International 5/ i8/00<<RAC0H732\ EA\ Admin DEAlversion_ 4-0015THISEA " T- Cln. wpd» 5- 23 170
Airport/ Inland Valley Redevelopment Agency Specific Plan area, consistent with adopted local and regional plans.

48. Affect a Significant Archaeological or Historic Site, Structure, Object, or Building? No. No archaeological or historic resources were identified within or immediately adjacent to the APE. A Negative Archaeological Survey Report and Negative Historic Property Survey Report were signed by the FHWA Transportation Engineer.

49. Affect Wild or Scenic Rivers or Natural Landmarks?
No. City Creek through the Fifth Street area is not designated as a scenic river and no natural landmarks are present within the project area. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. 50, Affect Any Scenic Resources or Result in the Obstruction ofAny Scenic Vista or View Open to the Public, or Creation of an Aesthetically Offensive Site Open to Public Vew? No. Fifth Street is not designated as a scenic highway and would not affect a scenic vista. Improvements to Fifth Street would be at grade. No scenic views would be altered by the project. Surface improvements are not expected to present any aesthetically offensive views. Therefore, no impact is anticipated.

51. Result in Substantial .Impacts Associated with Construction Activities ( eg., Noise, Dust, Temporary Drainage, Traffic Detours and Temporary Access, etc.)? No. Construction of the project would potentially result in the following environmental impacts: soil erosion and siltation, air quality, noise, lane closures, and traffic detours. These impacts are not considered substantial due to the limited area affected, and the temporary nature ofthe construction schedule (nine months).

Standard construction practices identified in Responses 4, 16, 19, and 41 would reduce construction related impacts.

52. Result in the Use ofAny Publicly -Owned Land from a Park, Recreation Area, or Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge?
No. No parks or recreational opportunities exist within the project vicinity; therefore, no impact is anticipated on recreational uses or plans.

53. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality ofthe environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range ofa rare or endangeredplant or animal or eliminate important examples ofthe major periods of California history or prehistory? 5/ 18/ 000RAC014732NEMAdmin DEAWasion_ 4- 000THISEA, RPT- c1n_wpd» 5- 24 171
No. The endangered SBKR was found in the project area within the construction right of way. Impacts to the SBKR and its habitat are short-term and temporary. The measures specified in Response No. 26 would be implemented to reduce potential impacts of the project on the endangered SBKR. There would be no impacts on cultural resources with implementation of the proposed project.

54. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage oflong-term, environmental goals? ( A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.)
No. Project implementation would not achieve short- term goals to the disadvantage of long- term environmental goals. The project is consistent with applicable local and regional plans.

55. Does theproject have environmental effects which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effect ofan individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects ofpast projects, the effects ofother current projects, and the effects ofprobablefulure projects. It includes the effects ofother projects which interact with this project and, together, are considerable.

No. The proposed project does not have environmental effects that are cumulatively considerable. Implementation of the project would modify an existing facility for safety purposes and to be consistent with the City' s General Plan. The City of Highland General Plan Circulation Element ( June 1992) includes a policy to systematically improve the public roadway system to meet existing and future demands within the planning area. The proposed project will facilitate land use planning and economic development by providing circulation infrastructure consistent with local and regional plans. Cumulative impacts of the proposed project were analyzed in the City' s General Plan EIR.

56. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No. Project implementation would not cause direct or indirect substantial adverse effects on human beings. See response to Question Nos. 30 to 52. 511 g/ oo« R:%COH7321EA\ Admin DEA\ version 4-00\ STHISEA. RPT- cln.wpd)) 5- 25
172

6. 0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Caltrans' procedures specify that an interdisciplinary team approach for project planning and development be used for all projects. An interdisciplinary approach is an orderly process through which the interaction of different disciplines is brought to bear in the planning, development, and evaluation of alternatives. All interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the project during circulation of this document.

For this project, the following agencies and individuals were consulted.

CITY OF HIGHLAND
Ernie Wong, City Engineer
Steve Walker, City Planner
CALTRANS DISTRICT 8
Leonard Cornett, Environmental Control
Sumner Baker, Environmental Control
David Bricker, Environmental/ Cultural and Biological Studies Steve Hansen, Environmental/Cultural and Biological Studies Steve Hammond, EnvironmentaUCultural and Biological Studies Paul Gonzales, Environmental/ Cultural and Biological Studies Alan Manee, Biological Studies

FEDERAL HIGH WA YADMINISTRA TION
Scott McHenry, Transportation Engineer
Tay Dam, Transportation Engineer
Jason Dietz, Transportation Engineer
Mary Ann Rondinella, Environmental Specialist
U.S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Antal Szijj, Field Visit, February 4, 1999
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Beth Stevens, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Field Office
Jeff Newman, Branch Chief, Carlsbad Field Office
Scott Eliason, Biologist, Field Visit, March 11, 1999
P. J. White, Biologist, Field Visit, March 11, 1999
Nancy Ferguson, Biologist, Carlsbad Field Office, Field Visit, March 2000 5/ I8/ 00<(R:\ COH732\ EA\ Admin DSA\ version_ 4- 00I5'rHISEA. RPT- cln.WN>) 6- 1 173

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OFFISH AND GAME
OTHERS
Kevin Brennan, Biologist
Bob McKernan, San Bernardino County Museum
5/ 18/ 00« R:\C0H732\ EA\ Admin DEA\ venion_ 4-00\ 5THISEA. RPT- cin.wpd» 6- 2
174

7. 0 LIST OF PREPARERS
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Lynn Calvert -Hayes, AICP, Environmental Document Project Manager Stephanie Eklund, Assistant Project Manager'
Tony Chung, Ph.D., Air Quality Analyst/ Noise Analyst
John Staight, Environmental Analyst ( Water Quality, Hazardous Waste)' Carl Winter, Environmental Analyst ( Floodplain Study)
Jack Easton, Associate Biologist
Denise Woodard, Project Biologist
Richard Erickson, Wildlife Biologist
Deborah McLean, Archaeology Principal Investigator
Gary Dow, Graphics
Kris Walden, Graphics
Jennifer Schuk, Graphics
David Cisneros, Graphics
Elsa Brewer. Word Processing
Sabrina Nicholls, Word Processing
Richard Nelson, Word Processing
Michele Douglas, Word Processing
Tisha Choate, Document Production'
Jennifer Jeppesen, Document Production
Former LSA staff.
51i8/ 00(( R:\ C0H732\ EA\ Admin DEA\ version_ 4- 00\ 5THISEA. RPT- cln. wpd» 7- 1 175

8. 0 REFERENCES
The following documents were used as general references in preparing the ISIEA.

Detailed reference lists for technical reports are provided in the Appendices:

Air Quality Tables, 1992- 1998 South Coast Air Quality Management District.

California Climatological Data Annual Summary, 1999;
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

California Department ofFinance, 1999
Report E- 5, City and County Population/ Housing Estimates 1991- 1999 California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2000
Noxious Weed Index
California Exotic Pest Plant Council, 1999
Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California City of Highland, 1992a
General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, October 27.

City of Highland, 1992b
General Plan Land Use Map, June 26.

Earth Mechanics, Inc. Draft Foundation Report for Fifth Street Improvements.

April 1998. ( Volume II, Appendix A)
Federal Register Volume 65, Number 47, March 9, 2000, page 12818.

LSA Associates, Inc., Delineation of Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters Subject to U.S. Army LSA Associates, Inc., Delineation of Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters Subject to U. S. Army Corp of Engineers and California Department of Fish & Game Regulatory Authority for City Creek Bridge. February 1998. ( Volume II, Appendix D).

McDaniel Engineering, 1998a
Type Selection Report for Bridge No. 54C- 16, February.

McDaniel Engineering, 1998b
Draft Foundation Report, April 4.

San Bernardino Associated Governments, 2000
Forecasted Growth for the City of Highland
Simon Wong Engineering, 1994
City Creek Bridge at Fifth Street Bridge No. 54C- 16, Replacement Alternatives Analysis, July.
5/ 18/ 00<<RAC0H732\ EA1Admin DEA\ version 4- 0015THISEA. RPT- cln. wpd» 8- 1 176
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1980.

Soil Survey ofSan Bernardino County, Southwestern Part, California.

U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1993
Final Environmental Impact Statement Disposal and Reuse of the Norton Air Force Base, California, June.

U- S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998.

Emergency Rule To List The San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties in Southern California, as Endangered. Vol. 63, No. IT 511 8/ 00« RACOH732\ EA\ Admin DEA\ version_ 4- OWTHISEA. RPT-cln. wpd» 8- 2 177

9. 0 DISTRIBUTION LIST
The distribution list for public review of this initial Study/ Environmental Assessment and Draft Negative Declaration is provided on the following pages. The document is being circulated to federal, State, and local elected officials and public agencies, as well as other interested parties.

California Regional Water State of California
Department of Fish & Game
Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region 330 Goldenshore # 50 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Long Beach, CA 90802 Riverside, CA 92501- 3339 Larry Signaigo City of Redlands
Planning Department Pack Bell
3939 East Coronado Street, 2n' Floor P. O. Box 2090
Redlands, CA 92373
Anaheim, CA 92807
Redlands Unified School District U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 20 West Lugonia Avenue 2730 Loker Avenue West
Redlands, CA 92373 Carlsbad, CA 92008
San Bernardino Valley Municipal SCAG
Water District 818 West 7th Street
P O Box 5906 l2th Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92412 Los Angeles, CA 90017
San Bernardino International Airport
294 S. Leland Norton Way Lisa Salinas
San Bernardino, CA 92408 Southern Calif Edison Co
14803 Chestnut Street
Fred Diminitt, General Telephone Engr Westminster, CA 92683 1500 Crafton Avenue Box 1- 18
Rc 3660d Building 125 San Bernardino County
Mentone, CA 92359 Planting Department
John Gomez, Construction Service
385 North Arrowhead Ave
San Bernardino, CA 92415- 0160 Southern Calif Gas Company 155 South " G" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410- 3317 State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street San Bernardino County
Sacramento, CA95814 Flood Control 825
East Third
Street Ty Schuiling San
92415 Director of Comprehensive Bernardino, CA
Planning Linda Grimes, Chief
Forecasting SAN13AG IGR CEQA Review,
Dept of Transptn 472 North Arrowhead Avenue 464W4th
Street 6th Floor Ms726 San Bernardino CA 92401 San Bernardino, CA 92401- 1400 U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Bob Martin Mr.

Antal Sziij East Valley Water &
Sewer 32330 Santa Ana Canyon Rd. POBox
3427 San Bernardino, CA
92413 Highland, CA 92346 City of San
Bernardino Calif_ State Highway Patrol Planning Department 2211 Western Avenue 300 North "D"
Street San Bernardino, CA 92411 San Bernardino, CA
92418 5/18/00«
R: ICOH7321EA1Admin DEAlversion_ 4.001STHISEA. RPT. wpd» 9-1 178
Local Goverment - Albert & Dorothy Monson
CEQA Program Supervisor 3777 Lynwood Drive
South Coast Au Quality Mgmt District Highland, CA 92346 21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar CA 917654182 Mildred Nelson
39506 Prospect Drive
City of San Bernardino Forest Falls, CA 92339
Mayor Judith Valles
300 North D Street Nina Linck
San Bernardino, CA 92418 771 Norbert Drive
San Bernardino CA 92404
City of Redlands
Mayor Patricia Gilbreath Kasler Corporation
35 Cajon Street P. O. Box 73
Redlands, CA 92373 Boise, ID 83729
City of Loma Linda Highland Branch Library
Mayor Floyd Petersen 27167 Base Line
25541 Barton Road Highland CA 92346
Loma Linda, CA 92354
Jurgen & Iris Meyer
County of San Bernardino 29036 Elder Creek Lane
Supervisor 3ra District, Dennis Hansberger Highland CA 92346 385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, 5' Floor
San Berardino, CA 92415 Kellie Green
9073 Caballero Drive
State Representative Joe Baca Alta Loma CA 91737
201 North " E" Street, Suite 206
San Bernardino, CA 92401 Thomas & Kimberly Firek
23642 Hillview Road
State Senator James L. Brulte San Bernardino CA 92404
10681 Foothill Blvd, Suite 325
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Atlantic Richfiled Co.

P. O. Box 512485
State Assemblyman Bill Leonard Los Angeles CA 90051
10535 Foothill Blvd., Suite 276
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Peter Forteza
29043 Shadow Creek Lane
State Representative Jerry Lewis Highland CA 92346
1150 Brookside Avenue, Suite J- 5
Redlands, CA 92373 Richard & Phyllis Enoch
7957 Church Avenue
State Senator Nell Soto Highland CA 92346
822 N. Euclid Avenue
Ontario, CA 91762 Paul Kolo & Michael Tanno* i
1636 W. 81h Street, # 324
Kurt & Ilse Kienast Los Angeles CA 90017
8009 Church Avenue
Highland CA 92346
5/ 18/00(<R:\ C0H732\EMAdmin DEAWersion 4-00\ 5TH1SEA. RPT.wpd)> 9- 2 179

10. 0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT IS/EA
In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 150- 3. 4 ofthe Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations implementing NEPA, Caltrans and FHWA have evaluated comments received on the Draft IS/EA and have prepared written responses to these comments. There have been no revisions made to the IS/ EA resulting from public review of the Draft IS/ EA.

Section 10. 1 describes the methods used by the City of Highland and Caltrans to solicit public review and input on the IS/EA.

Section 10. 2 includes comment letters and responses to those comments. Response letters were received by two State agencies and one regional agency.

10. 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONAND REVIEW
The City ofHighland and Caltrans notified all responsible and trustee agencies, inter- ested groups, organizations, and individuals that a Draft IS/EA had been completed for the proposed Fifth Street widening and replacement of the Fifth Street Bridge over City Creek. A list was established for distributing copies of the Draft IS/ EA and notification of a public hearing. This distribution list was shown earlier in Section 9.0 Distribution List) ofthe Draft IS/EA document, and the letters and published public notices are shown later in this section.

Notices of the availability of the Draft IS/ EA for review and of the public hearing were published in The San Bernardino County Sun and Highland Community News on June 22, 2000 and July 6, 2000. Copies of these notices are provided in Attachment B.

A public hearing on the proposed project was held on July 18, 2000 before the City of Highland Planning Commission at the City of Highland Council Chambers. The purpose of the meeting was to give public agencies and private citizens an opportunity to review the project, ask questions, and provide testimony. A copy of the meeting minutes pertaining to the proposed project is included in Attachment C of this document.

10.2 WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED AND SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO THOSE COMMENTS Copies of all written comments received on the Draft IS/EA as ofAugust 2, 2000, are contained in this section. Written responses from individual agencies have been designated with a letter ( A, B, C, etc.). Substantive comments from each agency were identified with a numeric designation. These numbers correspond with the numbered responses on the page( s) immediately following each comment letter.

Comments were received by the following agencies:

California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Southern California Association of Governments
State of California, Governor' s Office of Planning and Research 1o/ 5/ 00( RAC0H732\ EA\ Fina1 EATinal EA October. wpd) 10- 1
180

STATE AGENCIES
Document A - STATE OF CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY

CONTROL BOARD, SANTA ANA REGION
Document B - STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 10/ 5100( R, ICOH73ZEANFinal EATinal EA October. wpd) 10- 2 181

DOCUMENT A
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
winslan If, Owk4a
Sntriarrjrn
AVIAvINI.." f
PnVn' f1. vr
July 7,
Mr. Ever-st Wong
city Ellgi near
city of l lighlsnd
27215 Bt iv Une
i ighlvul, CA 92346
Santa Ana Region
tntnmd Addreas: hgJlwrwwX* vcbAmpv
3737 Mavis Street Srile 5K R1w nW 0k*( amla rr OI. 3339 Mevm ( 90) 7824130 B FAX ( 4t14y 781. 6288
INITIAL 1STi1DY/ L'N" R0NMWJrAL ASSE SMEN'! FOR '! IIE FTFr1I VrRE4R1' lMENING itND REPLACEMENT OF T11E CITY CREEK BRIDGE (054CO016) IN TILE n,y t v IIt in Am)
Thar Mr. Wong:

V; c have reviewed die transmittal regarding the proposed project referenced above. As stipulated in the CplifonliA Envimtunentai Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063, the lead agem-y shall conduct an initial study to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on 1 the rnvironntcnt. We have reviewed your " initial Study/ Frivironmenial Aswssment for the Pifth Street 44itloning mid Replacement of the City Creek Bridge in the City of Highland" and have the following comments on ilic doctt171Cnt.
c crtf inrr,mcntg
Oil Pago 1- 9, your doc:tlment-staics that " avcrago daily traffic on Fifth SU= t is projected to dramically inerwse: fr<)1n the current level of 9,500 to 18, 3.00 by year 2015, and could rands 25, 700 ... howover, aporc is no mention of BMP,r to control storinwater ninoff into City Creek after completion of the project. On page 5-7 you only mention that "the additional nmoff anticipated widt the: expansion ofthe bridge would be accommodated by the design of the bridge 2 R( Qi n edrltin system." We are concerned that the additional volume of traffic may signlficartly itv,-ix 1sc tbo urncwm of-pollutarus in stormwatcr runoff that may enter City Creek. Thoreforc, We v ould like to Su; your specific plans for long tctm implementation of BMPs addressing iddidonatl ninoff after project completion.

In describing the mitigulion measure of impacts to wetlands or riparian vegetation, } rage 5. 8, your elacuilgill strdcs rhut " no tong -tart monitoring of the site shall be required." Tile Santa Ana 3 kcgloual Wnte1, Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) would like monitoring of the impacted site to he done, to cnsuro ( Moro will be " no net loss of riparian habitat and wetlands." r1,f)AC.nnfilttJtatitj+}:ntcn
Tkv your information, we list Vic CBQA Content Rcgtdnements below.

California Savironmerdol Protection Agency
kreft* d Pawr
AA
182

DOCUMENT A
July 7. 2000
Comnenis - Sanin Ana Regional Water Quality Coniml Board Initial ,StudAinviwnmcntal Ass4nment
fifth Street Widening and Repincoment ofthe City Creek Bridge 11424 22
IF the lead aguncy detennines from the initial study that a Negative Declaration, MOP" Negative Ix-vIarntinu, or all EIR is accessary for the proposed project, the C: RQA matt should oddness the 4 following Waterilm' dity issues:
1, Water Quality tifrd Buneftcial 11ses
A Potential iml>tu:ts of tho proposed project on surface and groundwater gtrality.

Any impact, that could cause violations of the narrative water quality objectives or naarnMcal water quality objectives contained in the 1995 Water Quality Control Man for the Santa Ana River Basin need to be addressed, Appropriate mitigation for any impacts should be identified.

Conitraction activities (including grading) that could result in water quality impacts:

Soil charactetistics related to water quality ( potential for erosion and subsequent sillatitm, increase or decrease in percolation),
linpacts of toxic subsumcos. handiing andlor disposal ( if approllate).

B. Potential imlincts ofthe proposed project on surface and groundwater beneficial miss.

If the project impacts any riparian or wotlund habitats, a complete daacripflon of the impacts. aicrratge of the impacts, and any proposed mitigation should be provided C. Mi ligntion of Adverse Impacts,
it. Wwc.r, Wnstcw tier anti Solid Artiste Seirvice
A. Water
AvailnlviMy of writer for the proposed pmjcd.

Existing infmstivclurz: location of water supply Iium, tie- ins.

Applications or permute rogtdmd for wnw acquisition,
Impact or calculated project demand on water supply.

A. Waste Djspnsnlll' re<atn= t
Types and amounts of waste materials generated by project.

Propowd waale Ireatmeni and disposal methods. Exiating infrastructure:
ircalment facilities: location, current capacity. treatment standards. mastor timimcnt facilities expansion plan (if appropriate)
treailmeot plant collection system: location of major trunk lines and tic -Ins, curnwrt capacity
Coliforrri4 Rnvirnitmental Protection Agency
5 6
AA
183

DOCUMENT A
July 7, 20M
ommenis - Snnta Ana Regional Water Quality Cbntrol Board Initinl Study/Environmontal Asmmant
piftij StrcG Wicictiing and Replaccmentof the CityC reek Bridge

Page 3 ends

Highland City CouncilSeptember 9, 2025

Highland City Council
September 9, 2025