City Council / Housing Authority
August 3, 2026

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Jose Creek Multi-Use
Bikeway Project
SCH No. 2026050416
Prepared for:

City of Pomona
June 2026
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Jose Creek Multi-Use
Bikeway Project
SCH No. 2026050416
Prepared for:

City of Pomona
505 South Garey Avenue
Pomona, CA 91766
Contact:

Arnold Dichosa, MPA, PE
909.620.2281
Prepared by:

Ascent
530 Technology Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Contact:

Name
Chad Beckstrom, AICP
949.988.0890
June 2026
20220001.01
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... iv 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Introduction and Regulatory Guidance ......................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Purpose and Intended Uses of this Final IS/MND...................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Major Conclusions of the Environmental Analysis..................................................................................................1-1

1.4 Summary of Public Review Process.............................................................................................................................1-2

1.5 Document Organization .................................................................................................................................................1-2 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Overview................................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Project Location .................................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.3 Existing Setting...................................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.4 Project Objectives..............................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.5 Project Features ................................................................................................................................................................2-4

2.6 Project Construction......................................................................................................................................................2-40

2.7 Operations ........................................................................................................................................................................2-40

2.8 Required Permits and Approvals ..............................................................................................................................2-40 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................................................3-1

3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................................................3-5

3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources...............................................................................................................................3-8

3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.4 Biological Resources......................................................................................................................................................3-20

3.5 Cultural Resources .........................................................................................................................................................3-28

3.6 Energy................................................................................................................................................................................. 3-31

3.7 Geology and Soils ..........................................................................................................................................................3-35

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................................................................... 3-41

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...........................................................................................................................3-46

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality....................................................................................................................................3-50

3.11 Land Use and Planning.................................................................................................................................................3-58

3.12 Mineral Resources..........................................................................................................................................................3-60

3.13 Noise................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-61

3.14 Population and Housing...............................................................................................................................................3-71

3.15 Public Services .................................................................................................................................................................3-72

3.16 Recreation.........................................................................................................................................................................3-75

3.17 Transportation.................................................................................................................................................................3-76

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................................3-80

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................................................................3-83

3.20 Wildfire...............................................................................................................................................................................3-87

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance.........................................................................................................................3-89 4 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4-1 5 REPORT PREPARERS .................................................................................................................................................................5-1 Table of Contents Ascent
City of Pomona
ii San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study Appendices
Appendix A: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Modeling Appendix B: Biological Letter Report
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Inventory Report
Appendix D: Geotechnical Report
Appendix E: Hydrology Report
Appendix F: Noise Modeling
Appendix G: Transportation Memorandum
Appendix H: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Figures
Figure 2-1 Regional Location.............................................................................................................................................................2-2 Figure 2-2 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................................2-3 Figure 2-3a Project Design ...................................................................................................................................................................2-5 Figure 2-3b Project Design ................................................................................................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-3c Project Design ...................................................................................................................................................................2-9 Figure 2-3d Project Design ..................................................................................................................................................................2-11 Figure 2-3e Project Design ................................................................................................................................................................. 2-13 Figure 2-3f Project Design ................................................................................................................................................................. 2-15 Figure 2-3g Project Design ..................................................................................................................................................................2-17 Figure 2-3h Project Design ................................................................................................................................................................. 2-19 Figure 2-3i Project Design ................................................................................................................................................................. 2-21 Figure 2-3j Project Design .................................................................................................................................................................2-23 Figure 2-3k Project Design .................................................................................................................................................................2-25 Figure 2-3l Project Design .................................................................................................................................................................2-27 Figure 2-3m Project Design .................................................................................................................................................................2-29 Figure 2-3n Project Design ................................................................................................................................................................. 2-31 Figure 2-3o Project Design .................................................................................................................................................................2-33 Figure 2-3p Project Design .................................................................................................................................................................2-35 Figure 2-4 Lighting Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................2-37 Tables
Table 2-1 Required Permits and Approvals .............................................................................................................................. 2-41 Table 3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards ....................................................................................3-11 Table 3.3-2 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants ......................................................................................... 3-12 Table 3.3-3 Attainment Status Designations for Los Angeles County Portion of the Basin........................................ 3-13 Table 3.3-4 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds (pounds per day) ........................................................................................ 3-16 Table 3.3-5 Estimated Regional and Localized Construction Emissions – Unmitigated Pounds Per Day ...............3-17 Table 3.4-1 Vegetation Communities............................................................................................................................................. 3-21 Ascent Table of Contents
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study iii Table 3.6-1 Construction Energy Consumption..........................................................................................................................3-33 Table 3.7-1 Nearby Active Faults......................................................................................................................................................3-37 Table 3.8-1 Proposed Project-Generated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................... 3-44 Table 3.13-1 Existing Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses............................................................................................3-62 Table 3.13-2 Caltrans Guideline Threshold Criteria for Potential Vibration Damage.......................................................3-63 Table 3.13-3 Exterior Noise Standards .............................................................................................................................................3-64 Table 3.13-4 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment ..........................................................................................3-65 Table 3.13-5 Construction Noise Modeling Results Summary.................................................................................................3-67 Table 3.19-1 Nearby Landfills ..............................................................................................................................................................3-84 Table 3.21-1 Cumulative Projects....................................................................................................................................................... 3-91 City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius
°F degrees Fahrenheit
AB Assembly Bill
AF acre-feet
AQMP air quality management plans
ATP Active Transportation Plan
Basin South Coast Air Basin
Blackhawk Blackhawk Environmental, Inc.

BMP best management practices
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal Poly Pomona California Polytechnic University at Pomona CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 methane
City City of Pomona
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society’s
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
dB decibel
dBA a-weighted decibels
DOC California Department of Conservation
EIR Environmental Impact Report
Ascent Acronyms and Abbreviations
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study v EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FHSZ fire hazard severity zone
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
GHG greenhouse gas
GSP groundwater sustainability plans
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HFC hydrofluorocarbons
I Interstate
in/sec inches per second
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
LACFCD Los Angeles County Flood Control District
LACoFD Los Angeles County Fire Department
LADPW Los Angeles Department of Public Works
LARWQCB Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Leq Equivalent Continuous Sound Level
Lmax Maximum Sound Level
LST localized significance thresholds
LUCI Land Use and Climate Innovation
MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NVSR noise- and vibration-sensitive receptor
O3 ozone
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PFC perfluorinated carbons
PM10 Respirable particulate matter
PM2.5 Fine particulate matter
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
Acronyms and Abbreviations Ascent
City of Pomona
vi San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study project San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project
PUSD Pomona Unified School District
RFFB rectangular rapid flashing beacons
RMS root mean square
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SEA Significant Ecological Areas
SF6 hexafluoride
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SLF Sacred Lands File
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SR State Route
SRA source receptor area
STC Sound Transmission Class
SWPPP storm water pollution prevention plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminants
TCM Transportation Control Measures
TMDL total maximum daily loads
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Service
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the City of Pomona (City) to evaluate potential environmental effects resulting from the San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project (project).

Section 2 “Project Description” presents the detailed project information.

This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations section 15000 et seq.). An initial study is prepared by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines section 15063[a]), and thus to determine the appropriate environmental document. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15070, a “public agency shall prepare…a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration…when: (a) the Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence…that the project may have a significant impact on the environment, or (b) the Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects but revisions to the project plans or proposal are agreed to by the applicant and such revisions would reduce potentially significant effects to a less-than-significant level.” In this circumstance, the lead agency prepares a written statement describing its reasons for concluding that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). By contrast, an EIR is required when the project may have a significant environmental impact that cannot clearly be reduced to a less-than-significant effect by adoption of mitigation or by revisions in the project design.

1.2 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THIS FINAL IS/MND
As described in the environmental checklist (Chapter 3), the project would not result in any unmitigated significant environmental impacts. Therefore, an IS/MND is the appropriate document for compliance with the requirements of CEQA. This IS/MND conforms to these requirements and to the content requirements of State CEQA Guidelines section 15071.

Under CEQA, the lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility over approval of the project. The City is the CEQA lead agency. The purpose of this document is to present to decision-makers and the public information about the environmental consequences of implementing the project.

As discussed in Section 1.4, “Summary of Environmental Review Process,” the Draft IS/MND was circulated for public review in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15072 and 15073. No comments were received from agencies, organizations, Native American tribes, or members of the public during the review period. This Final IS/MND incorporates minor updates made following circulation of the Draft IS/MND and serves as the environmental document for consideration by the City. The minor updates relate to the completion of tribal consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and do not constitute substantial revisions to the Draft IS/MND. The City will consider this Final IS/MND, together with the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP; included as Appendix H), prior to taking action on the proposed project.

The City is the official custodian of the documents that make up the record of proceedings. These documents are available upon request for public review at City’s office at 505 South Garey Avenue, Pomona, California 91766.

Introduction Ascent
City of Pomona
1-2 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

1.3 FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Chapter 3 of this document contains the analysis and discussion of potential environmental impacts of the project.

Based on the issues evaluated in that chapter, it was determined that the project would have either no impact or a less-than-significant impact related to most of the issue areas identified in the Environmental Checklist, included as Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. These include the following issue areas:
 Aesthetics
 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
 Air Quality
 Energy
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use and Planning
 Mineral Resources
 Population and Housing
 Public Services
 Recreation
 Utilities and Service Systems
 Wildfire
Potentially significant impacts were identified for biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and tribal cultural resources; however, mitigation measures included in the IS/MND would reduce all impacts to a less-thansignificant level.

1.4 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
Pursuant to section 15072 and 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft IS/MND and Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MND were circulated for a 30-day public review period that began on May 11, 2026, and ended on June 11, 2026.

The City submitted the NOI to the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation State Clearinghouse on May 11, 2026, and posted the NOI with the Los Angeles County Clerk for the local review period. The NOI was also published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on May 12, 2026. The City also distributed the NOI and Draft IS/MND to the following entities:
 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 5
 California Department of Transportation, District 7
 Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation
 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
 Native American Heritage Commission
 United States Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District The Draft IS/MND was posted on the City’s website. In addition, copies of the Draft IS/MND and supporting documents were made available at the City of Pomona offices during regular business hours, located at 505 South Garey Avenue, Pomona, California 91766. No public comments were received during the public review period. Accordingly, no responses to comments were required, and a separate response-to-comments document was not prepared.

Following circulation of the Draft IS/MND, AB 52 consultation with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation was completed, and the City incorporated the Tribe’s recommended mitigation measures into the Final IS/MND and associated MMRP.

Ascent Introduction
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 1-3

1.5 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This IS/MND is organized as follows:

Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter provides an overview of regulatory guidance, describes the purpose and intended uses of this document, presents the findings of the environmental analysis, and summarizes the public review process.

Chapter 2: Project Description. This chapter describes the project location and existing setting, identifies project objectives, and provides a detailed description of the project.

Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist. This chapter presents an analysis of a range of environmental issues identified in the CEQA Environmental Checklist (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G) and determines if project actions would result in no impact, a less-than-significant impact, a less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated, or a potentially significant impact. If any impacts were determined to be potentially significant, an EIR would be required. For this project, however, none of the impacts were determined to be significant after implementation of mitigation measures.

Chapter 4: References. This chapter lists the references used in preparation of this IS/MND.

Chapter 5: Report Preparers and Contributors. This chapter identifies report preparers and contributors.

Introduction Ascent
City of Pomona
1-4 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study This page is intentionally left blank.

City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of Pomona (City) is proposing the San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project (proposed project), which consists of the development of a 3.5-mile off-road bike and pedestrian path along a segment of San Jose Creek between Temple Avenue and Murchison Avenue in Pomona, California. The proposed project is identified as a Tier 1 priority project in the City’s Active Transportation Plan (Fehr & Peers 2012); it is envisioned to provide pedestrians and bicyclists a safer off-street path of travel between community destinations and amenities in the city, which include the California Polytechnic University at Pomona (Cal Poly Pomona), the Los Angeles County Fairplex, regional transit and bikeway connections, various parks and schools, and commercial shopping centers. The project would consist of 15 access points, including six at-grade safe street crossings. The project would also feature stormwater capture treatments, trailhead gateways and access points, and wayfinding and safety signage along the 3.5-mile alignment.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project encompasses approximately 6 acres in the city of Pomona, in eastern Los Angeles County (Figure 2-1). The 3.5-mile alignment extends along San Jose Creek from Temple Avenue in the western portion of the city to Murchison Avenue in the central portion of the city (project area) (Figure 2-2). The westernmost portion of the bikeway at Temple Avenue and Campus Drive is directly across from Cal Poly Pomona. The proposed alignment would cross under the Orange Freeway (State Route [SR] 57) and Chino Valley Freeway (SR 71) and terminates just south of the San Bernardino Freeway (Interstate [I]-10).

2.3 EXISTING SETTING
San Jose Creek is an intermittent, tributary stream that flows nearly 20 miles westward from the city of Pomona into the San Gabriel River through the Pomona Valley and San Gabriel Valley. Within the project area, San Jose Creek is a 14-foot-wide concrete-lined channel with vertical walls and chain-link fencing along both sides. The proposed project alignment varies between 16 feet wide up to 35 feet wide and includes areas along the north and south sides of the channel in various locations along the alignment. The alignment extends along the north side of San Jose Creek from Temple Avenue to Ridgeway Street and from Fairplex Drive to Dudley Street; it switches to the south side of San Jose Creek from Ridgeway Street to Fairplex Drive and from Dudley Street to Murchison Avenue.

The proposed project alignment passes through existing developed and urban landscapes. The existing setting is largely dominated by commercial land uses in the western portion of the project area, but transitions to residential neighborhoods as the project area extends eastbound. Several parks and schools are located adjacent to the proposed alignment, including Kellogg Park, John F. Kenney Park, John Marshall Middle School, and Arroyo Elementary School.

2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Upon completion of the proposed project, the City would have completed more than 50 percent of the priority projects identified in the Active Transportation Plan. The proposed project would reduce network gaps; offer greater access and route options throughout the city, particularly to and from the future Metro Foothill Gold Line Station; and provide stronger connections across two of the Pomona’s major barriers, 1-10 and SR 71. The proposed project would address five of the City’s high-priority network gaps and would double the available low-stress bicycle networks, directing users away from roadways that have histories of bicycle and pedestrian collisions.

Project Description Ascent
City of Pomona
2-2 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 2-1 Regional Location
Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-3 Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 2-2 Project Location
Project Description Ascent
City of Pomona
2-4 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study The proposed project would also connect to existing active transportation facilities, including other bicycle paths, lanes, and routes. By establishing these connections, the proposed project would expand safe and convenient access to destinations throughout Pomona, including five public schools (Kellogg Polytechnic Elementary, Arroyo Elementary, Lopez Elementary, Ganesha High School, and John Marshall Middle School), three grocery stores (Perez Market, Ace Market, Cardenas Market), and two parks (Cesar Chavez Park and John F. Kennedy Park). This project is intended to benefit students and residents already walking and biking and would make it more likely for those with safety concerns to be able to choose active and healthier modes of transportation.

2.5 PROJECT FEATURES
The following sections describe the proposed project features, shown in Figure 2-3a-p.

2.5.1 Demolition and Removal
The demolition phase involves removal of existing fencing, gates, and asphalt in select locations. The existing 4-foottall chain-link fencing along the top of the concrete channel wall would be removed along the proposed alignment.

This would occur along both the north and south sides of the San Jose Creek, respective to the side where the bikeway is proposed. Existing chain link or steel picket swing gates and fencing at roadway crossings would also be removed. Existing asphalt driveways and pathways would be removed at select locations along the proposed bikeway alignment near the intersections of Temple Avenue, Kellogg Drive, Ridgeway Street, Fairplex Drive, Glen Avenue, Dudley Street, Weber Street, Murchison Avenue, and the pedestrian bridge east of Kellogg Drive.

2.5.2 Bikeway
The proposed bikeway would be 10 feet wide with 2-foot-wide shoulders on each side and would be constructed of asphalt concrete for the full extent of the proposed alignment. The path would feature two-directional travel lanes with yellow dashed lines in the center and solid white lines between the path and the shoulders.

2.5.3 Fencing
As mentioned above, the existing 4-foot-high chain-link fencing along the San Jose Creek channel would be removed and replaced with 6-foot-high new chain-link fence along the channel side of the pathway. Existing fencing and walls opposite the channel adjacent to existing uses would be protected in place.

2.5.4 Trailhead Landscaping and Amenities
Three landscaped trailhead locations are proposed, consisting of both termini trailheads at Temple Avenue and Murchison Avenue. Each trailhead would feature a bike rack, wayfinding signage, trash receptacles, circular bench, precast seat wall, monument sign, and solar post lights. The landscaping plan at Temple Avenue and Murchison Avenue also features concrete permeable pavers, decomposed granite pathways, shade trees, an accent tree, and other landscape plantings.

2.5.5 Path Lighting
Approximately 77 solar post lights would be installed along the path at an average spacing of approximately 150 feet (Figure 2-4). The lighting system would consist of approximately 14-foot-tall solar-powered light-emitting diode (LED) post lights with integrated photovoltaic panels and battery storage, allowing the fixtures to operate independently of the electrical grid. Lighting would provide an average illuminance of approximately 1.0 foot-candle along typical segments of the path. The lights would operate during nighttime hours to enhance user safety, security, and visibility.

The lighting system would incorporate smart controls to manage operation and energy use.

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-5 Source: Data received from Alta in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-3a Project Design

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-7 Source: Data received from Alta in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-3b Project Design

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-9 Source: Data received from Alta in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-3c Project Design

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-11 Source: Data received from Alta in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-3d Project Design

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-13 Source: Data received from Alta in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-3e Project Design

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-15 Source: Data received from Alta in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-3f Project Design

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-17 Source: Data received from Alta in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-3g Project Design

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-19 Source: Data received from Alta in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-3h Project Design

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-21 Source: Data received from Alta in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-3i Project Design

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-23 Source: Data received from Alta in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-3j Project Design

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-25 Source: Data received from Alta in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-3k Project Design

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-27 Source: Data received from Alta in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-3l Project Design

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-29 Source: Data received from Alta in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-3m Project Design

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-31 Source: Data received from Alta in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-3n Project Design

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-33 Source: Data received from Alta in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-3o Project Design

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-35 Source: Data received from Alta in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-3p Project Design

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-37 Source: Image received from Alta in 2026; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-4 Lighting Plan

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-39

2.5.6 Freeway Undercrossings
SR 57 UNDERCROSSING
The proposed bikeway would cross under SR 57 on the existing embankment along the north side of the San Jose Creek channel. The bikeway would maintain 10 feet of travel width and 2-foot-wide shoulders on either side through this undercrossing. Existing features would be protected in place with no impact on SR 57 facilities.

SR 71 UNDERCROSSING
A 455-foot-long undercrossing is proposed under SR 71 and the remnant portions of the former bridge that currently obstruct passage beyond the freeway. This crossing would require removal of existing dirt and construction of concrete retaining walls with structural backfill adjacent to the existing channel wall and along the south side of the proposed bikeway. The existing material would be excavated to provide a minimum of 10 feet of clearance. The bikeway would maintain 10 feet of travel width and 2-foot-wide shoulders on either side through this undercrossing.

The undercrossing would be illuminated for safety.

To prevent ponding conditions at the SR 71 undercrossing, the proposed project would include a new drainage system with backflow prevention measures at drainage outlets. The drainage system includes a drop inlet grate that is designed to handle flows from 100-year storm events and a secondary inlet to prevent ponding in the event the primary inlet is overwhelmed or clogged. To further prevent ponding, a trench drain would also be installed on the west side of the SR 71 undercrossing to intercept off-site runoff from SR 71. Runoff from the new drainage system would be directed into the San Jose Creek channel (Craftwater Engineering, Inc. 2024).

2.5.7 At-Grade Street Crossings
The proposed bikeway would cross several streets at-grade. Several features are proposed to maximize bike and pedestrian safety and minimize vehicle conflict. The following improvements are proposed at the respective crossings, which are listed in order from west to east:
 Kellogg Drive: Relocate existing signal poles, prohibit right turns on red signals (from Campus Drive onto Kellogg Drive and from Kellogg Drive on to Campus Drive), widen the existing crosswalk, adjust signal timing to provide leading pedestrian intervals, install curb extensions, and reduce southbound Kellogg Drive to one lane;  Ridgeway Street: Install new crossing and vehicle signal, install curb ramps with landing areas for queuing, and reconfigure vehicle through-lanes and turn lanes to accommodate bike lanes;  Fairplex Drive: Install new crossing and vehicle signal, install curb ramps with landing areas for queuing, and reconfigure vehicle through-lanes and turn lanes to accommodate bike lanes;  Glen Avenue: Install rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RFFBs), install curb ramps with landing areas for queueing, install striped bulbout with raised bollards, and install concrete floating bulbouts;  Dudley Street: Install curb ramps with landing areas for queueing, install new crossing and vehicle signal, and reconfigure vehicle turn lane to begin after the new crossing; and  Weber Street: Install striped bulbout with raised bollards, install concrete bulbout, install curb ramps with landing area for queueing, and install RFFBs with separate push button.

2.5.8 Other Access Points
Other access points to the bikeway would include a connection to Cleveland Street at the existing cul-de-sac and a concrete footbridge located approximately 465 feet northeast of Kellogg Drive.

Project Description Ascent
City of Pomona
2-40 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

2.6 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
Project construction is anticipated to begin in January 2026 with a duration of approximately 12 to 18 months. The mobilization phase would include preparatory work, such as the movement of personnel, equipment, supplies, and incidentals to the project site. The demolition phase would involve clearing and grubbing the site, removing trees and other vegetation, pruning roots, excavating the roadway and other unclassified materials, removing concrete and fencing, and sweeping the site. The grading phase would involve regrading the existing dirt material for construction of the bikeway and rough and fine grading the existing terrain. The construction phase would involve construction of a 3.5- mile off-road bike and pedestrian path, consisting of a 4-inch paved path made of 5,368 tons of asphalt concrete and a 6-inch path made of 3,976 cubic yards of crushed miscellaneous base. In addition, two landscaped trailheads, concrete retaining walls at the SR 71 undercrossing, and drainage facilities would be constructed during this phase. Temporary access (i.e., less than 30 days) into the San Jose Creek channel would be required to construct the new drainage system at the SR 71 undercrossing. An approximately 600-square-foot dry dock would be placed in the channel during construction of the drainage system for a temporary period (i.e., less than 30 days), and no temporary water diversion is anticipated. This phase would also involve traffic signal modifications at seven intersections, street lighting improvements, signing, and striping. The architectural finishing phase would involve installing landscaping (e.g., trees, shrubs, grasses, and wood chip mulch), irrigation systems, hardscape, and trail amenities (e.g., seat walls, trash receptacles, and lighting). Construction activities would take place between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and no work would occur on weekends or holidays. The project would require approximately 50 to 70 construction workers over the duration of the construction period. Construction equipment would include saw machines, excavators, rollers, pavers, compactors, backhoes, bobcats, dump trucks, concrete pumps, and water trucks.

Project construction would result in approximately six acres of ground disturbance. Excavation would occur to a maximum depth of 10 feet. Approximately 288 cubic yards of concrete would be removed and 5,480 cubic yards of unclassified material would be excavated. Construction and demolition waste would be hauled to a nearby landfill. Approximately 345 cubic yards of unclassified fill would be imported to the project site. Approximately 0.32 acre of impervious surfaces would be removed and 5.1 acres of new impervious surfaces would be installed as part of the project.

Project construction would not require any full road closures or roadway modifications. Temporary lane closures would be required; however, no traffic lanes would be closed before 8:30 a.m. or after 4:00 p.m. On-street construction activities would occur for a duration of 6 to 12 months. Existing utilities would be protected in place or relocated in coordination with utility service providers.

2.7 OPERATIONS
Following construction, the proposed project would introduce pedestrian and bicycle traffic to the multi-use bikeway and landscaped trailheads. The proposed project would also involve ongoing maintenance activities on an as-needed basis, such as landscape services, debris removal, and surface repairs. Maintenance activities would not require new staff or substantial new vehicle trips.

2.8 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The City is the lead agency for the proposed project under CEQA. Table 2-1 includes a summary of the anticipated permits and approvals required for the proposed project.

Ascent Project Description
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 2-41 Table 2-1 Required Permits and Approvals
Agency Approval/Permit
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)  Issuance of Encroachment Permit for improvements within Caltrans right-of-way Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD)  Issuance of Encroachment Permit, Maintenance Agreement, and Joint Use Agreement for improvements within LACFCD right-of-way
Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LADPW)  Issuance of Special or Joint Use Agreements, permits, or rights of entry Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB)
 Issuance of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit for activities that result in the disturbance of 1 or more acres of soil  Authorization of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that involve discharge into waters of the United States
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
 Authorization of a Section 408 permit for improvements within the flood control channel and authorization of Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) for activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States
California Department of Fish and Wildlife  Issuance of a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement Project Description Ascent
City of Pomona
2-42 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study This page is intentionally left blank.

City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-1 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title: San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Pomona
505 South Garey Avenue
Pomona, CA 91766

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Arnold Dichosa, MPA, PE, City Engineer (909) 620-2281

4. Project Location: 3.5-mile segment along San Jose Creek between Temple Avenue and Murchison Avenue in Pomona, California

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Same as Lead Agency

6. General Plan Designation: Special Campus
Workplace District Edge
Residential Neighborhood
Neighborhood Edge
Open Space

7. Zoning: O (Publicly owned land)
R-1-6000 (Single-family residential district [6,000 square foot lot area]) M-1 (Light industrial district)
R-1-PD (Low density single family/multiple family planned development)
R-2 (Low density multiple-family residential district)

8. Description of Project:

The City of Pomona (City) is proposing the San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project (proposed project), which consists of the development of a 3.5-mile off-road bike and pedestrian path along a segment of San Jose Creek between Temple Avenue and Murchison Avenue in Pomona, California. The proposed project is identified as a Tier 1 priority project in the City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP) (Fehr & Peers 2012); it is envisioned to provide pedestrians and bicyclists a safer off-street path of travel between community destinations and amenities in the city, which include the California Polytechnic University at Pomona (Cal Poly Pomona), the Los Angeles County Fairplex, regional transit and bikeway connections, various parks and schools, and commercial shopping centers. The proposed project would consist of 15 access points, including 6 at-grade street crossings. The proposed project would also feature stormwater capture treatments, trailhead gateways and access points, wayfinding and safety signage, and at-grade safe street crossings along the 3.5-mile alignment.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The proposed project is located in the city of Pomona, in eastern Los Angeles County (Figure 2-1). The 3.5-mile alignment extends along San Jose Creek from Temple Avenue in the western portion of the city to Murchison Avenue in the central portion of the city (project site) (Figure 2-2). The project site is entirely within City rights-of-way. The westernmost portion of the bikeway at Temple Avenue and Campus Drive is directly across from Cal Poly Pomona.

The proposed alignment would cross under the Orange Freeway (State Route [SR] 57) and Chino Valley Freeway (SR 71) and terminates just south of the San Bernardino Freeway (Interstate [I]-10).

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-2 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) The following provides a summary of the anticipated permits and approvals for the proposed project:
 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans): Issuance of Encroachment Permit for improvements within Caltrans right-of-way
 Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD): Issuance of Encroachment Permit, Maintenance Agreement, and Joint Use Agreement for improvements within LACFCD right-of-way  Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LADPW): Issuance of Special or Joint Use Agreements, permits, or rights of entry
 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB): Issuance of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit for activities that result in the disturbance of 1 or more acres of soil; issuance of Section 401 Individual Water Quality Certification for activities that may result in a discharge of dredged or fill into waters of the United States  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): Authorization of a Section 408 permit for improvements within the flood control channel and authorization of Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) for activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States  California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): Issuance of a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21080.3.1, the City sent formal notification letters of the proposed project, dated July 2, 2025, via mail and email to the following Native American tribes: Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Gabrielino/Tongva Nation, GabrielinoTongva Tribe, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation requested formal consultation with the City. The Tribe provided confidential documents demonstrating the project site as sensitive for tribal cultural resources and proposed mitigation measures that would address their concerns. The City incorporated the Tribe’s recommended mitigation measures into the project’s Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (Appendix H). AB 52 consultation with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation has been completed. No other Native American tribes responded to the City’s notification. Refer to Section 3.18, “Tribal Cultural Resources,” for additional information.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this proposed project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Where checked below, the topic with a potentially significant impact will be addressed in an environmental impact report.

No Aesthetics No Agriculture and Forest Resources No Air Quality No Biological Resources No Cultural Resources No Energy No Geology / Soils No Greenhouse Gas Emissions No Hazards / Hazardous Materials No Hydrology / Water Quality No Land Use / Planning No Mineral Resources No Noise No Population / Housing No Public Services
No Recreation No Transportation No Tribal Cultural Resources No Utilities / Service Systems No Wildfire No Mandatory Findings of Significance
No None Yes None with Mitigation
Incorporated
Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-4 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

No I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

Yes I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the proposed project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared.

No I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

No I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

No I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
6/23/2026
Signature Date
Arnold Dichosa, MPA, PE City Engineer
Printed Name Title
City of Pomona
Agency
Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-5

3.1 AESTHETICS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. Aesthetics.

Except as provided in Public Resources Code section 21099 (where aesthetic impacts shall not be considered significant for qualifying residential, mixed-use residential, and employment centers), would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would
the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

3.1.1 Environmental Setting
The City of Pomona is near full build-out and has an urban visual character. The project site consists of existing flood control and transportation infrastructure and is primarily surrounded by urban development, consisting of one- and two-story residences, commercial and industrial facilities, parks, and schools.

The City of Pomona offers views of distinctive topographic features such as hillsides, mountains, valleys, canyons, and other natural landforms, which play an important role in the scenic and visual qualities of the city. The city is surrounded by the San Jose Hills to the northwest, the Puente Hills to the southwest, and the Chino Hills to the south.

The more distant San Gabriel Mountains dominate views from the city (City of Pomona 2014a).

There are no officially designated scenic highways within the city. The project site is approximately 13 miles north of the nearest officially designated state scenic highway, a segment of SR 91 between SR 55 and the Anaheim city limit.

The project site is approximately 4 miles north of the nearest eligible state scenic highway, a segment of SR 57 between SR 91 and SR 60 (Caltrans 2018).

Ambient light and glare associated with urban development are uniformly present throughout the city, including the project site and vicinity (City of Pomona 2014a). Sources of light and glare in the project site and vicinity include building façades, traffic signals, streetlights, parking lot lighting, automotive headlights, and spillover light from adjacent buildings.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-6 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

3.1.2 Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than significant impact. Scenic vistas generally refer to views of expansive open space areas or other natural features, such as mountains, undeveloped hillsides, large natural water bodies, or coastlines. As described in Section

3.1.1, “Environmental Setting,” the city offers views of distinctive topographic features, such the San Jose Hills, Puente Hills, Chino Hills, and San Gabriel Mountains.

Construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to occur for a period of 12 to 18 months. During the construction period, various types of construction equipment (e.g., backhoes, forklifts, skip loaders, and compaction rollers) would be present within the project site. However, construction equipment would not be tall enough to block views. In addition, construction activities would be largely obscured from off-site viewpoints by intervening fencing, buildings, and vegetation. Further, visual effects from construction activities would be temporary and short-term.

The proposed project would primarily consist of at-grade improvements, including the installation of a new paved multi-use bikeway and safety improvements at the proposed at-grade crossings (e.g., curb ramps and bulbouts, striped crossings, and reconfigured vehicle lanes). At the proposed trailheads at Temple Avenue and Murchison Avenue, low-lying landscaping and amenities (e.g., bike racks, signage, trash receptacles, benches, and seat walls) would be installed. New vertical features would be limited to new shade trees, traffic signals, RFFBs, solar post lights, chain-link fencing, and signage. However, these features would be of similar height to existing vertical features already present in the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not include features of substantial height or massing that would obstruct or detract from views of scenic resources. Rather, the proposed project would enhance views in the project area through the addition of new trees and other landscaping. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The impact would be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No impact. As discussed in Section 3.1.1, “Environmental Setting,” the project site is approximately 4 miles north of the nearest eligible state scenic highway (SR 57 between SR 91 and SR 60) and 13 miles north of the nearest officially designated state scenic highway (SR 91 between SR 55 and the Anaheim city limit). The project site is not within the viewsheds of these highways due to the distance and intervening urban development and topography. All proposed project improvements would occur within the project site and would not encroach onto a state scenic highway.

Therefore, the proposed project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. No impact would occur.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than significant impact. The project site consists of existing flood control and transportation infrastructure in a fully developed, urbanized area. The project site is zoned for publicly owned land, residential, and light industrial uses.

The proposed project would include the construction of a new multi-use bikeway, landscaped trailheads, and atgrade roadway improvements. Construction activities are anticipated to occur for a period of 12 to 18 months. During the construction period, various types of construction equipment (e.g., backhoes, forklifts, skip loaders, and compaction rollers) would be present within the project site. Construction activities would be largely obscured from off-site viewpoints by intervening fencing, buildings, and vegetation. Furthermore, visual effects from construction activities would be temporary and short-term.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-7 The proposed project would introduce new bikeway infrastructure and amenities to the project site, including bike racks, trash receptacles, benches, seat walls, shade trees, traffic signals, RFFBs, solar post lights, chain-link fencing, and signage. As described in Section 3.1.2(a), these features would not have substantial height or massing and would be consistent with the scenic quality of the existing urban environment. The proposed project would enhance views of the project site through the addition of new trees and other landscaping. The proposed project would not involve changes to existing zoning. All improvements would be reviewed for compliance with the City’s zoning and development code prior to the issuance of development permits. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The impact would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than significant impact. As discussed in Section 3.1.1, “Environmental Setting,” ambient light and glare in the project site and vicinity are typical of a developed urban environment. Existing sources of light and glare in the project site and vicinity include building façades, traffic signals, streetlights, parking lot lighting, automotive headlights, and spillover light from adjacent buildings.

Construction activities would occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. and no nighttime lighting would be required during construction. Therefore, construction activities would not create new sources of light that would adversely affect nighttime views.

As discussed in Section 2.5.4, “Trailhead Landscaping and Amenities,” and Section 2.5.5, “Path Lighting,” the proposed project includes new solar-powered lighting. Approximately 77 solar post lights would be installed along the path at an average spacing of approximately 150 feet, with additional lights at the trailheads at Temple Avenue, Murchison Avenue, and Fairplex Drive. The lighting system would consist of approximately 14-foot-tall solar-powered LED post lights with integrated photovoltaic panels. Lighting would provide an average illuminance of approximately 1.0 footcandle along typical segments of the path and would operate during nighttime hours. The proposed project would include the minimum amount of lighting necessary for safety and wayfinding. New lighting would be shielded and directed on-site to minimize light pollution and prevent spillover effects onto adjacent light-sensitive land uses, including residences. Consequently, new lighting from the proposed project would not result in a noticeable change to nighttime views in the area, where existing ambient lighting is typical of a developed urban environment.

Daytime glare is typically caused by reflective building materials, such as glass, stainless steel, aluminum, and photovoltaic panels. During construction, glare would be introduced to the project site from windshields of vehicles and construction equipment. These sources of glare would be minor, limited to the ground level, and would not adversely affect daytime views of the area. During operations, the proposed project would not introduce highly reflective materials. The photovoltaic panels integrated into the solar lighting fixtures would be small and designed with anti-reflective materials. Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce a new substantial source of glare to the project site with potential to adversely affect daytime views.

Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not create new sources of light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views. The impact would be less than significant.

Required Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with aesthetics. Mitigation measures are not required.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-8 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. Agriculture and Forest Resources.

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997, as updated) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

3.2.1 Environmental Setting
The project site consists of flood control and transportation infrastructure and is primarily surrounded by urban development, consisting of one- and two-story residences, commercial and industrial facilities, parks, and schools.

The project site is approximately 75 feet south of agricultural land that is part of the Cal Poly campus, located across from South Campus Drive. In addition, the project site is approximately 0.4 miles north of Spadra Farm, a 125-acre farm owned by Cal Poly that is utilized for vegetable and fruit production and academic research projects. These areas are both designated as Prime Farmland by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The project site is classified as Urban and Built-Up Land and is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Important Farmland) (DOC 2020). The project site is not enrolled in a Williamson Act contract. No land within the city is zoned for agricultural use, forest land, timberland, or timberland production.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-9

3.2.2 Discussion
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, “Environmental Setting,” the project site is developed with flood control and transportation infrastructure and is classified as Urban and Built-Up Land by the DOC FMMP. Project activities would not encroach onto nearby agricultural areas that are designated as Important Farmland. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert Important Farmland to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, “Environmental Setting,” the project site is developed with flood control and transportation infrastructure and is zoned for publicly owned land, residential, and light industrial uses. No portions of the project site are enrolled in a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, “Environmental Setting,” the project site is developed with flood control and transportation infrastructure and is zoned for publicly owned land, residential, and light industrial uses. No portions of the city, including the project site, are zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impact would occur.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, “Environmental Setting,” the project site is developed with flood control and transportation infrastructure and does not contain forest land. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, “Environmental Setting,” the project site is developed with flood control and transportation infrastructure. No forest land occurs within the project site or vicinity. Agricultural land is located approximately 75 feet north of the project site; however, the project would not introduce new land uses that would interfere with or adversely affect existing agricultural operations, such as land uses that would result in excessive traffic or pollution. Project activities would occur entirely within City rights-of-way and would not encroach onto nearby agricultural land. Therefore, the proposed project would not involve changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of Important Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use. No impact would occur.

Required Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with agricultural or forest resources.

Mitigation measures are not required.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-10 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

3.3 AIR QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. Air Quality.

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied on to make the following determinations.

Are significance criteria established by the applicable air district available to rely on for significance determinations? Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

3.3.1 Environmental Setting

CLIMATE, METEOROLOGY, AND TOPOGRAPHY
The project site is in the City of Pomona, located in eastern Los Angeles County within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The Basin encompasses all of Orange County, as well as the non-desert areas of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, and the San Gorgonio Pass area in Riverside County. The terrain and geographical location determine the distinctive climate of the Basin, which is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The Southern California region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild and tempered by cool sea breezes. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The extent and severity of the air pollution problem in the Basin is a function of the area’s natural physical characteristics (i.e., weather and topography) as well as human-made influences (i.e., development patterns and lifestyle). Factors such as wind, sunlight, temperature, humidity, rainfall, and topography all affect the accumulation and dispersion of pollutants throughout the Basin, making it an area of high pollution potential (SCAQMD 2022).

The greatest air pollution effects in the Basin occur from June through September and are generally attributed to the large amount of pollutant emissions, light winds, and shallow vertical atmospheric mixing. These conditions frequently reduce pollutant dispersion, thereby causing elevated air pollution levels. Pollutant concentrations in the Basin vary depending on the location, season, and time of day. For instance, ozone (O3) concentrations are typically lower along the coast, higher in the near inland valleys, and lower in the far inland areas of the Basin and adjacent desert regions (SCAQMD 2022).

The local meteorology of the project site and surrounding area is represented by measurements recorded at the Claremont Pomona College Monitoring Station (WRCC Station ID 041779), which is located approximately 3 miles northeast of the easternmost edge of the project site. The average low temperature is reported at 41.2 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in December, and the average high temperature is 88.5°F in July (WRCC 2012). In contrast to a very Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-11 steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all rain falls from November through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. The historical rainfall average for the project area is 18.67 inches per year (WRCC 2012).

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
As required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, respirable and fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5, which are particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter and 2.5 microns or less in diameter, respectively), and lead. The State of California has also established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for these six pollutants as well as sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. NAAQS and CAAQS are summarized in Table 3.3-1. A brief description of each criteria air pollutant’s source types, and health effects is provided below in Table 3.3-2.

Table 3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California (CAAQS)a,b National (NAAQS)c

Primaryb,d Secondaryb,e
Ozone
1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) –e
Same as primary standard 8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.070 ppm (147 μg/m3) Carbon monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
Same as primary standard 8-hour 9 ppmf (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
Annual arithmetic mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 53 ppb (100 μg/m3) Same as primary standard 1-hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) 100 ppb (188 μg/m3) —
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
24-hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) — —
3-hour — — 0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m3)
1-hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) —
Respirable particulate
matter (PM10)
Annual arithmetic mean 20 μg/m3 — Same as primary standard 24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Fine particulate
matter (PM2.5)
Annual arithmetic mean 12 μg/m3 9 μg/m3 15.0 μg/m3
24-hour — 35 μg/m3 Same as primary standard
Lead f
Calendar quarter — 1.5 μg/m3 Same as primary standard
30-Day average 1.5 μg/m3 — —
Rolling 3-Month Average – 0.15 μg/m3 Same as primary standard Hydrogen sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)
No national standards
Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3
Vinyl chloride f 24-hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3)
Visibility-reducing
particulate matter
8-hour Extinction of 0.23 per km
Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; km = kilometers; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million. a California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, SO2 (1- and 24-hour), NO2, particulate matter, and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a reference temperature of 25 degrees Celsius (°C) and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-12 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
c National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. The PM10 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. The PM2.5 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for further clarification and current federal policies. d National primary standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. e National secondary standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
f The California Air Resources Board has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

Source: CARB 2024, EPA 2024
Table 3.3-2 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutant Sources Acute1 Health Effects Chronic2 Health Effects Ozone secondary pollutant resulting from reaction of
VOC and NOX in presence of sunlight. VOC
emissions result from incomplete combustion
and evaporation of chemical solvents and fuels;
NOX results from the combustion of fuels
increased respiration and pulmonary
resistance; cough, pain, shortness of
breath, lung inflammation
permeability of respiratory
epithelia, possibility of
permanent lung impairment
Carbon monoxide
(CO)
incomplete combustion of fuels; motor vehicle
exhaust
headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea,
vomiting, death
permanent heart and brain
damage
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
combustion devices; e.g., boilers, gas turbines,
and mobile and stationary reciprocating internal
combustion engines
coughing, difficulty breathing, vomiting,
headache, eye irritation, chemical
pneumonitis or pulmonary edema;
breathing abnormalities, cough,
cyanosis, chest pain, rapid heartbeat,
death
chronic bronchitis, decreased
lung function
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) coal and oil combustion, steel mills, refineries, and pulp and paper mills
irritation of upper respiratory tract,
increased asthma symptoms
insufficient evidence linking
SO2 exposure to chronic
health impacts
Respirable
particulate matter
(PM10), Fine
particulate matter
(PM2.5)
fugitive dust, soot, smoke, mobile and stationary
sources, construction, fires and natural
windblown dust, and formation in the
atmosphere by condensation and/or
transformation of SO2 and VOC
breathing and respiratory symptoms,
aggravation of existing respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases, premature
death
alterations to the immune
system, carcinogenesis
Lead metal processing reproductive/ developmental effects (fetuses and children)
numerous effects including
neurological, endocrine, and
cardiovascular effects
1 “Acute” refers to effects of short-term exposures to criteria air pollutants, usually at fairly high concentrations. 2 “Chronic” refers to effects of long-term exposures to criteria air pollutants, usually at lower, ambient concentrations.

Notes: NOx = oxides of nitrogen; VOC = volatile organic compounds.

Source: SCAQMD 2005.

ATTAINMENT DESIGNATION
As shown in Table 3.3-3, the Basin is designated as a nonattainment area for ozone with respect to both the NAAQS (8-hour standard) and CAAQS (1-hour Classification and 8-hour standard), PM10 with respect to the CAAQS, and PM2.5 with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-13 Table 3.3-3 Attainment Status Designations for Los Angeles County Portion of the Basin Pollutant National Designation State Designation
Ozone Nonattainment - Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Attainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment - Serious Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead (Particulate) Nonattainment Attainment
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; SO2 = sulfur dioxide Sources: CARB 2023a, SCAQMD 2018.

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
According to the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality (CARB 2013), most of the estimated health risks from toxic air contaminants (TACs) can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being diesel PM. Diesel PM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance, but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Although diesel PM is emitted by diesel-fueled internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emissions control system is being used. Unlike the other TACs, no ambient monitoring data are available for diesel PM because no routine measurement method currently exists. However, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a PM exposure method. This method uses the CARB emissions inventory’s PM10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of diesel PM. In addition to diesel PM, the TACs for which data are available that pose the greatest existing ambient risk in California are benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, and perchloroethylene (CARB 2023b).

According to CARB, diesel engine emissions are believed to be responsible for about 70 percent of California's estimated known cancer risk attributable to TACs. Also, diesel PM comprises about 8 percent of outdoor PM2.5, which is a known health hazard. As a significant fraction of PM2.5, diesel PM contributes to numerous health impacts that have been attributed to particulate matter exposure, including increased hospital admissions, particularly for heart disease, but also for respiratory illnesses, and even premature death. CARB estimates that diesel PM contributes to approximately 1,400 (95 percent confidence interval: 1,100-1,800) premature deaths from cardiovascular disease annually in California. Additionally, exposure to diesel exhaust may contribute to the onset of new allergies; a clinical study of human subjects has shown that diesel exhaust particles, in combination with potential allergens, may be able to produce new allergies that did not exist previously (CARB 2023b).

ODORS
Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).

With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals can smell very minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; an odor that is offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another (e.g., fast food restaurant). It is important to also note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-14 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study alteration in the intensity. Odor sources of concern include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, composting facilities, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, painting operations, rendering plants, and food packaging plants (SCAQMD 2005). None of these odorous land uses are within proximity to the project site.

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) defines sensitive receptors as locations where sensitive populations may be located, such as residences, schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, day care centers, and other locations where children, chronically ill individuals, or other sensitive persons could be exposed (SCAQMD 2024).

The project site extends through existing developed and urban landscapes. Surrounding land uses include commercial land uses in the western portion of the project area, which transition to residential neighborhoods as the project area extends eastbound. Several parks and schools are adjacent to the project site, including Kellogg Park, John F. Kenney Park, John Marshall Middle School, and Arroyo Elementary School. The closest nearby residential uses are a few feet from the nearest project site boundary.

SCAQMD AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
The project site lies within the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD.

SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an area of approximately 10,743 square miles, including all of Orange County, Los Angeles County (except for the Antelope Valley), the non-desert portion of western San Bernardino County, and the western and Coachella Valley portions of Riverside County. The Basin is a sub-region of SCAQMD’s jurisdiction.

Although air quality in this area has improved, the Basin requires continued diligence to meet air quality standards.

SCAQMD has adopted a series of air quality management plans (AQMPs) to meet the CAAQS and NAAQS. These plans require, among other emissions-reducing activities, control technology for existing sources, control programs for area sources and indirect sources, an SCAQMD permitting system that allows no net increase in emissions from any new or modified (i.e., previously permitted) emissions sources, and transportation control measures. The most recent AQMP was released for public comment in May 2022 and adopted in December 2022. The 2022 AQMP is intended to serve as a regional path towards improving air quality and meeting the federal air quality standards (SCAQMD 2022). The previous 2016 AQMP addressed the 1997 8-hour (80 parts per billion [ppb]) and 2008 8-hour ozone standards (75 ppb), as well as PM2.5 standards. The 2022 AQMP is focused on attaining the 2015 8-hour ozone standard of 70 ppb. The 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMPs. It includes a variety of additional strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emission technologies, when cost-effective and feasible, and low oxides of nitrogen [NOx] technologies in other applications), best management practices, co-benefits from existing programs (e.g., climate and energy efficiency), incentives, and other CAA measures to achieve the 2015 8-hour ozone standard (SCAQMD 2022).

SCAQMD CEQA GUIDANCE
SCAQMD published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook in November 1993 to help local governments analyze and mitigate project-specific air quality impacts (SCAQMD 1993). This handbook provides standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses as part of CEQA documents prepared within SCAQMD’s jurisdiction. SCAQMD is in the process of developing an "Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook" (Handbook) to replace the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. To assist the CEQA practitioner in conducting an air quality analysis while the new Handbook is being prepared, SCAQMD has published Air Quality Significance Thresholds for CEQA (updated 2023). In addition, SCAQMD has published two guidance documents: Localized Significance Threshold Methodology for CEQA Evaluations (2003, revised 2008) and Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 Significance Thresholds and Calculation Methodology (2006). These publications provide guidance for evaluating localized effects from mass emissions during construction and operations.

All SCAQMD CEQA guidance was used to prepare this analysis (SCAQMD 2006, 2008a, 2023).

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-15 Additionally, SCAQMD has established rules and regulations that apply to the proposed project. Rule 403 mandates the implementation of best available dust control measures, such as pre-watering all disturbed areas during active operations that can generate fugitive dust. Rule 402 prohibits the discharge of air contaminants that result in nuisance, annoyance, or health impacts to the public, including odors. Rule 1108 restricts the amount of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from cutback asphalt. Rule 1113 limits the VOC content of architectural coatings (SCAQMD 2025).

3.3.2 Discussion
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No impact. According to SCAQMD, an air quality impact would be significant if implementation of the proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of SCAQMD’s AQMP. Implementation of the proposed project would involve the construction and operation of a 3.5-mile off-road path to provide pedestrians and bicyclists a safer path of travel between community destinations and amenities in the city, which include Cal Poly Pomona, the Los Angeles County Fairplex, regional transit and bikeway connections, various parks and schools, and commercial shopping centers. The proposed project would not change the nature of the land uses and is consistent with the current land uses and designations for the project site. Although construction activities associated with the proposed project would increase air emissions over the short term, the long-term goal of the proposed project is to provide a dedicated and safe infrastructure for biking and walking, which encourages a shift away from personal vehicle use for transportation and recreation. Thus, the project would contribute to reduced vehicle use, which is consistent with AQMP’s overall goal of achieving significant NOx emission reductions needed to meet the 2015 8-hour ozone standard. The 2022 AQMP relies on the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)'s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) as a key component of its control strategy for addressing air quality, particularly related to transportation emissions. The proposed project aligns with RTP/SCS by offering a sustainable transportation option and improving connectivity for both pedestrians and cyclists. The proposed project falls under the category of non-motorized modes, which is specifically listed as a type of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in the 2022 AQMP. These TCMs are State Implementation Plan-committed programs and projects that reduce vehicle use or change traffic flow or congestion conditions for the purpose of reducing emissions from transportation sources and improving air quality. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. No impact would occur. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than significant impact. According to SCAQMD CEQA guidance (SCAQMD 2023), an air quality impact would be significant if implementation of the proposed project would generate construction and operational emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD’s adopted mass emission thresholds shown in Table 3.3-4 below. With respect to localized emissions, SCAQMD has developed localized significance thresholds (LSTs) and mass rate look-up tables to help public agencies analyze project-related effects of pollutants on nearby receptors (SCAQMD 2006, 2008a). The LSTs are based on the size or total area of the emissions source, the ambient air quality in each source receptor area (SRA) where the emissions sources are located, and the distance to nearby sensitive receptor locations. SCAQMD LSTs are lower for projects that are smaller in acreage and closer to homes, and increase as projects increase in acreage and distance from homes. The lowest LSTs are for 1-acre project areas with receptors 25 meters away from the project edge. To present a conservative yet realistic analysis, the construction LST analysis assumes that 1 acre of the project site could be disturbed daily during construction. Moreover, given the presence of residences near the project site, the LSTs are assumed at a 25-meter receptor distance, which is the shortest distance assumed in SCAQMD’s LST guidance. However, for operation, the entire project site would be active during operations. Therefore, consistent with SCAQMD’s LST guidance, the operational LST analysis is based on a 5-acre project site, which is the highest acreage allowed in the SCAQMD’s LST guidance and associated look-up tables, and a 25-meter receptor distance.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-16 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study Table 3.3-4 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds (pounds per day) VOCa NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 SO2 Pbb
Regional Mass Emissionsb
Construction 75 100 550 150 55 150 3
Operations 55 55 550 150 55 150 3
Localized Significance Thresholds
Constructionc -- 103 612 4 3 -- --
Operationsd -- 236 1,566 3 2 -- --
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 10 micrometers; PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 10 micrometers; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; Pb = lead. a ROGs and VOCs are used interchangeably to refer to the hydrocarbons that are a precursor to O3 formation. However, because SCAQMD uses VOCs in the formulation of its thresholds, VOCs are presented herein. b The proposed project would result in no lead emissions during construction or operations. As such, lead emissions are not evaluated. c Localized thresholds for construction are based on a 1-acre disturbed area and 25-meter distance to receptors within SRA 10 (Pomona/Walnut Valley). The total acres of the project is 6 acres, and the maximum acres disturbed is conservatively estimated as 1 acre on any given day.

SCAQMD has not developed LSTs for VOC, SO2, or Pb emissions. d Localized thresholds for operations are based on a 5-acre active area and 25-meter distance to receptors within SRA 10 (Pomona/Walnut Valley). SCAQMD has not developed LSTs for VOC, SO2, or Pb emissions.

Source: SCAQMD 2008a, 2023.

An analysis of the construction- and operations-related effects of the proposed project is presented below.

Construction
Construction of the proposed project has the potential to create air quality impacts through the use of vehicles and equipment such as heavy-duty construction equipment, construction workers’ vehicle trips, material deliveries, and trips by heavy-duty haul trucks. In addition, earthwork activities would result in fugitive dust emissions, and paving operations would release VOCs from off-gassing. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and, for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. The assessment of construction air quality impacts considers each of these potential sources. Fugitive PM10 and PM2.5 emissions estimates reflect compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, which is mandatory.

Short-term construction-generated criteria pollutant emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1.1 (CAPCOA 2024), as recommended by SCAQMD. Modeling was based on project-specific information (e.g., project acres and road length, phase and duration of the construction, import/export of material during each phase) where available. Where data was unavailable, default values in CalEEMod were used based on the project location and activity type. Refer to Appendix A for detailed modeling outputs.

Construction-related regional and localized mass emission estimates are shown in Table 3.3-5. Although the exact timing for implementation of each phase is currently unknown, the project is assumed to start at the beginning of 2026 and finish in approximately 18 months. CalEEMod default phase types for a linear construction project were used, with the default number of workdays compressed to fit within an 18-month construction duration to maintain the same workday proportion of each phase. The analysis also assumes the project would be built in phases sequentially without overlapping phases. To be consistent with SCAQMD dust control measures, the modeling assumes dust control measures will be implemented, consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403. The Grubbing and Land Clearing Phase includes removal of existing fencing, gates, and asphalt in select locations. As shown in Table 3.3-5, maximum daily construction-related criteria pollutant emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional and localized construction-period thresholds.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-17 Table 3.3-5 Estimated Regional and Localized Construction Emissions – Unmitigated Pounds Per Day Construction Phase ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 SO2
Regional Emissions
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing 1 7 14 3 1 0
Linear, Grading & Excavation 4 27 40 4 2 0
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade 3 22 32 4 1 0
Linear, Paving 1 8 19 2 1 0
Maximum Dailya 4 27 40 4 2 0
Mass Emissions Threshold 75 100 550 150 55 150
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Localized Emissions
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing N/A 5 5 0 0 N/A
Linear, Grading & Excavation N/A 27 31 2 1 N/A
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade N/A 21 23 2 1 N/A Linear, Paving N/A 7 11 0 0 N/A
Maximum Dailya N/A 27 31 2 1 N/A
Localized Significance Thresholdb N/A 103 612 4 3 N/A
Exceed Threshold? N/A No No No No N/A
Notes: CO = carbon dioxide; N/A = not applicable; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 10 micrometers; PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 10 micrometers; ROG = reactive organic gas; SO2 = sulfur dioxide. a The maximum daily equals the maximum among all maximum daily emissions from four phases. No overlapping occurs for construction phases. b
To compare to the LSTs, localized emissions include onsite use of heavy-duty construction equipment and fugitive dust from ground-disturbing activities only. Worker commute and truck emissions occur off-site and are not included in the LST analysis.

Notes: Emissions may not add up exactly because of rounding.

Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2025.

Operations
As discussed in Section 3.3.2(a), once operational, the proposed project would consist of a multi-use pathway that could reduce vehicle use by providing pedestrians and bicyclists with a safe path of travel. The proposed project would not result in increased air pollutant emissions from mobile sources. Emissions related to the operation of the proposed project would primarily involve the use of landscaping equipment as well as occasional pathway upkeep.

These emissions would be minimal and would not exceed thresholds. Because the proposed project would not result in a permanent increase in air pollutant emissions and would construct a multi-use pathway that could reduce vehicle trips in the area, operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds.

Summary
The proposed project’s construction activities would not generate maximum daily criteria pollutant emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds. Once constructed, operation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in air pollutant emissions and would consist of a multi-use pathway that could reduce vehicle trips in the area. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact. According to SCAQMD, an air quality impact would be significant if implementation of the proposed project would:

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-18 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study  generate construction and operational emissions in exceedance of the SCAQMD’s LSTs shown in Table 3.3-4;  generate long-term operational mobile-source CO emissions that would result in, or contribute to, an exceedance of the CAAQS (exceedance of 20 parts per million [ppm] over a 1-hour period or exceedance of 9 ppm over an 8-hour period) or NAAQS (exceedance of 35 ppm over a 1-hour period or exceedance of 9 ppm over an 8-hour period) for CO;
 expose sensitive receptors to TAC concentrations that result in an incremental increase in cancer risk greater than 10 in one million and/or a noncarcinogenic hazard index of 1.0 or greater.

The proposed project would contribute to localized air pollutant emissions only during construction (short term). The analysis of receptor pollutant exposure includes a discussion of short-term exposure to criteria pollutants (i.e., LSTs) and TACs (i.e., exposure to diesel exhaust).

Localized Emissions
Project construction would emit localized pollutants through the on-site use of heavy-duty construction equipment as well as fugitive dust from ground-disturbing activities. These localized emissions could expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As shown in Table 3.3-5, localized emissions during construction would not exceed the applicable LSTs for the project area. Additionally, as discussed earlier, project operations would not result in a net increase in localized emissions. Consistent with SCAQMD guidance, no further analysis is warranted because LSTs would not be exceeded.

Toxic Air Contaminants
With respect to TACs, the closest sensitive land uses are the residential uses adjacent to the project site. Proposed project construction would be completed in approximately 18 months, which is much shorter than the assumed 70- year exposure period used to estimate lifetime cancer risks. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be transitory (i.e., occurring over the entire 3.5-mile project site) and short-term in nature at any given location on-site. As such, construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an elevated health risk to exposed persons because of the short-term nature of construction-related diesel exposure.

Operation of the proposed project would not result in new TAC emission sources, as the proposed multi-use pathway would not result in increased mobile exhaust emissions by promoting pedestrian and bicycle uses.

Therefore, the proposed project would not expose receptors to TAC pollutants. Impacts related to potential projectgenerated exposure to TACs on surrounding land uses would be less than significant.

Carbon Monoxide
Elevated levels of CO concentrations are typically found in areas with substantial traffic congestion. CO is a public health concern because at high enough concentrations, it can cause health problems such as fatigue, headache, confusion, dizziness, and even death. Ambient concentrations of CO have declined dramatically in California because of existing controls and programs. Most areas of the State, including the region in which the proposed project is located, meet the State and federal CO standards (CARB 2004). As part of SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP, which is the most recent AQMP that addresses CO concentrations, a revision to the Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide that was originally approved in 1992 was provided that included a CO hot spots analysis at four specified heavily traveled intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. These four intersection locations selected for CO modeling are considered to be worst-case intersections that would likely experience the highest CO concentrations. The CO hot spots analysis in the 2003 AQMP did not predict a violation of CO standards at the four intersections. Of these four intersections, the busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which was described as the most heavily congested intersection in Los Angeles County, with an average daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. No intersection in the project area would exceed 100,000 vehicles per day. Moreover, the proposed project would not result in additional vehicle trips once operational. As such, no intersection within the project area would see CO concentrations above CO standards as a result of proposed project implementation.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-19 Summary
Localized emissions during construction and operation of the proposed project would not exceed the applicable LSTs. Health risk due to TACs to nearby sensitive receptors due to short-term construction-related diesel exposure would be minimal and far below thresholds. Operation of the proposed project could encourage reduced mobile traffic in the region and thus reduced TAC exposure to nearby sensitive receptors. Since the proposed project would generate few construction-related trips and would not increase vehicle trips during operation, the proposed project would not result in traffic volumes at intersections around the project site that would contribute to CO concentrations that exceed standards. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than significant impact. According to SCAQMD, an air quality impact would be significant if implementation of the proposed project would result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of the affected receptors. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generate citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. Projects with the potential to frequently expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors would have a significant impact.

Odors resulting from construction of the proposed project are not likely to affect a substantial number of people because construction activities usually do not emit offensive odors. Potential odor emitters during construction activities include heavy-duty diesel equipment exhaust, asphalt paving, and architectural painting activities. As mentioned in section SCAQMD CEQA Guidance, SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits the discharge of air contaminants that cause nuisance or annoyance to the public, including odors; SCAQMD Rule 1108 limits the amount of VOC emissions from cutback asphalt; and Rule 1113 limits VOC content of architectural coatings. Given mandatory compliance with SCAQMD rules, no construction activities or materials are proposed that would create a significant level of objectionable odors.

As stated in Section SCAQMD CEQA Guidance, SCAQMD Rule 402, 1108 and 1113 apply to the proposed project.

Given that compliance with SCAQMD rules is mandatory, no construction activities or materials are proposed that would result in a significant level of objectionable odors.

Similarly, odors resulting from operation of the proposed project are not likely to affect a substantial number of people because the proposed project does not include land uses typically associated with objectional odors.

According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting areas, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by SCAQMD as being associated with odors and therefore would not produce objectionable odors.

No major existing sources of odors have been identified in the project site vicinity. Construction and operation of the proposed project are not anticipated to result in the frequent exposure to nearby sensitive receptors to substantial objectionable odors. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Required Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with air quality. Mitigation measures are not required.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-20 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. Biological Resources.

Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

3.4.1 Environmental Setting
The information in this section is based on the Biological Letter Report prepared for the project by Blackhawk Environmental, Inc. (Blackhawk) in June 2025 (Appendix B).

Blackhawk conducted a biological reconnaissance survey of the project site and a surrounding 100-foot buffer (survey area) on September 19, 2024. In addition, sensitive resources were evaluated within 500 feet of the project site. The project site is almost entirely within the existing dirt access roads along the north and south sides of the San Jose Creek channel and is situated within an entirely developed area of the city. The project site consists entirely of disturbed habitat and urban/developed land. Most of the vegetation within the project site consists of landscaped ornamentals associated with developed urban areas or ruderal non-natives associated with disturbed areas. The project site does not have connectivity to any open, natural space.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-21

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND USE COVER TYPES
Table 3.4-1 identifies the acreages of the vegetation communities and land use cover types mapped within the project site and the survey area. The following sections describe the characteristics of these vegetation communities and land use cover types, which are described based on the vegetation community classifications by Holland (1986) and Oberbauer (2008).

Table 3.4-1 Vegetation Communities
Vegetation Community (Holland Code) Permanent Impact Area Within Project Site (acres)
Temporary Impact Area
Within Project Site (sq ft)
Acres Within Survey Area
(acres)
Disturbed (11300) 4.41 0 18.13
Urban/Developed (12000) 1.03 0 57.47
Non-vegetated Floodplain or Channel 0 600 11.60
Total 5.44 600 87.21
Source: Blackhawk 2025.

Disturbed
Disturbed habitat occupies approximately 4.41 acres of the project site and 18.13 acres of the survey area. Disturbed habitat consists of low-growing, ruderal vegetation or bare ground associated with urban development and anthropogenic disturbance. These areas are regularly maintained and/or disturbed, limiting vegetative growth, particularly native species. Onsite vegetation within this community is heavily dominated by nonnative species such as compact brome (Bromus madritensis), smilo grass (Stipa miliacea var. miliacea), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus). Some ruderal native species often associated with disturbed areas, including horseweed (Erigeron bonariensis) and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), also occur within this community.

This land cover was mainly associated with the existing dirt access roads running along the north and south sides of the canal.

Urban/Developed
Urban/developed land comprises approximately 1.03 acres of the project site and 57.47 acres of the survey area.

Developed land is characterized by permanent or semi-permanent structures, pavement or hardscape, and landscaped areas that often require irrigation. This vegetation community typically includes unvegetated or landscaped areas with a variety of ornamental (usually non-native) plants (Oberbauer 2008). Within the study area, this vegetation community includes existing paved roads and sidewalks, residential and commercial developments, and associated landscaped/ornamental plantings which are nearly or entirely devoid of native vegetation and show significant evidence of intentional, human caused conversion of previously existing natural habitats into development.

Landscaped/ornamental vegetation provides a buffer between South Campus Drive and the western portion of the project site and is dominated by planted and maintained California sycamore (Plantanus racemosa), coastal wattle (Acacia cyclops), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Siberian elm (Ulmus parvifolia), and African fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum). Other areas of landscape/ornamental vegetation occur in private residences, which buffer the majority of the southern canal road and parts of the northern canal road. Species dominating in these areas include Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolia), blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), cape honeysuckle (Tecoma capensis), and great bougainvillea (Bougainvillea spectabilis).

Non-vegetated Floodplain or Channel
Non-vegetated floodplain or channel comprises a small area of the project site (approximately 600 square feet) and

11.6 acres of the survey area. The section of San Jose Creek (also known as Thompson Wash) within the survey area is channelized with concrete embankments. The project site is located along the north and south sides of San Jose Creek. During the biological reconnaissance survey, no measurable water flow was observed in the channel. Some sections of the channel were observed ponded with water up to a few inches with these areas supporting algae growth. Only one section at the far east end of the channel within the survey area was observed to have any Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-22 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study vegetation growth. The majority of the channel was dry during the time of the survey, suggesting that water flow is intermittent and likely influenced by rainfall fed to the channel through roadside drainages.

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
A total of 11 special-status plant species occurrences were found within a 5-mile radius of the project site through the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database, and the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory (Appendix B). The habitat assessment determined that none of the special-status plant species have any potential to occur within the project site due to a lack of suitable habitat and microhabitat. The project site does not fall within critical habitat for any plant species.

A total of 29 special-status wildlife species occurrences were found within a 5-mile radius of the project site through the CNDDB and IPaC occurrence record review (Appendix B). Seven of these species were found to have a low to moderate potential for occurrence. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus) were determined to have low potential for occurrence due to the presence of bridges and buildings within the survey area, which provide marginally suitable roosting habitat. Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) has a low potential to forage on flowering plants within and adjacent to the survey area, but the survey area lacks breeding host plants and is outside the known overwintering roost sites for this species. Crotch’s bumblebee (Bombus crotchii) has a low potential to occur due to the presence of flowering non-natives associated with disturbed habitat and landscaped/ornamental areas, which provide moderately suitable nectar sources for this species. Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi) was determined to have moderate potential for occurrence due to the presence of suitable suburban gardens within the survey area. Western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus) has a moderate potential to occur due to the presence of palm trees throughout the survey area that provide suitable roosting habitat. Lastly, yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia brewsteri) has a moderate potential to occur in the shrubby thickets along portions of the flood control channel. All other special-status species evaluated are presumed absent. The project site does not fall within critical habitat for any wildlife species.

SPECIAL-STATUS VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
The following CDFW special-status vegetation community (natural communities) occurrences were found within a 5- mile radius of the project site through the CNDDB review: California Walnut Woodland, Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland, and Walnut Forest.

None of the five special-status vegetation communities were documented within the survey area. Furthermore, the project site and survey area are entirely surrounded by developed or agricultural land with no connectivity to natural communities. All other vegetation communities within the survey area are not considered to be special-status according to USFWS or CDFW.

RIPARIAN AND JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES
The literature review identified potential jurisdictional resources within the project site and survey area (Appendix B). The project site includes a small area (600 square feet) of the San Jose Creek channel, which is a jurisdictional canal considered a non-wetland of the United States and falls within the jurisdiction of CDFW and RWQCB. This channel was historically a natural waterway but has been anthropogenically altered and channelized. Some sections of the channel are underground within a portion of the survey area. The entire span of this feature within and adjacent to the project site is a concrete lined channel, which lacks the ecological components to support wetlands or riparian habitat.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-23

3.4.2 Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The following sections evaluate the potential for the proposed project to result in substantial adverse effects on candidate, sensitive, or special-status plants and wildlife.

Plants
As discussed in Section 3.4.1, “Environmental Setting,” the project site consists entirely of disturbed habitat and urban/developed land. No special-status plant species have potential to occur within the project site due to a lack of suitable habitat and microhabitat. The project site does not contain sensitive habitat or designated critical habitat for any plant species.

The proposed project would require the removal of two coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees and would involve trimming and/or digging within the drip line of coast live oak trees, which are considered sensitive under the City of Pomona Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. However, the proposed project would be exempt from the ordinance’s permit and mitigation requirements because the project site is entirely within Los Angeles County Flood Control District and City property. Refer to Section 3.4.2(e) for additional information on the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires the contractor to follow proper trimming techniques in accordance with American National Standards Institute A300 Tree Care standards to ensure tree health and structural integrity.

Through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, construction-related impacts on coast live oak trees would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Wildlife
As discussed in Section 3.4.1, “Environmental Setting,” the project site does not contain sensitive habitat or designated critical habitat for any wildlife species. However, the survey area contains suitable roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat for special-status wildlife species and migratory birds protected under the MBTA. Pallid bat, pocketed free-tailed bat, monarch butterfly, Crotch’s bumblebee, southern California legless lizard, western yellow bat, and yellow warbler were determined to have low to moderate potential to occur within the survey area.

Construction
The proposed project would involve installing new asphalt pavement and/or concrete sidewalks along the length of the project site, removing existing fence lines, installing road ramps and other upgrades to associated public streets, and planting landscaped trees and shrubs within disturbed and previously developed areas of the project site.

Construction of the proposed project would involve vegetation and tree removal, grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities that could result in adverse effects on special-status wildlife species that may forage, roost, and nest in the project site and vicinity. Direct effects on special-status wildlife species may include entrapment, disturbance, injury, and mortality of individuals and destruction of nests and roots. In addition, indirect effects on special-status species may result from temporary increases in noise levels and dust, increased human presence, and habitat modification or loss. Construction activities could also introduce pollutants (e.g., sediment, trash, debris, oil) into drainages, which could degrade habitat for special-status species downstream of the project site.

As noted in Section 2.8, “Required Permits and Approvals,” the City would be required to comply with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit because the proposed project would result in the disturbance of more than 1 acre of soil. In accordance with the NPDES Construction General Permit, the City would be required to develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implement best management practices (BMPs) to prevent stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from leaving the construction site. The NPDES Construction General Permit specifies pollution prevention measures, including chemical spill and leak prevention and response procedures and good housekeeping strategies to prevent the release of trash and other construction waste.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-24 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study The NPDES Construction General Permit requires implementation of erosion and sediment control measures to minimize the discharge of sediment into stormwater, including watering or other dust suppression techniques to minimize fugitive dust. Refer to Section 3.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” for additional information. These measures would minimize and avoid the potential for substantial adverse effects on special-status wildlife species, including exposure to elevated dust and habitat degradation.

Mitigation measures would be required to prevent substantial adverse effects on special-status wildlife species and migratory birds protected under the MBTA. Specifically, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires the contractor to clearly delineate the project site limits and restrict all construction activities, including the use of equipment and storage of construction materials, to within the project site limits. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires a qualified biologist to conduct nesting bird surveys before any vegetation removal and initial ground disturbance commences within the bird breeding season (February 15 to September 15) and establish buffers around active nests of listed birds, migratory birds, raptors, or other sensitive species. BIO-4 requires a biologist to monitor all vegetation clearing activities to ensure the activities do not affect sensitive biological resources and to move or redirect wildlife out of harm’s way as necessary. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2 through BIO-4 would ensure that the disturbance, injury, and mortality of special-status wildlife and destruction of their nests and roots would be avoided.

Through compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit and implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2 through BIO-4, construction-related impacts on the special-status species listed above and migratory birds protected under the MBTA would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Operations
Following construction, the proposed project would introduce pedestrian and bicycle traffic to the multi-use bikeway and landscaped trailheads. The proposed project would also involve ongoing maintenance activities on an as-needed basis, such as landscape services, debris removal, and surface repairs. Noise levels associated with operations and maintenance activities would be consistent with existing ambient levels in the vicinity of the project site (refer to Section 3.13, “Noise,” for additional information). Further, as discussed in Section 3.1.2(d), the proposed project would include the minimum amount of lighting necessary for safety and wayfinding and would not result in a noticeable change to ambient light levels in the project site and vicinity. The lighting would be shielded and directed on-site to minimize light pollution and prevent spillover effects. Further, the new lighting would be located within an existing urbanized corridor where ambient nighttime lighting is already present. As a result, the proposed lighting would not substantially alter existing nighttime conditions or disrupt wildlife movement or behavior. Therefore, proposed project operation would not result in adverse impacts on special-status wildlife species and migratory birds protected under the MBTA.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact. The proposed project would involve installing new asphalt pavement and/or concrete sidewalks along the length of the project site, removing existing fence lines, installing road ramps and other upgrades to associated public streets, and planting landscaped trees and shrubs within disturbed and previously developed areas of the project site. Project activities would be confined to 4.41 acres of disturbed habitat and 1.03 acres of urban/developed land and a small area (600 square feet) of non-vegetated floodplain/channel. The project site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or USFWS. No impact would occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would involve installing new asphalt pavement and/or concrete sidewalks along the length of the project site, removing existing fence lines, installing road ramps and other upgrades Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-25 to associated public streets, and planting landscaped trees and shrubs within disturbed and previously developed areas of the project site. Project improvements would occur primarily within the existing dirt access roads along the north and south sides of the San Jose Creek channel. Compliance with NPDES Construction General Permit requirements described under Section 3.4.2(a) would minimize the potential for sediment and pollutants to enter the San Jose Creek channel and downstream wetlands during construction activities.

As discussed in Section 2.5.5, “Freeway Undercrossings,” the proposed project would include a new drainage system to prevent ponding conditions at the SR 71 undercrossing. An approximately 600-square-foot dry dock would be temporarily placed within the channel (i.e., less than 30 days) during construction of the drainage system at the SR 71 undercrossing. Direct, short-term impacts are anticipated to occur to potentially jurisdictional waters during the temporary installation of the dry dock at the inlet to the concrete-lined channel. San Jose Creek is likely subject to regulation by USACE, LARWQCB and/or CDFW. As identified in Section 2.8, “Required Permits and Approvals,” the City may be required to obtain the following permits and approvals prior to initiating construction activities within the San Jose Creek channel:
 Section 401 Water Quality Certification from LARWQCB. This certification is granted when an applicant demonstrates that the activity complies with applicable water quality requirements, which include water quality standards, effluent limitations, new source performance standards, toxic pollutants restrictions.  Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) from USACE for the construction, expansion, modification, or improvement of linear transportation projects that involve the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. This Nationwide Permit authorizes temporary structures, fills, and work necessary to construct a linear transportation project. The permit process requires applicants to incorporate appropriate measures to maintain normal downstream flows and minimize flooding to the maximum extent practicable when temporary structures, work, and discharges of dredged or fill material are necessary for construction activities. The Nationwide Permit requires that temporary fills consist of materials and be placed in a manner that will not be eroded by expected high flows. In addition, temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to preconstruction elevations. The Nationwide Permit specifies general conditions that the permittee must comply with, including soil erosion and sediment controls, removal of temporary structures, proper maintenance of authorized structures (USACE 2022).  Section 408 permit from USACE for activities that involve alteration or modifications to the flood control channel.

The permit is granted when an applicant demonstrates that the requested alteration does not increase life safety risks and does not impair the usefulness of the USACE civil works project.  Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW for any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. The agreement includes conditions to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential negative impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitats, ensuring the protection of these resources.

The City would be required to adhere to all applicable permit conditions that are protective of water quality and associated fish and wildlife resources, which would ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through 1616. Substantial adverse direct and indirect impacts on jurisdictional wetlands are not anticipated because only a small area of temporary impacts to the concrete-lined channel is proposed (i.e., approximately 600 square feet) and because the City would be required to comply with the requirements of all applicable permits and regulations that are protective of wetlands. The proposed project would not introduce any permanent features that would impede, restrict, or modify channel flows and would not result in permanent impacts on the San Jose Creek channel. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. This impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-26 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No impact. As described in Section 3.4.1, “Environmental Setting,” the project site is within an entirely developed area and does not have connectivity to any open, natural space. The project site consists entirely of disturbed habitat and urban/developed land. Although San Jose Creek is adjacent to the project site, the channel is concrete-lined and has been altered from its original state. No flowing water was observed within the channel during the biological reconnaissance survey; however, the channel could allow for the movement of aquatic species during times of seasonal flow.

The proposed project would involve the construction of a new multi-use bikeway and landscaped trailheads primarily within the existing dirt access roads along the north and south sides of the San Jose Creek channel. As discussed in Section 3.4.2(c), an approximately 600-square-foot dry dock would be temporarily placed within the channel (i.e., less than 30 days) during construction of the drainage system at the SR 71 undercrossing. Temporary construction activities within the San Jose Creek channel would not impede the movement of aquatic species during times of seasonal flow and would be subject to applicable permits and regulations that are protective of fish and wildlife resources. The proposed project would not introduce any permanent features that would impede, restrict, or modify channel flows. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No impact would occur. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than significant impact. The City of Pomona’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (Section .5809-23 of the Municipal Code) was adopted to preserve mature oak trees within the City. The ordinance applies to oak trees that are larger than eight inches in diameter as measured 4.5 feet above the mean natural grade. Several coast live oak trees are present within the project site (Appendix B, Figure 7). The proposed project would require the removal of two coast live oak trees and would involve trimming and/or digging within the drip line of coast live oak trees. Under Section .5809-23(E)(5) of the Pomona Municipal Code, the trimming, relocation, or removal of oak trees located on property owned by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District is exempt from the requirements of the Oak Tree Permit process. Under Section .5809-23(E)(1) of the Pomona Municipal Code, City Arborist trimming of oak trees located on City property is exempt from the requirements of the Oak Tree Permit process when the minimum amount of trimming needed will be carried out to foster and preserve the health and aesthetics of the tree. Because the affected oak trees are located on Los Angeles County Flood Control District and City property, the proposed project is exempt from and would not conflict with the City of Pomona’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance.

The County of Los Angeles’ General Plan establishes 61 Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) to protect biological communities within the county. Development projects that fall within an SEA must obtain a conditional use permit to protect resources contained in SEAs from incompatible development. The project site does not fall within any SEAs.

Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The impact would be less than significant. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No impact. The project site does not fall within the boundaries of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact would occur.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-27 Required Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Follow Proper Trimming Techniques During construction of the proposed project, the contractor shall follow proper techniques for trimming coast live oak trees from the American National Standards Institute A300 Tree Care standards.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Restrict Construction Activities to Delineated Project Site Boundaries For the duration of construction activities, the City or its contractor shall clearly delineate the project site boundaries with stakes, fencing, or other conspicuous boundary markings. The City or its contractor shall instruct all employees to restrict their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the project site.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Conduct Vegetation Clearing/Initial Grading Outside of the Bird Nesting Season OR Conduct Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys
The City shall implement the following measures to avoid impacts on nesting birds, special-status birds, and raptors:
 Conduct vegetation removal and initial ground disturbance activities outside of the bird breeding season (February 15 – September 15).
 If vegetation removal or initial grading occurs during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys for nesting raptors and migratory birds within the project site plus an additional 100-foot survey buffer (for passerines) and 300-foot buffer (for raptors) within three days of construction. If nests of listed birds, migratory birds, raptors, or other sensitive species are documented, active nests shall be avoided, and a nest buffer shall be designated around each nest. Nest buffers shall be determined at the discretion of the qualified biologist based on the location and species occupying the nest. Species that are not protected by the MBTA (e.g., European starling, house sparrow, Eurasian collared dove) shall not require a nest buffer. The perimeter of this nest buffer shall be clearly demarcated, and all construction activities shall be prohibited within the delineated area until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest has either successfully fledged, been depredated, or failed due to other causes. Construction activities may proceed within the non-disturbance buffer if a qualified biologist is present to monitor active nests and determines that construction activities are not causing indirect or direct disturbance to a nest.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Conduct Biological Monitoring During Vegetation Clearing The City shall retain a biological monitor experienced with identification of the sensitive and common biological resources in the region to monitor all vegetation clearing activities, regardless of the time of year such activities are scheduled to begin. The biological monitor shall perform biological clearance sweeps at the start of each workday that vegetation clearing activities take place. The biological monitor shall be present on a full-time basis during the vegetation-clearing activities to ensure the activities do not affect sensitive biological resources and to move or redirect wildlife out of harm’s way as necessary. The monitor shall be responsible for communicating regularly with the City and onsite contractor on non-compliance issues and methods for ensuring that impacts on sensitive biological resources are avoided to the fullest extent possible in accordance with the appropriate project agreements and permits, as applicable. Biological monitoring shall take place until the project site has been completely cleared of any vegetation. The biological monitor shall keep a record of monitoring activities in a log that contains representative photographs of the work activities monitored and any sensitive biological resources incidentally encountered during project activities.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-28 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. Cultural Resources.

Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Substantially disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

3.5.1 Environmental Setting
The information in this section is based on the Cultural Resources Inventory Report prepared for the project by Ascent in December 2024 (Appendix C).

BACKGROUND RESEARCH RESULTS
On June 18, 2024, a records search that included the project alignment and a 0.25-mile radius around the project alignment was completed at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. Review of the SCCIC records search (File No. 24-207) results revealed that there are no previously recorded resources within the project alignment, and there are four previously recorded resources within the 0.25-mile radius of the project alignment. Review of the aerial images and topographic maps did not identify any development within the project alignment. The aerials revealed that the project alignment follows Thompson Creek (i.e., San Jose Creek), which was channelized over the years.

PEDESTRIAN SURVEY
Ascent conducted an intensive archaeological survey of the entire project alignment on September 30, 2024. Overall, the survey found no presence of anthropogenic soils (i.e., midden), hearth features, or concentrations of shell, bone, or lithic materials that would have indicated the presence of a precontact indigenous archaeological deposit. No cultural resources were discovered during this survey.

POTENTIAL FOR BURIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPOSITS
The surficial soil in the project site is classified as urban land, which exists in areas of high population density in the largely built environment (USDA 2024). These soils are a mix of several soils and human-transported or “fill” materials.

Sediments within the project alignment consist of Quaternary aged deposits, consisting of Holocene (recent to 10,000 years old) and Pleistocene (10,000 to 2 million years old) marine and non-marine terrace deposits, to older Pliocene to Late Miocene (3.6 to 11.62 million years ago) marine basin deposits (Dibblee and Minch 2002). Late Pleistocene and Holocene deposits are generally considered more likely to contain precontact archaeological deposits.

Landscape evolution and historic and modern development can impair the visibility of the archaeological record, but research has shown that archaeological sites tend to occur in specific geo-environmental settings (e.g., near reliable Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-29 water sources and on stable land surfaces) rather than randomly throughout the landscape. For example, geoarchaeological studies have found that distance to water sources (e.g., stream, lake, spring) and landform slope (generally less than 18 percent) are two environmental variables that help accurately predict a location’s potential to contain buried archaeological deposits (e.g., Caltrans 2008; Caltrans 2010; Rosenthal and Meyer 2004a, 2004b). The topography of the terrain in the project site is relatively flat. However, the project site was heavily disturbed with urban landfill material. Therefore, the geography, geology, soils, and topography across most of the project site suggests that the potential for the presence of intact buried deposits of cultural resources in the project site is very low.

3.5.2 Discussion
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No impact. As described in Section 3.5.1, “Environmental Setting,” no historical resources were identified within the project site from the SCCIC record search (File No. 24-207) and pedestrian survey. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

No impact would occur.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described in Section 3.5.1, “Environmental Setting,” no archaeological resources were identified within the project site from the SCCIC record search (File No. 24-207), tribal outreach, and pedestrian survey. The project site is heavily disturbed with urban landfill material. The geography, geology, soils, and topography across most of the project site suggests that the potential for the presence of intact buried deposits of cultural resources in the project site is very low. Nevertheless, the project site may contain buried deposits in undeveloped areas and in sediments beneath the previous level of disturbance. There is potential for unknown buried archaeological resources to be uncovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed project, which could result in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 identifies procedures to follow if archaeological materials are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, which include halting work in the vicinity of the find and retaining a professional archaeologist to assess the significance of the find and provide management recommendations for the appropriate disposition of the resource.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would minimize the potential for construction activities to damage or destroy archaeological resources. Therefore, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation incorporated.
c) Substantially disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than significant impact. The discovery of human remains is not expected during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed project. However, if human remains are discovered during construction activities, the City and its contractors would be required to stop work immediately within 100 feet (30.5 meters) of the remains and notify the Los Angeles County Coroner, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner would notify the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC would designate a Most Likely Descendant. Together, the City and the Most Likely Descendant would determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.94. Because the City would be required to comply with all applicable regulations regarding the discovery of human remains, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-30 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study Required Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Resources If archaeological materials (e.g., midden soils, stone tools, chipped stone, baked clay, or concentrations of shell, bone, charcoal, glass, metal, or ceramics) are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the City and its contractors shall cease all work within 100 feet (30.5 meters) of the find and the City shall immediately retain the services of a professional archaeologist. At that time, the City shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with the archaeologist as needed to evaluate the significance of the resource pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 5024.1 and 21083.2(g) and provide proper management recommendations. If the find is determined to be a historical resource and/or a unique archeological resource, the City shall set aside contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures and/or mitigation. Possible management recommendations for significant resources could include resource avoidance or data recovery excavations. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed necessary by the archeologist for the protection of the cultural resources. The contractor shall not resume work in the area of the discovery until directed to do so by the archaeologist.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-31

3.6 ENERGY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. Energy.

Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

3.6.1 Environmental Setting

ENERGY TYPES AND SOURCES
California relies on a regional power system composed of a diverse mix of natural gas, petroleum, renewable, hydroelectric, and nuclear generation resources.

Petroleum: Petroleum products (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel) are consumed almost exclusively by the transportation sector, and account for almost 99 percent of the energy used in California by the transportation sector, with the rest provided by ethanol, natural gas, and electricity (BTS 2023). More than 13.4 billion gallons of gasoline and more than

2.9 billion gallons of diesel fuel were purchased in California in 2024 (California Department of Tax and Fee Administration 2024). Gasoline and diesel fuel sold in California for motor vehicles is refined in California to meet specific formulations required by CARB (EIA 2023).

Natural Gas: Approximately 60 percent of California households use natural gas for home heating, and about 31 percent of California’s utility-scale net electricity generation is fueled by natural gas (EIA 2023).

Electricity and Renewables: The California Energy Commission (CEC) estimates that the three investor-owned utilities expect to exceed their 2023 Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) compliance target and will have procured approximately 51 percent RPS by the end of 2023 (CEC 2023a).

Alternative Fuels: Conventional gasoline and diesel may be replaced (depending on the capability of the vehicle) with many alternative transportation fuels (e.g., biodiesel, hydrogen, electricity, and others). Use of alternative fuels is encouraged through various statewide regulations and plans (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, AB 32 Scoping Plan).

Southern California Edison (SCE) is the electricity provider for the City of Pomona and the project site. In 2023, SCE’s grid electricity supply consisted of 37.6 percent renewable energy, which included solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass and biowaste (CEC 2023b).

WARREN-ALQUIST ACT
The 1975 Warren-Alquist Act established the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, now known as the California Energy Commission (CEC). The Act established State policy to reduce wasteful, uneconomical, and unnecessary uses of energy by employing a range of measures. The California Public Utilities Commission regulates privately owned utilities in the energy, rail, telecommunications, and water fields.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-32 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY ACTION PLAN
CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The current plan is the 2008 Energy Action Plan Update (State of California 2008). The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles and addressing their infrastructure needs; and encouragement of urban design that reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTION PLAN
The 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan has three primary goals for the State: double energy efficiency savings by 2030 relative to a 2015 base year (per SB 350), expand energy efficiency in low-income and disadvantaged communities, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from buildings. This plan provides guiding principles and recommendations on how the State would achieve those goals. These recommendations include identifying funding sources that support energy efficiency programs, identifying opportunities to improve energy efficiency through data analysis, using program designs to encourage increased energy efficiency on the consumer end, improving energy efficiency through workforce education and training, and supporting rulemaking and programs that incorporate energy demand flexibility and building decarbonization (CEC 2019).

CITY OF POMONA GREEN PLAN
The City of Pomona Green Plan is a comprehensive plan designed to guide the City’s transition towards a more sustainable and energy-efficient future. The core purpose of the Green Plan is to integrate sustainable design into all aspects of the City’s operations. This includes defining actions to reduce energy costs, increase efficiencies, improve air quality, and make the City a leader in sustainable government. Policies apply to the project include the following (City of Pomona 2012):
 Policy 1.3.1: Establish land use policies that maximize returns on investment in transit, pedestrian, and bike connectivity and contribute to long-term regional mobility, livability, and sustainability.  Policy 1.3.2: Create communities and neighborhoods that are attractive, safe, and convenient for pedestrians and bicyclists.
 Policy 3.1.5: Make the city and its neighborhoods more walkable.  Policy 9.1.2: Develop programs and action plans to facilitate individual contributions to the city’s sustainability goals.

3.6.2 Discussion
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less than significant impact. Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the consideration of the energy implications of a project. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce “wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary” energy usage (PRC section 21100, subdivision [b][3]). Neither the law nor the State CEQA Guidelines establish criteria that define wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use. The following sections describe the anticipated energy consumption from construction and operational-related activities of the proposed project and design features that would be implemented to reduce the consumption of energy resources.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-33 Construction-Related Energy
Energy would be required to construct, operate, and maintain construction equipment and to produce and transport construction materials associated with construction and renovation of the proposed project. The proposed project is assumed to be constructed from January 2026 to July 2027. The one-time energy expenditure required to construct the physical bikeway and infrastructure associated with the proposed project would be nonrecoverable. Most energy consumption would result from the operation of construction equipment and vehicle trips associated with commutes by construction workers and haul trucks supplying materials (Table 3.6-1). Refer to Appendix A for detailed modeling outputs.

Table 3.6-1 Construction Energy Consumption
Phase Diesel (Gallons) Gasoline (Gallons)
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing 3,483 3,822
Linear, Grading & Excavation 47,645 15,000
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade 36,730 13,099
Linear, Paving 4,493 5,245
Total 92,351 18,343
Notes: Gasoline gallons include on-road gallons from worker trips. Diesel gallons include off-road equipment and on-road gallons from hauling and vendor trips.

Source: Calculations by Ascent Environmental in 2025.

Although construction activities would require fuel consumption, increases in fuel consumption would be temporary.

Construction contractors strive to complete construction projects in an efficient manner to meet the proposed project’s schedules and minimize cost. Thus, impacts related to construction energy use would be temporary and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new energy infrastructure.

Operation-Related Energy
The proposed project would provide pedestrians and bicyclists a safer off-street path of travel between community destinations and amenities and thus the implementation of the project could reduce transportation energy consumption associated with vehicle trips. The energy use associated with project operations would be the use of landscaping equipment (e.g., trimmers, mowers) for trailhead landscape maintenance and occasional road maintenance. Because the landscape improvements would feature low-maintenance plants that require minimal care, the use of trimmers and mowers is anticipated to be minimal. The proposed project includes solar-powered LED lighting at the trailheads and along the bike path that would operate independently of the electrical grid. Overall, operations of the proposed project would not contribute to a substantial increase in energy consumption.

Summary
The proposed project would increase energy consumption for temporary construction activities related to construction equipment use, material and worker transport. However, construction activities would be temporary and would not increase long-term energy or fuel demand. Construction activities would consume the necessary amount of fuel/energy to complete work in an efficient and timely manner. Operation of the proposed project involves minimal energy use for maintenance and would not result in increased transportation energy consumption. The overall impact would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency Less than significant impact. As discussed in Section 3.6.2(a), although implementation of the proposed project would temporarily increase the consumption of energy resources during construction, operation of the proposed project could reduce vehicle use and would not increase VMT and fossil fuels-based energy consumption in the long term. In addition, the use of solar post lights would rely on renewable energy, and thus would reduce the proposed project’s reliance on fossil fuels-based energy. The proposed project would not conflict with the State’s Energy Efficiency Action Plan to use energy more efficiently.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-34 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study Pomona's Green Plan aims to reduce automobile dependence because cars are the City's primary source of GHG emissions (Pomona 2012). The proposed project supports this goal by encouraging alternative modes of transportation, which could decrease mobile emissions. The proposed project would also improve connectivity and accessibility in a sustainable manner, aligning with the plan's goals of developing an ATP, which include a Bike Master Plan and pedestrian improvements. By enhancing walking and biking infrastructure, the proposed project promotes community action to lower carbon footprints. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact would be less than significant.

Required Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with energy. Mitigation measures are not required.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-35

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. Geology and Soils.

Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey
Special Publication 42.)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

3.7.1 Environmental Setting
The information in this section is based on the Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project by Geosyntec Consultants in 2025 (Appendix D) and a review of data published by the U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-36 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The project site is situated south of the San Jose Hills and north of the Puente Hills in the eastern portion of the Los Angeles Basin. The Los Angeles Basin is located at the northern extent of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province, which extends south into Baja California, Mexico. The Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province is characterized by a series of northwest trending mountains and valleys separated by faults that developed in response to oblique, right-lateral, strike-slip fault zones associated with the plate boundary interaction between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates (Geosyntec Consultants 2025).

The project site is north of a northwest-trending splay of the Elsinore fault located at the eastern base of the Puente and Chino Hills. The project site is also south of the San Jose fault which lies at the southeastern flank of the San Jose Hills. The San Jose fault is a northwest dipping, left-lateral reverse fault. The closest Holocene-active fault is the Duarte fault, which is part of the Sierra Madre fault zone located 7 miles northwest of the project site. The Sierra Madre fault zone is a north dipping reverse fault zone located at the southern flank of the San Gabriel Mountains (Geosyntec Consultants 2025).

The topography of the project site is relatively flat. Existing surface elevations along the proposed bikeway alignment ranging from 703 to 857 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) and existing surface elevations near the proposed bikeway undercrossing with SR 71 range from 770 to 778 feet NAVD 88 (Geosyntec Consultants 2025).

SOILS
Deposits in the vicinity of the project site are Holocene to late Pleistocene alluvium, which is underlain by Cretaceousage crystalline granitic bedrock. The near-ground surface soils (i.e., up to 3 feet below the ground surface [bgs]) consist of previously compacted materials as part of the channel walls. The near-ground surface soils along the proposed bikeway alignment generally consist of clayey sands, silty sands, and poorly graded sands. Soils behind the San Jose Creek channel wall consist of compacted fill material. The SR 71 bridge foundation is supported on native material below 767 feet MSL and structural backfill to the existing ground surface. Soils underneath the SR 71 undercrossing, from the existing ground surface to an approximate elevation of 755 feet MSL, are likely to consist of compacted fill soils and competent native soils as part of previous construction materials. Deeper materials below 755 feet MSL may include medium dense to dense silty sands, clayey sands and firm to very stiff sandy lean clays, lean clays and lean clays with sand, and silt with sand. Some interbedded gravel was also encountered at depths below 755 feet MSL (Geosyntec Consultants 2025).

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
No groundwater was encountered during subsurface investigations to a depth of approximately 50 feet bgs conducted as part of the Geotechnical Report. Groundwater information from explorations in 1966 and 1972 indicated an approximate groundwater level of about 46 feet bgs, at an approximate elevation of 726 feet. However, fluctuations in groundwater levels and the presence of perched water may occur from seasonal variations in rainfall, evaporation, construction activity, surface runoff, and other site-specific factors (Geosyntec Consultants 2025).

GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The potential for geologic hazards to occur within the project site is summarized below.

Seismic Ground Shaking
Faults are active if there has been evidence of seismic activity within the last 11,000 years. No known regional faults directly traverse the city; however, earthquakes from several active and potentially active faults in the Southern California region could result in strong seismic ground shaking within the project site. Active faults near the project site and their respective distances from the project site are provided in Table 3.7-1, along with the maximum moment magnitude, a measure of an earthquake’s size or strength, associated with each fault.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-37 Table 3.7-1 Nearby Active Faults
Fault Name Approximate Distance and Direction from the Project Site Maximum Moment Magnitude San Jose Fault 0.4 miles northwest 6.6
Indian Hill Fault 3 miles northwest 6.4
Sierra Madre Fault Zone 4.5 miles north 7.2
Elsinore Fault Zone (Chino Section) 8 miles southeast 6.6 San Antonio Fault 8.3 miles northeast 6.5
Elsinore Fault Zone (Whittier Section) 9.5 miles southwest 6.9 Yorba Linda Fault 10 miles southeast 6.4
Red Hill-Etiwanda Avenue Fault 10 miles southeast 6.2
Source: Geosyntec Consultants 2025.

Surface Rupture
Surface rupture is the visible offset of the ground surface when an earthquake rupture along a fault affects the Earth’s surface. There are no known active or potentially active faults transecting the project site and the project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo fault zone (CGS 2021). As noted in Table 3.7-1, the nearest fault, the San Jose Fault, is approximately 0.4 miles northwest of the project site. Therefore, the potential for surface fault rupture at the project site is low.

Liquefaction and Settlement
Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength or stiffness due to a buildup of pore-water pressure during severe ground shaking. Liquefaction is associated primarily with loose (low density), saturated, fine- to medium-grained, cohesionless soils. Effects of severe liquefaction can include sand boils, excessive settlement, bearing capacity failures, and lateral spreading. Seismically induced settlement consists of dry dynamic settlement (above groundwater) and liquefaction-induced settlement (below groundwater). These settlements occur primarily within loose to moderately dense sandy soil due to reduction in volume during and shortly after an earthquake event.

The portion of the project site between Temple Avenue and Fairplex Drive is within a liquefaction zone (CGS 2021). As noted above, groundwater was not encountered at depths below 50 feet bgs during recent explorations. Considering the depth of groundwater and the presence of predominantly fine-grained cohesive soils underlain by dense coarsegrained soils below 50 feet, the probability of soil liquefaction and liquefaction-induced settlement at the site is low.

Approximately 1 to 2 inches of total seismically induced settlement of unsaturated soils above the groundwater was estimated at the SR 71 undercrossing (Geosyntec Consultants 2025).

Landslides
The portion of the project site along South Campus Drive between Citrus Lane and East Campus Drive is adjacent to a parcel that is within a landslide zone (CGS 2021). However, there are no steep slopes within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, landslides are not anticipated to be a concern at the project site.

Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is the finite, lateral movement of gently to steeply sloping, saturated soil deposits caused by earthquake-induced liquefaction. Given the absence of shallow groundwater and low potential for liquefaction, the potential for lateral spreading at the project site is considered negligible.

Subsidence
Regional ground subsidence generally occurs due to rapid and intensive removal of subterranean fluids, such as water or oil. The project site is not within an area of recorded subsidence (USGS n.d.). Therefore, subsidence is not anticipated to be a concern at the project site.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-38 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study Expansive Soils
Expansive soils contain large amounts of clay particles that swell considerably when wet and shrink with the loss of water. Foundations and structures constructed on these soils can be subject to uplifting forces caused by the swelling, potentially resulting in heaving and cracking of both building foundations and slabs-on-grade. Based on an assessment of subsurface conditions, soils underlying the SR 71 undercrossing are considered to have a low potential for expansion (Geosyntec Consultants 2025). Similar soil conditions are expected in the remainder of the project site.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As described under the “Soils” section above, soils behind the San Jose Creek channel wall consist of compacted fill material. The soils underneath the SR 71 undercrossing are likely to consist of compacted fill soils and competent native soils as part of previous construction materials. These soils may contain fossil resources, depending on the source of the fill; however, any fossil resources would have been removed from their original locations and would therefore lack significance.

3.7.2 Discussion
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)
No impact. As stated in Section 3.7.1, “Environmental Setting,” the potential for surface fault rupture at the project site is low because the project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo fault zone (CGS 2021). The proposed project would involve the development of a new multi-use bikeway and landscaped trailheads. The construction of buildings or structures intended for human occupancy is not proposed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault. No impact would occur. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than significant impact. As discussed in Section 3.7.1, “Environmental Setting,” the project site is not within an active fault zone but is in proximity to several active faults that may cause strong seismic ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The proposed project would result in the construction of a new multi-use bikeway and landscaped trailheads. The proposed project does not include structures intended for human occupancy and would not involve activities that would increase public exposure to adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking. The design and construction of the proposed project would incorporate the engineering recommendations contained in the sitespecific Geotechnical Report (Geosyntec Consultants 2025), which conform with the seismic design standards in the most recent codes, standards, and manuals, including the following:
 County of Los Angeles Building Code (Title 26);
 California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2;
 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 7-16);
 Caltrans Geotechnical Manual (Caltrans 2025a) and Memo To Designers (Caltrans 2025b); and  USACE Earthquake Analysis, Evaluation, and Design for Civil Works Projects (USACE 2024).

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-39 The Geotechnical Report includes engineering recommendations related to excavation and site grading, engineered fill and structural backfill composition, compaction between proposed walls and adjacent structures, surface drainage, and the bridge foundations and retaining wall at the SR 71 undercrossing. Consequently, the potential for structural damage and secondary effects from seismic events would be minimized. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. The impact would be less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant impact. As discussed in Section 3.7.1, “Environmental Setting,” the probability of soil liquefaction and liquefaction induced settlement at the site is low (Geosyntec Consultants 2025). Further, the design and construction of the proposed project would incorporate the engineering recommendations of the site-specific Geotechnical Report (Geosyntec Consultants 2025) that conform with the seismic standards contained in the most recent codes, standards, and manuals referenced in Section 3.7.2(a)(ii) above. Consequently, the potential for structural damage and secondary effects from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be minimized. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure. The impact would be less than significant. iv) Landslides?
No impact. As stated in Section 3.7.1, “Environmental Setting,” landslides are not anticipated to be a concern because there are no steep slopes within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects involving landslides. No impact would occur. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would involve approximately 6 acres of ground disturbance during construction activities. On-site soils would be particularly prone to erosion during excavation and site development, especially if construction activities were to coincide with heavy rains. Because the proposed project would involve the disturbance of more than one acre of soil, the City would be required to submit a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to obtain approval to carry out construction activities under the NPDES Construction General Permit (Order 2009-0009-DWQ). The NPDES Construction General Permit requires the construction contractor to prepare and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). SWPPPs must include erosion and sediment control measures such as covering exposed soil stockpiles and working slopes, lining the perimeter of the construction site with sediment barriers, and protecting storm drain inlets. Therefore, substantial sedimentation and erosion would not occur during construction.

Once operational, the project site would be developed with pavement, permeable pavers, decomposed granite, and landscaping, which would minimize the area of bare ground that would be subject to erosion. Implementation of these project features would prevent increases in peak flow and runoff duration in a manner that artificially accelerates erosion and sedimentation. Therefore, substantial erosion and siltation would not occur during operations.

Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

The impact would be less than significant.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less than significant impact. As described in Section 3.7.1, “Environmental Setting,” the potential for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse at the project site are anticipated to be low. The design and construction of the proposed project would incorporate the engineering recommendations of the site-specific Geotechnical Report (Geosyntec Consultants 2025) that address unstable oils. Specifically, if undocumented fill or unsuitable native soils, including unstable soils, are locally identified, they would be overexcavated to expose firm soil following the recommendations of an on-site geotechnical engineer. The resulting subgrade would subsequently be Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-40 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study scarified and conditioned. The excavated material would be replaced with general engineered fill or structural fill and compacted according to the most current Caltrans Construction Manual (Caltrans 2024) requirements. The on-site geotechnical engineer may recommend collecting localized shallow samples for testing against collapse and expansion (Geosyntec Consultants 2025). Therefore, the proposed project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The impact would be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than significant impact. As described in Section 3.7.1, “Environmental Setting,” soils underlying the project site are considered to have a low potential for expansion (Geosyntec Consultants 2025). As discussed under Section

3.7.2(c), the design and construction of the proposed project would incorporate the engineering recommendations of the site-specific Geotechnical Report (Geosyntec Consultants 2025) that address unstable oils, including expansive soils. Any unstable soils encountered during project construction would be overexcavated to expose firm soil following the recommendations of an on-site geotechnical engineer. The resulting subgrade would be scarified and conditioned. The excavated material would be replaced with general engineered fill or structural fill and compacted according to the most current Caltrans Construction Manual (Caltrans 2024) requirements. The on-site geotechnical engineer may recommend collecting localized shallow samples for testing against collapse and expansion (Geosyntec Consultants 2025). Therefore, the proposed project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property as a result of expansive soils. The impact would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No impact. The City operates and maintains a sanitary sewer system. The proposed project would not result in an increase in wastewater generation in the city and would not involve the installation or use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to soils incapable of supporting these systems.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would require excavation to a maximum depth of 10 feet. Ground disturbance would be limited to compacted fill soils and competent native soils as part of previous construction materials. These soils may contain fossil resources, depending on the source of the fill; however, the fossil resources would have been removed from their original locations and would therefore lack significance. Excavation would not extend into native soils that are sensitive for supporting paleontological resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The impact would be less than significant.

Required Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with geology and soils. Mitigation measures are not required.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-41

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

3.8.1 Environmental Setting

SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE The phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect keeps the atmosphere near the earth’s surface warm enough for the successful habitation of humans and other life. Present in the earth’s lower atmosphere, GHGs play a critical role in maintaining the earth’s temperature. Sunlight—including infrared, visible, and ultraviolet radiation—passes through the atmosphere. Some of the sunlight striking the earth is absorbed and converted to heat, which warms the surface.

The surface emits infrared radiation to the atmosphere, where some of it is absorbed by GHGs and re-emitted toward the surface; some of the heat is not trapped by GHGs and escapes into space. Human activities that emit additional GHGs into the atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that gets absorbed before escaping into space, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect and amplifying the warming of the earth (IPCC 2013).

Increases in fossil fuel combustion and deforestation have exponentially increased concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), human influence has warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2,000 years. In addition, the IPCC reported with high confidence that in 2019, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations were higher than at any time in at least 2 million years, and reported with very high confidence that 2019 concentrations of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) were higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years. Rising atmospheric concentrations of GHGs in excess of natural levels enhance the greenhouse effect, which contributes to global warming of the earth’s lower atmosphere. This warming induces large-scale changes in ocean circulation patterns, precipitation patterns, global ice cover, biological distributions, and other changes to the earth’s system that are collectively referred to as climate change. The scale of recent changes across the climate system as a whole and the present state of many aspects of the climate system are unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years. IPCC also reports that many changes in the climate system become larger in direct relation to increasing global warming, including increases in the frequency and intensity of hot extremes, marine heatwaves, and heavy precipitation, agricultural and ecological droughts in some regions, and proportion of intense tropical cyclones, as well as reductions in Arctic sea ice, snow cover, and permafrost. In addition, low-likelihood outcomes, such as ice sheet collapse, abrupt ocean circulation changes, some compound extreme events, and warming substantially greater than the assessed very likely range of future warming cannot be ruled out (IPCC 2022).

GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and TACs. Criteria air pollutants and TACs occur locally or regionally, and local concentrations respond to locally implemented control measures. However, the long atmospheric lifetimes of GHGs allow them to be transported great distances from the original emissions source.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-42 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study GHGs and global climate change therefore represent cumulative impacts; that is, GHG emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change.

PRINCIPAL GREENHOUSE GASES
As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15364.5 (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]), GHGs include the following gases: CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorinated carbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor, the most abundant GHG, is not included in this list because its natural concentrations and fluctuations far outweigh its anthropogenic (humanmade) sources. The primary GHGs associated with implementation of the proposed project are CO2, CH4, and N2O.

APPLICABLE GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATIONS
There is no overarching federal law specifically related to climate change or the reduction of GHG emissions.

The State of California has adopted several laws addressing various aspects of climate change, GHG mitigation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. Much of this establishes a broad framework for the State’s long-term GHG and energy reduction goals and climate change adaptation program. Governors have also issued several executive orders (EOs) related to the state’s evolving climate change policy.

Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 In September 2006, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, AB 32, was signed into law. AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.

AB 32 also requires that (a) the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit remain in effect unless otherwise amended or repealed, (b) the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit continue in existence and be used to maintain and continue reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases beyond 2020, and (c) [CARB] shall make recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on how to continue reductions of greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020 (Health and Safety Code, Division 25.5, Part 3, section 38551). For the purposes of AB 32 and other legislation in California, GHGs are expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). CO2e is a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. This potential, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere.

Executive Order B-30-15
On April 20, 2015, EO B-30-15 established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

The EO aligns California’s GHG reduction targets with those of leading international governments such as the 28- nation European Union, which adopted the same target in October 2014. California has met the target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32, discussed above). California’s new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 sets the next interim step in the State’s continuing efforts to pursue the long-term target expressed under EO S-3-05 to reach the ultimate goal of reducing emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This target is in line with the scientifically established levels needed in the U.S. to limit global warming below 2 degrees Celsius (°C), the warming threshold at which major climate disruptions are projected, such as super droughts and rising sea levels.

Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 of 2016
In August 2016, Senate Bill (SB) 32 and AB 197 were signed into law, which serve to extend California’s GHG reduction programs beyond 2020. SB 32 amended the Health and Safety Code to include section 38566, which contains language to authorize CARB to achieve a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. SB 32 codified the targets established by EO B-30-15 for 2030, which set the next interim step in the State’s continuing efforts to pursue the long-term target expressed in EOs S-3-05 and B-30-15 of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-43 Climate Change Scoping Plan and Updates
Reducing GHG emissions in California has been the focus of the State government for approximately two decades. GHG emission targets established by the State legislature include reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (AB 32 of 2006) and reducing them to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32 of 2016). EO S-3-05 calls for statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. EO B-55-18 calls for California to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045 and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter. These targets align with the scientifically established levels needed globally to limit the rise in global temperature to no more than 2°C, the warming threshold at which major climate disruptions, such as super droughts and rising sea levels, are projected. These targets also align with efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C (UN 2015:3).

The 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2022 Scoping Plan), prepared by CARB, focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities (CARB 2022). The 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan is built on the 2017 Scoping Plan (CARB 2017), which traces the pathway for the State to achieve its carbon neutrality and an 85 percent reduction in 1990 emissions goal by 2045 using a combined top down/bottom up approach using various scenarios. The State has also passed more detailed legislation addressing GHG emissions associated with industrial sources, transportation, electricity generation, and energy consumption.

Senate Bill X1-2, the California Renewable Energy Resources Act of 2011 and Senate Bill 350, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015
SB X1-2 of 2011 requires all California utilities to generate 33 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020. SB X1-2 sets a three-stage compliance period requiring all California utilities, including independently owned utilities, energy service providers, and community choice aggregators, to generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewables by December 31, 2013; 25 percent by December 31, 2016; and 33 percent by December 31, 2020. SB X1-2 also requires the renewable electricity standard to be met increasingly with renewable energy that is supplied to the California grid from sources within, or directly proximate to, California. SB X1-2 mandates that renewables from these sources make up at least 50 percent of the total renewable energy for the 2011-2013 compliance period, at least 65 percent for the 2014– 2016 compliance period, and at least 75 percent for 2016 and beyond. In October 2015, SB 350 was signed into law, which requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2030. This legislation is expected to increase the renewable energy resources sold to retail customers over time, which will reduce GHG emissions associated with District-related electricity consumption over time.

South Coast Air Quality Management District
As described in Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” the proposed project lies within the Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD. SCAQMD is primarily responsible for developing and implementing rules and regulations for attainment of the NAAQS and CAAQS, developing AQMPs, permitting new or modified sources, and adopting and enforcing air pollution regulations within the Basin. The ability of SCAQMD to control emissions (both criteria pollutants and GHGs) is provided primarily through permitting, but also through their role as a CEQA lead or commenting agency, the establishment of CEQA thresholds, and the development of analytical requirements for CEQA documents.

In the 2008 through 2010 timeframe, SCAQMD convened a series of GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group sessions and developed draft thresholds for stationary sources and land use development projects. Following public review, SCAQMD formally adopted the 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) threshold for stationary/industrial facilities where SCAQMD is the lead agency (SCAQMD 2008b). For land use development projects, SCAQMD proposed two different approaches to be taken by lead agencies when analyzing GHG emissions:
 Option #1 includes using separate numerical thresholds for residential projects (3,500 MTCO2e/year), commercial projects (1,400 MTCO2e/year), and mixed-use projects (3,000 MTCO2e/year).  Option #2 includes use of a single numerical threshold for all nonindustrial projects of 3,000 MTCO2e/year. (SCAQMD 2010).

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-44 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study SCAQMD noted in its draft thresholds guidance that use of these thresholds was only a recommendation for lead agencies and not a mandatory requirement. While these land use development thresholds may be used at the discretion of the local lead agency, these thresholds have not been adopted by SCAQMD.

Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is the regional planning agency for the project area. SCAG develops plans pertaining to transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, housing, and air quality. In 2024, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal 2024, the area’s RTP/SCS. SCAG was tasked by CARB to achieve an 8 percent per capita reduction compared to 2005 level emissions by 2020 and a 19 percent per capita reduction by 2035, which CARB confirmed the region would achieve by implementing its SCS (CARB 2020, SCAG 2024).

3.8.2 Discussion
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than significant impact. GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be generated only during construction duration. Construction emissions are analyzed in the following section. Implementation of the proposed project would facilitate alternative modes of transportation through improving the connectivity of the existing active transportation network. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase vehicle travel or GHG emissions associated with mobile sources.

Construction
Project-related construction activities would result in GHG emissions from the use of heavy-duty off-road construction equipment, delivery trucks associated with materials transport, and vehicle use during worker commute.

Construction activities are anticipated from January 2026 to July 2027. Construction-related emissions were estimated using CalEEMod with a combination of project-specific data and model defaults. Data provided by the design team and model defaults, where information was unavailable, were used to estimate the amount of activity and emissions associated with each phase. Refer to Appendix A for detailed modeling outputs.

Table 3.8-1 provides a summary of the estimated construction emissions that would occur during construction period.

Consistent with SCAQMD guidance, total construction emissions are summed and amortized over a 30-year project life to determine the significance of the proposed project’s GHG emissions impacts. The SCAQMD recommended threshold for all nonindustrial land use development projects of 3,000 MTCO2e/year is applied in this analysis to determine if emissions of GHGs from the proposed project would be significant for both construction and operational impacts. As shown in Table 3.8-1, the total GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would be 1,269 MTCO2e. When amortized over 30 years, the construction emissions generated by the proposed project would be 42 MTCO2e, which is well below SCAQMD’s recommended threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year.

Table 3.8-1 Proposed Project-Generated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Construction Phases Total GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing 69
Linear, Grading & Excavation 618
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade 490
Linear, Paving 92
Total Construction Emissions 1,269
Amortized Construction Emissions (over 30 years) 42
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding; GHG = greenhouse gas; MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2025.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-45 Consistent with SCAQMD guidance, total construction emissions are summed and amortized over a 30-year project life and added to operational emissions to determine the significance of the proposed project’s GHG emissions impacts. As mentioned above, project-level GHG emissions are inherently cumulative; therefore, the construction emissions listed in Table 3.8-1 are considered as part of the GHG emissions for the proposed project lifecycle, including GHG emissions during operation.

Operation
Once operational, the proposed project could reduce vehicle use by allowing pedestrians and bicyclists a safe path that could encourage reduced vehicle use in the area. The GHG emissions associated with operation would be minimal, and would be primarily associated with the use of landscaping equipment (e.g., trimmers, mowers) to maintain the pathway as well as occasional maintenance of the pathway itself. Project operation would also include solar-powered LED lighting at the trailheads and along the path. Because the lighting system would operate independently of the electrical grid, no operational GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption would occur. Since implementation of the proposed project would not contribute to increased vehicle use, project generated GHG emissions would be minimal and would result in a less than significant impact on the environment.

Summary
The GHG emissions from the proposed project are expected to be primarily associated with construction activities.

Operational emissions of the proposed project are expected to be minimal, as the project will provide a pathway for pedestrian and bicycle use. Therefore, GHG emissions level generated by the construction and operations of the proposed project would not exceed thresholds. This impact would be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than significant impact. The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out the pathway to achieve the State’s carbon neutrality goal and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045. The Local Actions Appendix (Appendix D) to the 2022 Scoping Plan includes various recommendations that local governments can implement to align their planning and development review processes with the State’s climate goals. The guidance recommends that local governments focus on transportation electrification, VMT reduction, and building decarbonization (CARB 2022).

As discussed in Section 3.8.2(a), the GHG emissions from the proposed project are expected to be minimal. The proposed project does not add capacity for vehicular travel and would not induce additional vehicle trips to the project area. Instead, the proposed project enhances connectivity within the existing active transportation network, encouraging walking and biking as alternatives to driving. As a result, the proposed project will not contribute to increased vehicle traffic, road congestion, or idling emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This impact would be less than significant.

Required Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigation measures are not required.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-46 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and/or accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

3.9.1 Environmental Setting

PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND REGULATORY DATABASE SEARCHES The project site consists of existing flood control and transportation infrastructure and is primarily surrounded by urban development, consisting of one- and two-story residences, commercial and industrial facilities, parks, and schools. No facilities or sites meeting the Cortese List requirements were identified within the parcels that encompass the proposed project alignment, based on a review of the following data resources:
 List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from the DTSC’s EnviroStor Database (DTSC 2023);  List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank sites from the SWRCB’s GeoTracker Database (SWRCB 2023); Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-47  List of solid waste disposal sites identified by the SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit (CalEPA 2016a);
 List of active Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from the SWRCB (CalEPA 2016b); and  List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, identified by DTSC (CalEPA 2023).

AIRPORT HAZARDS
The Brackett Field Airport is located at 1615 McKinley Avenue in the City of La Verne, approximately 1.5 miles north of the project site. The Brackett Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan governs development in the vicinity of the airport to minimize the public’s exposure to safety hazards and noise. The approximately 0.5-mile segment of the project site west of Kellogg Park is not within the airport’s influence area; however, the remainder of the project site is in Compatibility Zone E. Within Compatibility Zone E, most land uses are normally acceptable; however, the height limit for structures in this zone is 150 feet above runway elevation. This zone encompasses areas that are outside of the airport’s 55 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour where effects from airport noise are considered low (LA County ALUC 2015).

EMERGENCY PLANS
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works designates disaster routes, which are freeways, highways, or arterial streets pre-identified for use during times of crisis. These routes are utilized to bring in emergency personnel, equipment, and supplies to affected areas to save lives, protect property, and minimize effects on the environment.

Within the city, Valley Boulevard, Mission Boulevard, N Garey Avenue, Arrow Highway, and Foothill Boulevard are identified as disaster routes. SR 57, SR 60, SR 71, I-10, I-210 are identified as freeway disaster routes (LADPW 2008).

WILDLAND FIRE RISK
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), the city is within a local responsibility area and most of the project site is mapped as a non-very high fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ); however, the westernmost portion of the project site from Temple Avenue to approximately 0.1 mile east of Temple Avenue extends into moderate and high FHSZs (CAL FIRE 2025).

3.9.2 Discussion
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than significant impact. The use of the proposed project facilities by bicyclists, pedestrians, and other recreationists would not result in the release of hazardous materials. Relatively small amounts of commonly used hazardous substances (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, grease, solvents, cleaners, paints, pesticides, and fertilizers) would be utilized during construction and routine maintenance activities for the proposed project. These materials are not considered acutely hazardous and are used routinely throughout urban environments. Furthermore, these materials would be transported, used, disposed of, and handled in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. Applicable regulations include, but are not limited to, the following: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which includes requirements for hazardous solid waste management; the Department of Toxic Substances Control Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste (CCR Title 22, Division 4.5), which include standards for generators and transporters of hazardous waste; and the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health’s standards for workplace health and safety. Use of these common hazardous substances for their intended purpose during construction and routine maintenance activities would not pose a significant risk to the public or environment. Based Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-48 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study on the above discussion, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The impact would be less than significant. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than significant impact. As described in Section 3.9.2(a), the use of the proposed multi-use bikeway and landscaped trailheads by bicyclists, pedestrians, and other recreationists would not result in the release of hazardous materials. Construction and routine maintenance activities would involve the use of hazardous substances (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, grease, solvents, cleaners, paints, pesticides, and fertilizers); however, these materials are not considered acutely hazardous and are used routinely throughout urban environments. Use of hazardous materials during construction activities would be subject to compliance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials, as listed in Section 3.9.1(a) above. Compliance with these regulations would reduce the potential for hazardous materials to be released to the environment during construction and routine maintenance activities. In addition, the City would be required to implement a SWPPP during construction activities, which would prevent any contaminated runoff from leaving the project site.

No facilities or sites meeting the Cortese List requirements were identified within the parcels that encompass the proposed project alignment. Therefore, project construction would not result in the disturbance of contaminated sites with potential to release hazardous materials into the environment. Accordingly, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The impact would be less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than significant impact. Schools within 0.25 miles of the project site include the following: John Marshall Middle School (adjacent to the project site); Arroyo Elementary School (adjacent to the project site); Kellogg Polytechnic Elementary School (less than 0.1 mile south of the project site); Cal Poly Pomona (less than 0.1 mile north of the project site); Ganesha High School (less than 0.1 mile north of the project site); International Polytechnic High (0.1 mile west of the project site); and Cortez Mathematics and Science Magnet (0.1 mile north of the project site).

As described in Sections 3.9.2(a) and (b), the construction and routine maintenance activities for the proposed project would involve the use of hazardous materials (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, grease, solvents, cleaners, paints, pesticides, and fertilizers); however, these materials are not considered acutely hazardous and would be used in limited quantities. In addition, the transportation, storage, use, and disposal of such hazardous materials during construction activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. No facilities or sites meeting the Cortese List requirements were identified within the parcels that encompass the proposed project alignment. Therefore, project construction would not result in the disturbance of contaminated sites with potential to release hazardous materials into the environment. Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The impact would be less than significant.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No impact. As discussed in Section 3.9.1, “Environmental Setting,” the parcels that encompass the project site are not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. Project construction would not result in the disturbance of contaminated sites with potential to release hazardous materials Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-49 into the environment. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Less than significant impact. As discussed in Section 3.9.1, the project site is 1.5 miles south of Brackett Field Airport. The approximately 0.5-mile segment of the project site west of Kellogg Park is not within the airport’s influence area; however, the remainder of the project site is in Compatibility Zone E. The proposed project would not introduce vertical structures that would exceed the 150-foot height limit for structures within Compatibility Zone E; therefore, the proposed project would not result in safety hazards from inference with aircraft. The proposed project would not result in the construction of structures intended for human occupancy. Bicyclists and pedestrians using the multi-use trail would experience occasional overflight noise within the project site; however, noise levels would not be considered excessive because the project site is outside of the airport’s 55 dB CNEL noise contour. For reference, background noise levels in urban environments in proximity to highways, such as the project site, can range from 70 to 80 a-weighted decibels (dBA) (FHWA 2003). Based on the above discussion, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The impact would be less than significant. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than significant impact. During project construction, temporary lane closures would be required for activities within roadway rights-of-way. The proposed project would also result in minor improvements and changes to circulation patterns on existing roadways at the locations of the proposed at-grade street crossings. For example, the proposed project would involve reconfiguration of vehicle through-lanes and turn lanes and installation of curb extensions, raised bollards, curb ramps with landing areas, and concrete floating bulbouts within roadway rights-ofway. Affected roadways would include Kellogg Drive, Ridgeway Street, Fairplex Drive, Glen Avenue, Dudley Street, and Weber Street. As described in Section 3.9.1, “Environmental Setting,” these streets are not identified as disaster routes (LADPW 2008). Regardless, any temporary lane closures and permanent roadway improvements would need to be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Public Works Department and the Los Angeles County Fire Department prior to issuance of any permits or rights of entry. This process would ensure that project implementation does not interfere with emergency response and evacuation. Therefore, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The impact would be less than significant. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Less than significant impact. As described in Section 3.9.1, “Environmental Setting,” a small portion of the project site extends into moderate and high FHSZs in the local responsibility area; however, the project site is located within a developed, urban area and is not adjacent to wildland areas. The proposed project would not result in the construction of habitable structures and or otherwise increase the number of people residing in the area. While the project would introduce a multi-use bikeway that would be used by pedestrians and cyclists, use of the project site would be intermittent and would not substantially increase the number of people exposed to wildfire risk. In addition, the project would not introduce new fuel sources or features that would increase the likelihood or intensity of wildland fire. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. The impact would be less than significant.

Required Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials.

Mitigation measures are not required.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-50 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. Hydrology and Water Quality.

Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or groundwater quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or siltation; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

3.10.1 Environmental Setting
The information in this section is based on the Hydrology Report prepared for the proposed project by Craftwater Engineering, Inc. in 2024 (Appendix E) and a review of data published by the City, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, California Department of Water Resources, and Federal Emergency Management Agency.

SURFACE WATER
The project site is within the San Gabriel River watershed, which encompasses over 640 square miles. The San Gabriel River watershed headwaters originate in the San Gabriel Mountains, located north of the City of Pomona. The San Gabriel River flows for approximately 58 miles, receiving drainage from a large area of eastern Los Angeles County Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-51 before reaching the Pacific Ocean (City of Pomona 2014b). The project alignment is adjacent to San Jose Creek, which is one of the major tributaries to the San Gabriel River.

The segment of San Jose Creek along the proposed project alignment is identified as San Jose Creek Reach 2 (Temple Avenue to I-10 at White Avenue) in the Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Basin Plan). For this waterbody, municipal and domestic water supply is identified as a potential beneficial use, groundwater recharge and warm freshwater habitat are identified as intermittent beneficial uses, and wildlife habitat is identified as an existing beneficial use. The waterbody is listed on the 303(d) Impaired Water Bodies List for indicator bacteria, which is being addressed by EPA-approved total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) (LARWQCB 2022).

STORMWATER DRAINAGE
The project site is split into seven main drainage areas, separated by intersecting streets. Drainage within each of these areas typically flows into the San Jose Creek channel, except for one small area west of Ridgeway Street where runoff drains away from the channel (Craftwater Engineering, Inc. 2024).

GROUNDWATER
The Main San Gabriel Basin (Basin) underlies the project site. The Basin serves as the major source of water supply to about 1.4 million residents in the 19 cities overlying the Basin. The Basin covers a surface area of approximately 167 square miles. It is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains on the north, the Raymond fault on the northeast, a system of low rolling hills (Repetto, Merced, Puente, and San Jose Hills) on the west and south, and by the bedrock high between San Dimas and La Verne on the east. The Whittier Narrows, a 1.5-mile gap between the Merced and Puente Hills, forms the only exit for the Basin surface water and groundwater (LARWQCB 2020).

The Main San Gabriel Watermaster is responsible for managing the Basin’s groundwater quantity and quality. The groundwater level in the Baldwin Park Key Well is used by the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster to monitor changes in the Basin’s groundwater supply. In July 2023, the water level in the Basin was recorded at 231.3 feet bgs.

The historic low water level was recorded at 169.4 feet bgs in November 2018 and the historic high water level was recorded at 295.3 feet bgs in July 1983 (Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster 2023).

Sources of water for recharge in the Basin include precipitation on the valley floor; percolation of water applied for irrigation (groundwater, local surface water, treated imported water, and recycled water); artificial recharge with local stormwater and untreated imported water; percolation of recycled water discharged from water reclamation plants to unlined portions of the San Gabriel River, San Jose Creek and Rio Hondo; and subsurface inflow (LARWQCB 2020).

Designated beneficial uses of the Basin’s groundwater are municipal and domestic water supply, industrial service supply, industrial process supply, and agricultural supply (LARWQCB 2020; Table 2-2). Based on evaluation of groundwater quality conditions in the Basin from 2001/2002 through 2011/2012, concentrations of nitrate, chloride, sulfate and total dissolved solids were found to be below the water quality objectives (LARWQCB 2020).

Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), California’s groundwater basins are categorized as high-, medium-, low-, or very low-priority basins. SGMA requires medium- and high-priority basins to develop groundwater sustainability agencies, develop groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) and manage groundwater for long-term sustainability. DWR classifies the Basin as a very low-priority basin; as such, a GSP has not been prepared for the Basin. The Basin is not identified as a critically overdrafted groundwater basin (DWR 2020).

WATER SUPPLY
The City’s water supply sources include groundwater pumped from the Chino Basin, Spadra Basin, and Six Basins; treated, imported surface water purchased from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) through Three Valleys Municipal Water District; local surface water from San Antonio Creek; and recycled water purchased from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. The City’s total water supply in 2020 was 21,174 acre-feet (AF), of Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-52 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study which 12,013 AF (57 percent) came from groundwater, 4,484 AF (21 percent) was imported from MWD, 2,975 AF (14 percent) came from surface water, and 1,702 AF (8 percent) came from recycled water (City of Pomona 2021).

The City’s water demands from 2016 to 2020 averaged approximately 21,957 AF per year, while projected water use is anticipated to range from 24,708 AF in 2025 to 28,088 AF in 2045. Due to conservation efforts and demand management measures, the City’s recent water demands have been less than its historical water demands, including during long-term droughts. The City’s projected water demands (during a normal year, a single dry year, and a five consecutive year drought conditions) are anticipated to incorporate similar reductions in water use rates as a result of the shortage response actions, ongoing conservation efforts, and demand management measures. Because the City’s projected water demands are similar to its historical water demands, it is anticipated the City will be able to continue providing sufficient water supplies to its customers to meet projected water demands, including during long-term droughts (City of Pomona 2021).

FLOOD RISK
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the project site is within Zone X, which is an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2008). However, localized flooding or water ponding has potential to occur where off-site flows from SR 71 enter the project site at the SR 71 undercrossing (Craftwater Engineering, Inc. 2024). The project site is over 26 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and is not within a mapped tsunami hazard area (CGS 2009). In addition, no enclosed water bodies are adjacent to or up gradient of the project site. Therefore, flooding from a tsunami or seiche is not considered a potential hazard at the project site.

3.10.2 Discussion
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less than significant impact. Construction activities could potentially violate applicable water quality standards by introducing pollutants to stormwater runoff. There are two primary ways that construction activities could adversely affect water quality: ground disturbance and pollutant spills or leaks. Ground disturbance such as vegetation removal, compaction, grading, and temporary soil stockpiling could potentially increase sediment levels in stormwater runoff by eroding soils that have been loosened or newly exposed by construction activity. Materials that could spill or leak during construction include diesel fuel, gasoline, lubrication oil, cement slurry, hydraulic fluid, antifreeze, transmission fluid, lubricating grease, and construction-related trash and debris. The use of these materials would be limited to the minimum necessary to fuel vehicles, power equipment, and complete activities. Improper management of hazardous materials could result in accidental spills or leaks, which could locally contaminate stormwater runoff.

As described in Section 3.10.1, the proposed project would be constructed along a segment of San Jose Creek that is listed on the 303(d) list for indicator bacteria and for which EPA-approved TMDLs have been established (LARWQCB 2022). Nitrate, chloride, sulfate, and total dissolved solids were detected in groundwater samples from the Basin at levels below the established water quality objectives (LARWQCB 2020).

The proposed project would involve approximately 6 acres of ground disturbance. Potential water quality impacts associated with construction would be temporary and highly localized. Because the proposed project would involve more than 1 acre of ground disturbance, the City would be required to submit a Notice of Intent to the SWRCB in order to obtain approval to carry out construction activities under the NPDES Construction General Permit. This permit includes a number of design, management, and monitoring requirements to protect water quality and reduce impacts related to stormwater (and some non-stormwater) discharges during construction. Compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit requires that a SWPPP be developed, which would identify stormwater collection and discharge points and outline best management practices (BMPs) for preventing water quality degradation. At a minimum, BMPs would include erosion controls (e.g., mulches, soil binders, erosion control blankets/mats, outlet projection/energy dissipation devices), sediment controls (e.g., silt fences, fiber rolls, gravel bags), tracking controls Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-53 (e.g., stabilized construction entrance/exit, entrance/outlet tire wash), wind erosion controls, non-stormwater management, and materials and water management (cleanup and containment of trash and debris, stockpile management, spill prevention and control, hazardous waste management). Implementation of the BMPs included in the SWPPP would protect water quality by reducing construction-induced erosion and sedimentation at the project site and by reducing the amount of sediment and other potential water pollutants that leave the site. The SWPPP would also include hazardous materials BMPs necessary to prevent or contain any spills or leaks that may be associated with construction equipment and materials.

As discussed in Section 2.5.5, “Freeway Undercrossings,” the proposed project would include a new drainage system to prevent ponding conditions at the SR 71 undercrossing. An approximately 600-square-foot dry dock would be temporarily placed within the channel (i.e., less than 30 days) during construction of the drainage system at the SR 71 undercrossing. San Jose Creek is likely subject to regulation by USACE, LARWQCB and/or CDFW. As identified in Section 2.8, “Required Permits and Approvals,” the City may be required to obtain the following permits and approvals prior to initiating construction activities within the San Jose Creek channel:
 Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the LARWQCB. This certification is granted when an applicant demonstrates that the activity complies with applicable water quality requirements, which include water quality standards, effluent limitations, new source performance standards, toxic pollutants restrictions.  Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) from USACE for the construction, expansion, modification, or improvement of linear transportation projects that involve the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. This Nationwide Permit authorizes temporary structures, fills, and work necessary to construct a linear transportation project. The permit process requires applicants to incorporate appropriate measures to maintain normal downstream flows and minimize flooding to the maximum extent practicable when temporary structures, work, and discharges of dredged or fill material are necessary for construction activities. The Nationwide Permit requires that temporary fills consist of materials and be placed in a manner that will not be eroded by expected high flows. In addition, temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to preconstruction elevations. The Nationwide Permit specifies general conditions that the permittee must comply with, including soil erosion and sediment controls, removal of temporary structures, proper maintenance of authorized structures (USACE 2022).  Section 408 permit from USACE for activities that involve alteration or modifications to the flood control channel.

The permit is granted when an applicant demonstrates that the requested alteration does not increase life safety risks and does not impair the usefulness of the USACE civil works project.  Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW for any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. The agreement includes conditions to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential negative impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitats, ensuring the protection of these resources.

Required coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit, Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 14, Section 408 Permit, and/or Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement would ensure compliance with water quality standards in the Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through 1616 that are protective of water quality. For these reasons, construction activities would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

Implementation of the proposed project would not change the existing land use designations of the project site. The proposed project would not introduce new point sources of pollutants or discharges, such as industrial facilities.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements related to non-stormwater discharges.

The project site is primarily covered with impervious surfaces and would continue to be primarily impervious after project implementation. The proposed project would not result in a net increase in impervious surface area and drainage patterns would remain similar to existing conditions; therefore, future stormwater discharge from the Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-54 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study project site would be similar in volume and quality to existing conditions. Therefore, there is no requirement to implement BMPs to manage runoff. However, the proposed project incorporates site design BMPs and low impact development features, which would manage more stormwater runoff than existing conditions. Landscaping, permeable pavers, and decomposed granite would be installed at the trailheads to minimize stormwater runoff.

Furthermore, a bioswale is proposed at the Fairplex Drive trailhead to store and infiltrate stormwater runoff from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the volume or decrease the quality of stormwater runoff flowing from the project site into the City’s storm drain system.

Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. The impact would be less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than significant impact. As described in Section 3.7.1, no groundwater was encountered during subsurface investigations conducted as part of the Geotechnical Report (Geosyntec Consultants 2025). Excavation required for proposed project construction would extend to a maximum depth of 10 feet bgs. Therefore, groundwater would not likely be encountered during construction. However, perched water conditions could occur on top of the lower permeability fine-grained layers. The contractor would be required to verify groundwater levels prior to construction.

If groundwater is encountered, the contractor would collect and convey the water to storm drainage devices near the project site (Geosyntec Consultants 2025). Additionally, construction activities would result in a temporary increase in water consumption for cleaning surfaces, mixing with concrete or other materials, suppressing dust, and establishing plants. The relatively minor water supply needed for proposed construction activities would not consume a substantial amount of water supplies. Therefore, construction activities would not result in a substantial decrease in groundwater supplies.

Once operational, the proposed project would not contribute to an increase in population growth in the City. The proposed project would result in a minor increase in water consumption for landscape maintenance. Water consumption would be greatest during the plant establishment period; however, the landscape plan includes native plants and other water-efficient landscaping that would require little water beyond normal rainfall. Water consumption for operational maintenance activities would be relatively minor. Because the proposed project would not substantially increase demands for water usage in the City compared to existing conditions, it would not result in a substantial decrease in groundwater supplies.

Under existing conditions, the project site is primarily impervious and, therefore, does not provide for substantial groundwater recharge. The proposed project would not result in a net increase in impervious surface area, and the project site would remain primarily impervious. Landscaping, permeable pavers, and decomposed granite would be installed at the trailheads to minimize runoff and allow water to permeate into the soil. Furthermore, a bioswale is proposed at the Fairplex Drive trailhead to store and infiltrate stormwater runoff from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table.

Based on the above discussion, the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The impact would be less than significant.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-55 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or siltation; Less than significant impact. During construction of the proposed project, flow patterns on the project site may be temporarily altered due to grading activities. As discussed in Section 3.10.2(a), the proposed project would be required to comply with the conditions of the NPDES Construction General Permit. A SWPPP would be prepared and implemented, which would include erosion controls BMPs (e.g., mulches, soil binders, erosion control blankets/mats, outlet projection/energy dissipation devices), sediment controls (e.g., silt fences, fiber rolls, gravel bags), tracking controls (e.g., stabilized construction entrance/exit, entrance/outlet tire wash), wind erosion controls, non-stormwater management, and materials and water management (cleanup and containment of trash and debris, stockpile management, spill prevention and control, hazardous waste management). Implementation of the BMPs included in the SWPPP would reduce the potential for construction-related erosion and siltation at the project site.

In addition, as discussed in Section 3.10.2(a), an approximately 600-square-foot dry dock would be temporarily placed within the channel (i.e., less than 30 days) during construction of the drainage system at the SR 71 undercrossing.

Prior to initiating construction within the channel, the City would be required to obtain coverage under the Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 14, Section 408 Permit, and/or Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement, which would ensure compliance with water quality standards in the Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through 1616 that are protective of water quality. These permits would identify conditions to reduce construction-related erosion and siltation, which may include minimizing the area of disturbance, installing sediment control measures, stabilizing disturbed areas, and implementing runoff control measures similar to those described above for the NPDES Construction General Permit.

Once operational, the proposed project would maintain overall drainage patterns at the project site. The proposed project design incorporates site design BMPs and low impact development requirements to reduce the amount of pollution that enters the City’s storm drain system. The project site would be developed with pavement, permeable pavers, decomposed granite, and landscaping, which would minimize the area of bare ground that would be subject to erosion. Implementation of these project features would prevent increases in peak flow and runoff duration in a manner that artificially accelerates erosion and sedimentation. Therefore, substantial erosion and siltation would not occur during operations.

Based on the above discussion, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in substantial on- or off-site erosion or siltation. The impact would be less than significant. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
Less than significant impact. During construction of the proposed project, drainage patterns and runoff quantities on the project site may be temporarily altered due to grading activities. Compliance with a project-specific SWPPP, and specifically the use of runoff-control devices, would ensure that runoff quantities are controlled to the extent practicable, to prevent flooding or ponding of excess water on the project site.

The proposed project would not result in a net increase in impervious surface area and drainage patterns would remain similar to existing conditions; therefore, future stormwater discharge from the project site would be similar in volume and quality to existing conditions. Landscaping, permeable pavers, and decomposed granite would be installed at the trailheads to minimize runoff and allow water to permeate into the soil. To prevent ponding conditions at the SR 71 undercrossing, the proposed project would include a new drainage system with backflow prevention measures at drainage outlets. The drainage system includes a drop inlet grate that is designed to handle flows from 100-year storm events and a secondary inlet to prevent ponding in the event the primary inlet is overwhelmed or clogged. To further prevent ponding, a trench drain would also be installed on the west side of the Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-56 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study SR 71 undercrossing to intercept off-site runoff from SR 71. Runoff from the new drainage system would be directed into the San Jose Creek channel (Craftwater Engineering, Inc. 2024). Because the proposed project would be designed to have adequate drainage, flooding or ponding of excess water would be avoided.

Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. The impact would be less than significant. iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
Less than significant impact. During construction of the proposed project, drainage patterns and runoff quantities may be temporarily altered in the project site due to grading activities. Compliance with a project-specific SWPPP, and specifically the use of runoff-control devices, would ensure that runoff quantities are controlled to the extent practicable, to avoid overwhelming the existing stormwater drainage system. Furthermore, the SWPPP would contain the project-specific BMPs that would help prevent construction-related pollutants, such as sediments and fuels for equipment, from entering stormwater runoff. Through compliance with the SWPPP, construction of the proposed project would not provide a substantial source of polluted runoff, nor would it substantially increase runoff volumes leading to exceedances in the storm drain capacity.

As described in Section 3.10.2(a), stormwater runoff volumes and stormwater runoff quality would not differ substantially from existing conditions during operations. Landscaping, permeable pavers, and decomposed granite would be installed at the trailheads to minimize runoff. In addition, a bioswale is proposed at the Fairplex Drive trailhead to store and infiltrate stormwater runoff from the project site. The proposed project would not result in a net increase in impervious surface area and drainage patterns would remain similar to existing conditions; therefore, future stormwater discharge from the project site would be similar in volume and quality to existing conditions.

Furthermore, the project site would not change existing land use designations at the project site and would not introduce new sources of pollutants. For these reasons, operational activities at the project site would not create or contribute to additional runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The impact would be less than significant. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
No impact. As discussed in Section 3.10.1, the project site is within Zone X, which is an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2008). The proposed project would not place new structures within a flood hazard area. Therefore, the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No impact. As discussed in Section 3.10.1, the project site is not within a flood or tsunami hazard area and is not in proximity to an enclosed waterbody that could generate a seiche (FEMA 2008, CGS 2009). Therefore, the proposed project would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation. No impact would occur. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than significant impact. The potential for the proposed project to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan is described in the following sections.

Water Quality Control Plan
The project site is under the jurisdiction of LARWQCB. The Basin Plan is the water quality control plan of the LARWQCB. The Basin Plan, adopted in September 2014 and last updated in May 2020, contains the region’s water quality regulations and programs for implementing these regulations (LARWQCB 2020).

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-57 Construction activities would be subject to the requirements of the LARWQCB to ensure that stormwater pollutants resulting from construction would not substantially degrade water quality. As discussed in Section 3.10.2(a) above, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit. To comply with the General Permit, an NOI for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities and a Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted to the LARWQCB. In addition, the proposed project would include construction site BMPs identified in the SWPPP to control erosion and sedimentation. Construction activities would also comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements to reduce the potential for the release of hazardous waste and other contaminants into groundwater (refer to Section 3.9.2[a] for a list of applicable requirements related to hazardous materials and wastes).

Implementation of the proposed project would not change the existing land use designations of the project site. The proposed project would not introduce new point sources of pollutants or discharges, such as industrial facilities.

Because the proposed project would not result in a net increase in impervious surfaces, stormwater discharges from the project site would be of similar volume and quality to existing conditions. Furthermore, the proposed project design incorporates site design BMPs and low impact development requirements to reduce the amount of pollution that enters the City’s storm drain system. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would comply with the water quality regulations established in the Basin Plan.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
As described in Section 3.10.1, DWR classifies the Basin as a very low-priority basin; as such, a GSP has not been prepared for the Basin. The Basin is not identified as a critically overdrafted groundwater basin (DWR 2020).

Regardless, the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin (refer to Section 3.10.2[b] for additional information). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan.

Summary
Because the proposed project would comply with all applicable permits and regulations governing the protection of water quality, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan of the LARWQCB. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in the unsustainable consumption of water resources or otherwise interfere with groundwater recharge of the Basin, for which a GSP is not required. Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The impact would be less than significant.

Required Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with hydrology and water quality. Mitigation measures are not required.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-58 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. Land Use and Planning.

Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

3.11.1 Environmental Setting

EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING
The project site consists of existing flood control and transportation infrastructure and is primarily surrounded by urban development, consisting of one- and two-story residences, commercial and industrial facilities, parks, and schools. The existing land use designations for the project site are Special Campus, Workplace District Edge, Residential Neighborhood, Neighborhood Edge, and Open Space. The project site is zoned for publicly owned land (O), residential (R-1-6000, R-1-PD, and R-2), and light industrial (M-1) uses.

APPLICABLE LAND USE PLANS
City of Pomona Active Transportation Plan
The City’s ATP was adopted to support the continued improvements of the City’s bicycling and walking environment.

The ATP provides detailed direction on how to continue the City’s progress toward a better bicycling and walking environment by proposing a system of bikeways connecting neighborhoods to key activity centers throughout the City, developing support facilities (e.g., bike parking) and education programs, and identifying recommendations for improving bicyclist safety. The ATP also contains detailed recommendations for improving pedestrian safety and comfort at intersections and for prioritizing the installation of sidewalks where they do not currently exist (Fehr & Peers 2012).

City of Pomona Green Plan
The City’s Green Plan contains recommendations intended to reduce the City’s energy consumption through integrating sustainable design into all aspects of the City’s operations. The Green Plan includes sections dedicated to the following topics: community strategies for land use and community design, community and municipal green building strategies, community and municipal strategies for efficient transportation, renewable energy and lowcarbon fuels, open space and carbon storage and offset strategies, water and wastewater management, waste reduction and recycling strategies, climate friendly purchasing, and promoting community and individual actions (City of Pomona 2012).

Southern California Association of Governments’ 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal)
The Southern California Association of Governments’ 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal) is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-59 sustainable growth pattern. Connect SoCal is intended to chart a path toward a more mobile, sustainable, and prosperous region by making connections between transportation networks, between planning strategies and between the people whose collaboration can improve the quality of life for Southern Californians (SCAG 2020).

3.11.2 Discussion
a) Physically divide an established community?
No impact. The proposed project would primarily be constructed within LACFCD right-of-way along a segment of San Jose Creek that is currently inaccessible to the public. The proposed project would involve the construction and operation of a multi-use bikeway with 15 access points including six at-grade street crossings along its 3.5-mile alignment. The proposed project is intended to provide pedestrians and bicyclists with a safer off-street path of travel between community destinations and amenities in the city, which include Cal Poly Pomona, the Los Angeles County Fairplex, regional transit and bikeway connections, various parks and schools, and commercial shopping centers. No permanent street or sidewalk closures would be required to implement the proposed project; rather, the proposed project would increase the connectivity of existing circulation patterns for pedestrians and bicyclists within the City of Pomona. Any temporary lane closures and permanent roadway improvements within public rights-of-way would be reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department and the Los Angeles County Fire Department prior to issuance of any permits or rights of entry. This process would ensure that access for the traveling public is maintained throughout the duration of construction. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community and no impact would occur.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No impact. The project site is zoned for publicly owned land, residential, and light industrial uses and consists of existing flood control and transportation infrastructure. The proposed project would include the construction of a bike and pedestrian path within LACFCD rights-of-way. Project activities would comply with the City’s development code requirements and would not require any changes to existing zoning.

The proposed project would be consistent with the following sustainability and transportation plans, which have been adopted in part for reducing VMT and associated air pollutant and GHG emissions and energy consumption throughout the Los Angeles region:
 The proposed project would implement a Tier 1 priority project in the City’s ATP (Fehr & Peers 2012) and would help the City meet its goals in improving the safety and sustainability of the local transportation system.  The proposed project would be consistent with policies in the City’s Green Plan (City of Pomona 2012), including actions to improve access, mobility, connectivity, and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.  The proposed project would be consistent with the goals and guiding principles in the Southern California Association of Governments’ 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal) of improving mobility and travel safety and increasing travel choices within the regional transportation system (SCAG 2020).

Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not result in conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and no impact would occur.

Required Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with land use and planning. Mitigation measures are not required.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-60 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. Mineral Resources.

Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

3.12.1 Environmental Setting
The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 requires the State Geologist to classify land into Mineral Resource Zones according to the known or inferred mineral potential of that land. The California Division of Mines and Geology (now known as the California Geological Survey) classifies most of the city, including the project site, as PRZ-3 (i.e., areas containing construction aggregate deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data) (Division of Mines and Geology 1981). However, the City does not have active aggregate operations or land designated for Portland cement concrete-grade aggregate within its jurisdiction (CGS 2007, Table 1). In addition, the City has not delineated any locally important mineral resources or recovery sites in its General Plan (City of Pomona 2014a).

3.12.2 Discussion
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
and
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No impact. As discussed in Section 3.12.1, “Environmental Setting,” the City does not have active mining operations or land designated for mineral resources recovery within its jurisdiction. The project site consists of flood control and transportation infrastructure; it is not currently used for mineral resource extraction, and the City does not have plans to use the site for mineral resource extraction in the future. Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to mineral resources.

Required Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with mineral resources. Mitigation measures are not required.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-61

3.13 NOISE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. Noise.

Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies, or a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in noise levels
above existing ambient levels that could result in an
adverse effect on humans?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

3.13.1 Environmental Setting
Prior to discussing the environmental setting and applicable noise standards, the following definitions of technical noise terms referenced throughout this section are provided.  Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): CNEL is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10-decibel (dB) penalty applied to sound levels that occur during the nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and a 5-dB penalty applied to the sound levels that occur during evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. (Caltrans 2013: 2-48).  Equivalent Continuous Sound Level (Leq): Leq represents an average of the sound energy occurring over a specified period. In effect, Leq is the steady-state sound level containing the same acoustical energy as the timevarying sound level that occurs during the same period (Caltrans 2013: 2-48). For instance, the 1-hour equivalent sound level, also referred to as the hourly Leq, is the energy average of sound levels occurring during a 1-hour period.
 Maximum Sound Level (Lmax): Lmax is the highest instantaneous sound level measured during a specified period (Caltrans 2013: 2-48; FTA 2018: 207).
 Peak Particle Velocity (PPV): PPV is the peak signal value of an oscillating vibration waveform and is usually expressed in inches per second (in/sec) (FTA 2018: Table 5-1).  Root Mean Square (RMS): RMS is the square root of the mean-square value of an oscillating waveform, where the mean-square value is obtained by squaring the value of amplitudes at each instant of time and then averaging these values over the sample time (FTA 2018: 197).

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-62 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

EXISTING NOISE- AND VIBRATION-SENSITIVE LAND USES
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in healthrelated risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels, and because of the potential for nighttime noise to result in sleep disruption. The City of Pomona General Plan identifies that noise-sensitive receptors include residences, schools, childcare facilities, convalescent centers, and retirement homes (City of Pomona 2014a: 158). The area surrounding the 3.5-mile bikeway alignment is primarily developed with public/institutional, residential, and commercial land uses. Existing sensitive receptors along the 3.5-mile alignment were identified using aerial imagery and their approximate distance from the proposed project was determined from the nearest edge of the proposed alignment. As detailed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the proposed project alignment varies in width between 16 feet and 35 feet and includes areas along the north and south sides of the channel. Existing sensitive receptors along the 3.5-mile proposed alignment include singlefamily residences, multi-family residences, Cal Poly Pomona, Kellogg Park, John F. Kennedy Park, Kellog Polytechnic Elementary School, John Marshall Middle School, Arroyo Elementary School, and Inland Church. Single-family residences are located as close as 15 feet of construction activities in some areas along the alignment.

Table 3.13-1 identifies nearby sensitive receptors, land use types, and the distance from the property line to the nearest construction activity. It is important to note that, given the linear nature of construction, one sensitive receptor identification number could correspond with multiple sensitive receptors near the known location of construction. For example, noise- and vibration-sensitive receptor (NVSR) 2 represents residential uses along Lancer Avenue, all within the same distance to the project.

Table 3.13-1 Existing Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses Sensitive Receptor ID NVSR Description Land Use Type Distance (feet) to Project Site NVSR 1 Cal Poly Pomona University Village Residential 170 NVSR 2 Residences along Lancer Avenue Residential 55
NVSR 3 Residences along Kellogg Park Drive West of SR 57 Residential 70 NVSR 4 Residences along Kellogg Park Drive East of SR 57 Residential 83 NVSR 5 Residences along Kellogg Park Drive East of Du
Pont Place
Residential 72
NVSR 6 Residences along Canterbury Avenue Residential 119 NVSR 7 Residences along Kellogg Park Drive, East of SR 71 Residential 26 NVSR 8 Residences along Kellogg Park Drive, East of
Arroyo Drive
Residential 40
NVSR 9 Residences along Avalon Avenue Residential 70
NVSR 10 Residences along Surrey Lane Residential 68
NVSR 11 Residences between Glen Avenue and N Dudley
Street
Residential 15
NVSR 12 Residences along Arroyo Park Drive Residential 15 NVSR 13 Residences along Pavilion Drive Residential 15
NVSR 14 Residences between Gothic Way and Casa Vista
Drive
Residential 20
Notes: NVSR = Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Receptor; SR = State Route.

Source: Modeled by Ascent in 2025.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-63

EXISTING NOISE SOURCES
The project site is within a developed and urban landscape. Existing noise is largely associated with vehicular traffic along SR 57, SR 71, and I-10. Additional sources of transportation noise in the project area include local and arterial roadways that are parallel to or cross the project site; Amtrak and Metrolink trains that operate on the railroad located approximately 1,030 feet south of the project site; and the Brackett Field Airport, located approximately 1.5 miles north of the project site. Stationary noise sources include commercial land uses in the western portion of the project area.

APPLICABLE NOISE AND VIBRATION STANDARDS
California Department of Transportation
Caltrans provides guidelines for evaluating potential damage to buildings from groundborne vibration, including transportation- and construction-induced vibration (Table 3.13-2).

Table 3.13-2 Caltrans Guideline Threshold Criteria for Potential Vibration Damage Structure and Condition Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Source
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.20 0.10
Historic and some old buildings 0.50 0.25
Older residential structures 0.50 0.30
New residential structures 1.00 0.50
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.00 0.50
Notes: PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second. Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Source: Caltrans 2013: Table 19.

City of Pomona Municipal Code
Article VII of the City of Pomona Municipal Code establishes specific designated noise zones, exterior noise level limits, vibration standards, exemptions, and abatement recommendations for stationary noise. The following subsections include relevant text from the City noise ordinance.

Section 18-305 Exemptions
(3) Noise sources associated with or vibration created by construction, repair, remodeling or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided such activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday, and provided the noise level created by such activities do not exceed the noise standard of 65 dB(A) plus the limits specified in section 18-311(b) as measured on residential property and any vibration created does not endanger the public health, welfare and safety.

Section 18-306 Variances
(a) The owner or operator of a noise or vibration source which violates any of the sections of this article may file an application with the chief of police for a variance from the sections of this article wherein such owner or operator shall set forth all actions taken to comply with such sections, the reasons why immediate compliance cannot be achieved, a proposed method of achieving compliance, and a proposed time schedule for its accomplishment. The application shall be accompanied by a fee set by resolution of the city council. A separate application shall be filed for each noise source; provided, however, that several mobile sources under common ownership or several fixed sources on a single property may be combined into one application. An application for a variance shall remain subject to prosecution under the terms of this article until a variance is granted.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-64 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study Section 18-309 Vibration
Notwithstanding other sections of this article, it shall be unlawful for any person to create, maintain or cause any ground vibration which is perceptible without instruments at any point on any affected property adjoining the property on which the vibration source is located. For the purpose of this article, the perception threshold shall be presumed to be more than 0.05 inch per second root mean square (RMS) vertical velocity.

Section 18-311 Exterior Noise Standards
(a) The following noise standards [as shown in Table 3.13-3], unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all property within a designated noise zone:

Table 3.13-3 Exterior Noise Standards
Noise Zone Time Interval Allowable Noise Level (dBA)
Zone 1: Single-family residential properties 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 60
Zone 2: Multi-family residential properties 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 65
Zone 3: Commercial properties 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 60 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 65
Zone 4: Industrial properties Any 70
Zone 5: High-traffic corridors Any 70
Notes: dBA = a-weighted decibel
Source: City of Pomona 2025.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the city to create any noise or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person which causes the noise level, when measured on any other property, to exceed the following  The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour;  The noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour;  The noise standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour;  The noise plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour; or  The noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time.

In addition to exterior noise standards, Section 18-312 establishes interior residential noise standards of 40 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and 50 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (c) If the ambient noise level exceeds any of the noise limit categories in subsections (b)(1) through (4) of this section, the cumulative period applicable to such category shall be increased to reflect such ambient noise level. If the ambient noise level exceeds the noise limit category in subsection (b)(5) of this section, the maximum allowable noise level under such category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.

Section 18-313 Schools, Churches, Libraries, and Health Care Institutions It shall be unlawful for any person to create a noise which causes a noise level at any school, hospital or similar health care institution, church, or library, while such is in use, to exceed the noise standards specified in Section 18-311 prescribed for the assigned noise zone in which the school, hospital, church or library is located or which noise level unreasonably interferes with the use of such institutions or which unreasonably disturbs or annoys patients in a hospital, convalescent home or other similar health care institution, provided conspicuous signs are displayed in three separate locations within one-tenth mile of the institution or facility indicating a quiet zone.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-65

3.13.2 Discussion
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, or a substantial temporary or permanent increase in noise levels above existing ambient levels that could result in an adverse effect on humans?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Once constructed, the proposed project would not introduce any major sources of long-term operational noise. Operational noise associated with the proposed project would primarily consist of people talking and cyclists passing along the alignment. The trailhead gateway areas would consist of passive uses (e.g., seating areas) that do not require operational noise equipment (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment). Noise associated with regular maintenance of the trail (e.g., landscaping) would take place between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday and between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday in accordance with Section 18-305 of the City Municipal Code and thus would be exempt from City noise standards.

For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in adverse long-term operation noise levels. Therefore, this analysis focuses on construction noise.

To assess potential short-term (construction-related) noise impacts, sensitive receptors and their relative exposure to construction activities were identified using aerial imagery. Project-generated construction source noise levels were determined based on methodologies, reference noise emission levels, and usage factors from the FTA Guide on Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment methodology (FTA 2018) and FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide (FHWA 2006). Reference noise levels for specific equipment or activity types are well documented, and their usage is common practice in the field of acoustics.

Construction of the proposed project would involve minor grading of the existing dirt path, paving of the new path, construction of the trailhead amenities and landscape/hardscape areas, curb cuts/access ramp construction near specific intersections, and construction in the SR 71 underpass area. Construction equipment that would be used for these activities include backhoes, compactors, concrete saws, dump trucks, excavators, pavers, loaders, and water trucks. Construction equipment with substantially higher noise- and vibration-generation characteristics, such as pile drivers and blasting, is not anticipated to be used during any phase of construction. The typical maximum noise levels (i.e., Lmax) for several pieces of equipment anticipated to be used during proposed project construction are presented in Table 3.13-4. However, construction equipment operates in alternating cycles of full power and low power, producing average noise levels less than the maximum noise level.

Table 3.13-4 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment Equipment Type Typical Maximum Noise Level (dBA Lmax) at 50 feet Backhoe 78
Concrete Saw 90
Dump Truck 76
Trucks 75
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Lmax = maximum noise level.

Assumes all equipment is fitted with a properly maintained and operational noise control device, per manufacturer specifications. Noise levels listed are manufacture-specified noise levels for each piece of heavy construction equipment.

Source: FTA 2018.

To calculate the estimated noise levels from construction, four construction activities that would occur along the alignment were modeled. The estimated noise levels from construction were modeled using calculation methods consistent with FTA guidance and project-specific construction details (i.e., types of construction equipment) (see Appendix F for modeling details). Due to the small work area and spatial constraints associated with operating heavy equipment near one another on a small project site such as a linear alignment, construction noise modeling assumed Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-66 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study that one piece of equipment would be operating at a time. For the resurfacing of the existing path and paving of the new path, reference noise levels for compact equipment were used.

Article 18 of the City of Pomona Municipal Code establishes noise thresholds intended to protect the community from adverse noise impacts. Section 18-305 exempts construction noise between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

Monday through Saturday provided that the noise level does not exceed 65 dBA, plus the limits specified in Section 18-311(b). Section 311(b) of the Municipal Code states that if the ambient noise level exceeds the noise category in subsection (b)(3) of the Municipal Code section, the maximum allowable noise level under such category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.

To determine the existing ambient noise level in areas along the alignment near I-10, traffic noise modeling of I-10 was conducted (Appendix F). Based on the traffic noise modeling, 70 dBA and 65 dBA noise contours for I-10 extend approximately 286 feet and 904 feet from the centerline of the eastbound travel line, respectively. There are sensitive receptors located within 286 feet of I-10 and therefore, at those locations, in accordance with Section 18-311(b), a higher noise level (i.e., 90 dBA Lmax obtained by adding 20 dBA per Section 18-311(b) of the Municipal Code to existing levels of 70 dBA for concrete saw activities) is applied. For three of the four construction modeling scenarios (i.e., surfacing of the dirt path, paving of the new path, and construction in the SR 71 underpass area), the Leq noise metric is the most appropriate for evaluating construction noise, and thus is applied to these scenarios. For the fourth construction modeling scenario (i.e., curb cuts/access ramp construction near specific intersections) that would involve the short-term activity of a concrete saw cutting into concrete, the Lmax noise metric is the most appropriate and thus is applied for that scenario.

To provide additional context, FTA recommends that an Leq be used to evaluate construction noise due to the fluctuation in noise throughout any given hour, as equipment move around a site, start/stop, and activities change throughout the day. Therefore, the Leq (or hourly average noise level) is an appropriate metric to measure human response to such fluctuations in activities. The municipal code standards present an Leq, percentile noise metrics, and a maximum noise level (i.e., Lmax). FTA also recommends the use of an Lmax, which could be appropriate for noise sources that generate consistently high noise levels but for short periods of time (e.g., saw). Percentile noise metrics are not typically applied to construction noise sources because it is impossible to predict the duration of a noise generating activity (e.g., how long a saw runs for in any given hour), which is required to evaluate percentile noise levels. The Leq metric and methodology used to model construction noise, per FTA guidance, applies typical usage factors for each piece of equipment; thus, the Leq represents the typical fluctuations is individual noise sources. For these reasons, this analysis applies the Leq noise standards to typical mobile equipment (e.g., pavers, dozers, excavators) and the Lmax metric for discrete, high noise-generating activities (i.e., concrete saw).

Table 3.13-5 provides a summary of the modeled construction activities, estimated construction noise levels from each activity at 50 feet, the distance within which the applicable construction noise standard would be exceeded, and the noise level at the sensitive receptors within the impact distance.

As shown in Table 3.13-5, noise from construction activities would range between 48.6 dBA Leq and 90.0 dBA Lmax at 50 feet and expose nearby receptors to noise levels as high as 100.5 dBA Lmax. Construction noise would exceed applicable noise thresholds at seven sensitive receptors (i.e., NVSR 5, NVSR 8, NVSR 9, and NVSRs 11-14). In some locations, barriers that would reduce construction noise levels are located between the construction site and sensitive receptors. However, many receptors do not have such barriers, or the barrier is not solid and would not reduce noise levels (e.g., wooden fence). Therefore, sensitive receptors along the alignment could be exposed to noise levels that exceed the applicable noise standards.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-67 Table 3.13-5 Construction Noise Modeling Results Summary Construction Activity Construction
Equipment
Modeled
Noise Level at
50 feet
NVSR Near
Construction
Activities
Applicable
Noise Threshold
Distance within
Which Threshold
is Exceeded
(feet)
Sensitive Receptors
within Threshold
Distance and
Distance from
Activity
Noise Level at
Sensitive Receptor(s)
within Threshold
Distance
Exceeds
Threshold?
Surfacing Dirt Path Front End Loader 48.6 dBA Leq NVSR 2 – 5, NVSR 7 – 14
65 dBA Leq 8 None N/A No
Paving New Path Paver 57.6 dBA Leq NVSR 2 – 5, NVSR 7
– 14
65 dBA Leq 21 1. NVSR 11 – 13 (15
feet)

2. NVSR 14 (20 feet)

1. 68.0 dBA Leq

2. 65.5 dBA Leq
Yes
Curb Cuts/Access
Ramp Construction at
Intersections 904+
feet from I-10
Concrete Saw 90.0 dBA Lmax NVSR 1, NVSR 5,
NVSR 9
85 dBA Lmax 89 1. NVSR 5 (85 feet)

2. NVSR 9 (80 feet)

1. 85.4 dBA Lmax

2. 85.9 dBA Lmax
Yes
Curb Cuts/Access
Ramp Construction at
Intersections within
286 feet of I-10
Concrete Saw 90.0 dBA Lmax NVSR 8, NVSR 11,
NVSR 12, NVSR 14
90 dBA Lmax 50 1. NVSR 8 (40 feet)

2. NVSR 11 – 12 (15
feet)

3. NVSR 14 (25 feet)

1. 91.9 dBA Lmax

2. 100.5 dBA Lmax

3. 96.0 dBA Lmax
Yes
Construction in SR 71
Underpass Area
Backhoe 74.0 dBA Leq NVSR 6 65 dBA Leq 110 None N/A No
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibel; I = Interstate; Leq = hourly-average noise level; Lmax= maximum instantaneous noise levels; NVSR = Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Receptor; SR = State Route Source: Modeling conducted by Ascent in 2025.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-68 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study In addition, based on the modeling conducted, construction could result in a substantial increase in noise levels over existing ambient noise levels (e.g., greater than 10 dBA increase). In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1 to 2 dB are generally not perceptible. However, it is widely accepted that people can begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5‑dB increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10-dB increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness (Caltrans 2013: 2-10).

Elevated noise levels associated with construction of the bikeway would be temporary because equipment would move quickly along the alignment as construction progressed. Construction activities next to any given sensitive receptor would generally last less than one day. Therefore, construction activities would not affect any one offsite area for extended periods of time and an individual receptors’ exposure to increased noise would be limited.

Furthermore, a substantial increase in noise itself does not necessarily constitute a significant noise impact, as long as overall noise exposure is below an acceptable level (FTA 2018). This is partly because people get accustomed to the surrounding noise environment until it becomes increasingly worse, in which case continual increases in noise tend to result in more people being adversely affected. Because construction activities would not occur during evening and nighttime hours (i.e., between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.) and construction noise would be temporary (i.e., a day or less) near any one residential receptor, project construction would not result in adverse health effects such as sleep disruption. However, because construction activities would exceed the daytime construction noise standards established by the City, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require the implementation of all available noise control methods, which would ensure that construction does not result in excessive noise. The effectiveness of the required mitigation measure would vary from several decibels (which in general is a relatively small change) to up to 13 decibels when a temporary noise curtain is used (which is perceived by receptors as a substantial change or a reduction by half). Installation of a noise barrier, for example, would vary in effectiveness depending upon the degree to which the line-of-sight between the source and receptor is broken, and typically ranges from 5 to 10 dB (NCHRP 1999). Installation of more effective silencers could reduce noise levels ranging from several decibels to well over 10 decibels. Reduction of idling equipment could also reduce overall noise levels from barely any reduction to several decibels. Assuming the greatest potential reduction of 13 dB, the highest construction noise levels modeled (100.5 dBA Lmax) would be reduced to approximately 88 dBA Lmax.

Therefore, with mitigation, temporary construction noise levels would be substantially reduced and would not exceed the applicable noise thresholds as shown in Table 3.13-5. For these reasons, temporary noise impacts associated with construction of the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project would not introduce any major sources of long-term or permanent ground vibration such as commercial railways or passenger rail transit lines and thus would not result in long-term operational activities associated with such sources. Therefore, this analysis focuses on vibration impacts associated with construction of the proposed project.

To assess potential short-term (construction-related) vibration impacts, sensitive receptors and their relative exposure were identified. Vibration levels were determined based on methodologies, reference vibration emission levels, and usage factors from the FTA Guide on Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Methodology (FTA 2018).

Although vibration-inducing activity is noted in Section 13-305, “Exemptions,” of the City Municipal Code, Section 18- 309, “Vibration,” establishes a perception threshold of 0.05 in/sec RMS velocity, which would apply to all vibrationinducing activities. Regarding structural damage from vibration, the City has not established quantitative thresholds; thus, in this analysis, the Caltrans threshold for structural damage to older residences from continuous/frequent intermittent equipment (i.e., 0.30 in/sec PPV) is applied (Caltrans 2020: 38).

Construction activity can generate various levels of vibration depending on the specific activity (e.g., paving, pile driving) and the construction equipment being used. Based on the proposed construction activity and types of equipment that could be used, a vibratory roller, which is typically associated with paving activities, is anticipated to generate the highest levels of vibration during construction of the proposed project. Reference vibration levels for a vibratory roller are 0.20 in/sec PPV (used to evaluate structural damage) and 0.053 in/sec RMS (used to evaluate perception) at 25 feet (FTA 2018).

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-69 Operation of a vibratory roller would exceed the thresholds for structural damage (i.e., 0.30 in/sec PPV) within 20 feet of construction activity. Existing property lines are within 20 feet of construction activity in some locations (e.g., NVSR 11, NVSR 12, NVSR, 13, and NVSR 14); however, structures on properties are setback in many cases and therefore the likelihood of vibration levels causing damage to nearby structures would be minimal. Nonetheless, provided the variability in setback distances from structures to their property lines and the variability in the distance of construction activities to the structures, it is possible that vibratory equipment could occur within impact distances described above.

Operation of a vibratory roller would also exceed the City vibration perception threshold (i.e., 0.05 in/sec RMS) within 26 feet of activity (see Appendix F for detailed modeling inputs). As described above, receptors are located within 26 feet of construction activities; thus, vibration could exceed perception thresholds during paving activities. Vibration levels from vibratory equipment have the potential to exceed structural damage and perception thresholds and this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2 includes a requirement to opt for non-vibratory paving equipment when such activities would occur within 26 feet of nearby structures and property lines. This equipment type would ensure vibration levels would not exceed applicable thresholds and this impact would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No impact. As discussed in Section 3.9.2(e), the project site is 1.5 miles south of Brackett Field Airport. Construction workers and bicyclists and pedestrians using the multi-use trail would experience occasional overflight noise within the project site; however, noise levels would not be considered excessive because the project site is outside of the airport’s 55 dB CNEL noise contour (LA County ALUC 2015). No impact would occur.

Required Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Reduce Construction-Related Noise To reduce noise from construction activities, the City shall require construction contractors to implement the following, or equally effective measures, to reduce the noise impact to less than significant:

Equipment Restrictions
 Locate all stationary equipment (e.g., generators) on the construction site as far away from adjacent residential land uses and other noise-sensitive sites as possible.
 Position on-site stationary equipment such that existing noise sources (e.g., roadways) or structures (e.g., existing buildings, walls) block the line of sight between the on-site equipment and off-site sensitive land uses where excessive exterior noise could cause a disruption.
 All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise-reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations. Equipment engine shrouds will be closed during equipment operation.

Quieter Alternative Methods and Equipment
 The construction contractor shall use noise reducing operations measures, techniques, and equipment. This requirement will be enforced through its inclusion on all construction bid specifications for all potential construction contractors hired within the proposed project. The bid specifications will require that construction contractors provide an equipment inventory list for all equipment within the fleet which includes (at a minimum), make, model, and horsepower of equipment; operating noise levels at 50 feet, available noise control device that are installed on each piece of equipment; and associated noise reduction from the installed technology. Control devices will include, but are not limited to, high-efficiency mufflers, acoustic dampening and protected internal noise absorption layers to vibrating panels, enclosures, and electric motors. In addition, the contractor will specify Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-70 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study how proposed alternative construction procedures will be employed to reduce noise at sensitive receptors compared to other more traditional methods. Examples include mixing concrete off-site instead of on-site and using thermal lance instead of drive motors and bits. In all cases, the requirement is that the best commercially available noise-reducing technology and noise-reducing alternative construction method will be used, if there are no safety concerns, engineering limits, or environmental constraints preventing it from being used. If a unique circumstance does exist that prevents an alternative quieter construction method from being used, the contractor will provide evidence to support their proposal. The noise reduction elements of construction bid submittals will be approved by the City in coordination with a qualified acoustical professional.  Combine noisy operations (e.g., saw cutting) to occur at the same time (e.g., day or construction phase), such that the overall duration of these activities is reduced to the greatest extent possible. The total noise level produced will not be substantially greater than the level produced if the operations were performed separately, and the total duration of sensitive receptor noise exposure to substantial noise levels will be reduced.  The construction contractor shall post signage in conspicuous locations that includes a telephone number where violations can be reported, the location of the job site, and the issued permit number authorizing work.

Noise Curtains
For construction activities within the following distances of offsite sensitive receptors, temporary sound barriers to attenuate noise, such as temporary noise curtains, sound walls, or similar products that provide a barrier to attenuate construction noise shall be installed. The temporary sound barrier shall be located between the project construction noise sources and receptors to shield the receptors and shall be installed so as to reduce construction noise levels by 13 dBA. When sensitive receptors are located within 21 feet of paving, 89 feet of concrete sawing when 904 feet or more away from I-10, and 50 feet of concrete sawing when within 286 feet of I-10, the temporary noise barriers shall meet the following parameters:
 Temporary noise curtains shall be made of noise-resistant material sufficient to achieve a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of STC 30 or greater or to reduce construction noise by at least 13 dBA.  The barrier must be long and tall enough to completely block the line-of-sight between the noise source and the sensitive receptor.
 The gaps between adjacent panels must be filled in (i.e., be free of gaps that would allow noise to pass through the barrier) so as to maximize the effectiveness of the barrier.

In all cases, regardless of the construction methods, equipment used, and construction scheduling and phasing, the above mitigation measures will be implemented by the construction contractor(s) based on finalized construction work plans, and will be verified by an acoustic professional either through on-the-ground noise monitoring during construction activities, or based on the construction work plan and specific equipment/methods to be used.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Reduce Construction-Related Vibration To reduce vibration levels from construction activities, during any vibration-inducing activity (typically associated with paving activities for this project type), no vibratory equipment shall be used within 26 feet of existing occupied structures or property lines. Non-vibratory pavers and compactors may be used in lieu of vibratory rollers, such that the maximum (i.e., 0.05 RMS or 0.30 in/sec PPV) vibration limit would not be exceeded at any point within adjacent properties of occupied structures or damage any nearby structures.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-71

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. Population and Housing.

Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

3.14.1 Environmental Setting
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2022 population in the City of Pomona was 146,017 residents. Based on the 2017- 2021 American Community Survey, there were approximately 41,457 households in the City of Pomona (U.S. Census Bureau 2022). The project site consists of flood control and transportation infrastructure and does not contain residential housing.

3.14.2 Discussion
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No impact. The growth inducing potential of a project would typically be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population greater than what is assumed in applicable land use plans. Significant growth impacts could also occur if a project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate levels of growth beyond levels currently permitted by local or regional plans or policies.

The proposed project does not include the development of residential or commercial uses and would not include the extension of roads or other infrastructure to previously undeveloped areas. Rather, the proposed project is intended to provide pedestrians and bicyclists with a safer off-street path of travel between existing community destinations and amenities in the city. This multi-use bikeway is intended to serve the existing community and would not be expected to attract new residents to the area. Accordingly, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the city. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to population growth.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No impact. As stated in Section 3.14.1, “Environmental Setting,” the project site is dedicated for flood control and transportation infrastructure and does not contain residential housing. Accordingly, the proposed project would not displace people or housing and would not require the construction of replacement housing. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to displacement of people or housing.

Required Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with population and housing. Mitigation measures are not required.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-72 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. Public Services.

Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, or the need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

3.15.1 Environmental Setting

FIRE PROTECTION
The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) provides fire protection and life safety services within 60 cities and all unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. In 2021, LACoFD responded to 403,924 service calls, including calls for emergency medical services, fire, mutual aid, and hazardous materials response (LACoFD 2022). LACoFD Division 8 serves the City of Pomona and operates nine fire stations throughout the city. The following fire stations are within 0.5 mile of the project site:
 Fire Station 184, located at 1980 W. Orange Grove (0.3 mile south of the project site);  Fire Station 182, located at 1059 N. White Avenue (0.5 mile southeast of the project site); and  Fire Station 187, located at 3325 Temple Avenue (0.5 mile south of the project site).

POLICE PROTECTION
The Pomona Police Department provides law enforcement services in the city. These services include preserving and protecting life and property; enforcing city, county, state, and federal statutes, ordinances, and laws; investigating criminal activities; apprehending criminals and recovering stolen property; providing programs to educate the public in crime prevention; and processing parking citations. In 2020, the Pomona Police Department responded to 126,352 calls for service (Pomona Police Department 2021). The Pomona Police Department headquarters are located at 490 W. Mission Boulevard, approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the project site.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-73

SCHOOLS
The Pomona Unified School District (PUSD) is a public school district that serves the city. PUSD contains 39 schools, which are comprised of 20 elementary schools, five K-8 schools, four middle schools, eight high schools, and two other schools. In the 2022-2023 school year, 21,240 students were enrolled in K-12 schools, 729 students were enrolled in adult and career education programs, and 1,578 students were enrolled in child development programs (PUSD 2023). John Marshall Middle School, located at 1921 Arroyo Avenue, and Arroyo Elementary School, located at 1605 Arroyo Avenue, are adjacent to the proposed project alignment.

PARKS
The Los Angeles Countywide Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment was completed in 2016 to determine the scope, scale, and location of park need throughout the cities and unincorporated communities in Los Angeles County. The northern portion of the city, where the project site is located, has 124 park acres and 1,258 regional park acres for a population of 84,043 residents (1.5 park acres and 15 regional park acres per 1,000 residents). In comparison, Los Angeles County has 3.3 park acres per 1,000 residents. The assessment determined that the City has a moderate need for parks (LA County Parks 2016).

The City operates 29 parks and 13 community centers throughout its jurisdiction. The following parks are located adjacent to the proposed project alignment:
 Kellogg Park, located at 610 Medina Avenue, features amenities that include picnic tables, children's play areas, and restrooms.
 John F. Kennedy Park, located at 1150 Fairplex Drive, features amenities that include basketball courts, baseball fields, picnic tables, children's play areas, community centers, and restrooms.

OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES
The Pomona Public Library is located at 625 S. Garey Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the project site.

The library’s resources and services include a circulating book collection in English and other languages of over 300,000 volumes; newspapers and magazines; adult reference and information services; internet access; audio-visual materials; a large genealogy collection; and programs for children, young adults, and adults (City of Pomona 2023).

3.15.2 Discussion
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
and
Police protection?
Less than significant impact. As discussed in Section 3.14, “Population and Housing,” the proposed project would not include development of residential or commercial uses and would not include the extension of roads or other infrastructure to previously undeveloped areas. The proposed project would not increase the population in the City beyond existing conditions; however, the proposed project would introduce pedestrians and bicyclists to the project site, which could increase the number of service calls for fire or police protection services. The minor increase in Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-74 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study demand for fire or police protection services would be accommodated by existing LACoFD and Pomona Police Department personnel and would not necessitate the expansion of existing or construction of new fire or police stations. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. This impact would be less than significant.

Schools?
No impact. As discussed in Section 3.14, “Population and Housing,” the proposed project would not include development of residential or commercial uses that would increase the population, including the number of schoolaged children, in the City beyond existing conditions. Consequently, the proposed project would not increase student enrollment in a manner that would necessitate the expansion of existing schools or construction of new schools.

Therefore, the proposed project would not require the provision of new or physically altered schools to maintain acceptable student-teacher ratios and other performance objectives. No impact would occur.

Parks?
Less than significant impact. As discussed in Section 3.14, “Population and Housing,” the proposed project would not include development of residential or commercial uses and would not increase the population in the City beyond existing conditions. Consequently, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing parks. The proposed project would result in the construction of a new multi-use bikeway and landscaped trailheads, which is considered a recreational facility. As discussed throughout Section 3, “Environmental Checklist,” construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial adverse physical impacts. Although the proposed project would provide access to park facilities along the alignment (e.g., John F. Kennedy Park), the proposed project is intended to serve the existing community and would not increase visitation to the extent that expansion of existing park facilities or the construction of new parks and recreational facilities would be required. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the provision of new or physically altered parks to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. This impact would be less than significant.

Other public facilities?
No impact. As discussed in Section 3.14, “Population and Housing,” the proposed project would not include development of residential or commercial uses and would not include the extension of roads or other infrastructure to previously undeveloped areas. The proposed project would not increase the population in the City beyond existing conditions. Consequently, the proposed project would not increase the usage of existing libraries or other public facilities in a manner that would necessitate the expansion of existing or construction of new public facilities.

Therefore, the proposed project would not require the provision of new or physically altered public facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. No impact would occur.

Required Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with public services. Mitigation measures are not required.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-75

3.16 RECREATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. Recreation.

Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

3.16.1 Environmental Setting
Section 3.15, “Public Services,” includes a discussion of public parks and recreational facilities in the city and in the project vicinity.

3.16.2 Discussion
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than significant impact. Population growth in an area can result in an increase in the demand for parks and recreational facilities. The proposed project does not include the development of land uses that would generate a permanent increase in population, such as residential housing. In addition, the proposed project would not include the development of new infrastructure or services that would induce population growth. Rather, the proposed project is intended to provide pedestrians and bicyclists with a safer off-street path of travel between community destinations and amenities in the city. As discussed in Section 3.15.2, the project would provide access to park facilities along the alignment (e.g., John F. Kennedy Park). Although the project could increase access to park facilities, the proposed project is intended to serve the existing community and would not substantially increase visitation. The proposed project is not anticipated to increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of such facilities would occur or be accelerated. This impact would be less than significant.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would result in the construction of new multi-use bikeway and landscaped trailheads, which would be considered a recreational facility. As discussed throughout Section 3, “Environmental Checklist,” construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in adverse physical effects on the environment. As discussed in Section 3.15.2, the proposed project is intended to serve the existing community and would not increase visitation to existing recreational facilities to the extent that expansion of existing or construction of new recreational facilities would be required. Therefore, the proposed project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. This impact would be less than significant.

Required Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with recreation. Mitigation measures are not required.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-76 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

3.17 TRANSPORTATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. Transportation.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

3.17.1 Environmental Setting
The information in this section is based on the Transportation Memorandum prepared for the project by Fehr & Peers in December 2023 (Appendix G).

ROADWAY NETWORK
The project alignment is bordered by W Temple Avenue to the west and Murchison Avenue to the east and is intersected by the following roadways: Kellog Drive, Ridgeway Street, Fairplex Drive, Glen Avenue, N Dudley Street, and Weber Street. In addition, the project alignment crosses under two highways, SR 57 and SR 71.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The City of Pomona’s bikeway network includes Class I (multi-use paths that are exclusively dedicated for use by bicycles and pedestrians), Class II (striped lanes for one-way bike travel on a roadway), and Class III (bike routes that have shared use with motor vehicle traffic) facilities. Existing bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site include a Class I facility on Valley Boulevard and Class II and III facilities on South Campus Drive, Innovation Way, Kellogg Drive, and Ridgeway Street. Sidewalks are present along most of the roadways in the vicinity of the project site.

PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM
Foothill Transit operates several bus routes in the City of Pomona, including Routes 190, 194, 195, 197, 286, 289, 292, 480, 482, and 486. Bus stops in the vicinity of the project site are located on W Temple Avenue, S Campus Drive, Valley Boulevard, and Fairplex Drive. Metrolink provides regional rail services in Southern California. The Metrolink San Bernardino Line, which connects Downtown Los Angeles and San Bernardino, runs through the City of Pomona.

The Pomona Transit Center and the Downtown Pomona Metrolink Station are both located approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the project site.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-77

3.17.2 Discussion
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less than significant impact. In October 2020, the City of Pomona adopted the Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, which outline methodologies for evaluating a project’s environmental transportation impacts and effects on the local transportation system (City of Pomona 2020). Per the City’s Guidelines and consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, active transportation projects would be considered to result in a significant impact if the project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

The City’s ATP was adopted to support the continued improvements of the City’s bicycling and walking environment (Fehr & Peers 2012). The ATP is consistent with sustainability efforts recognized in the City’s General Plan to reduce traffic, air pollution, and energy consumption, and to provide greater transportation options that enhance quality of life. The proposed project is identified as a priority project in the ATP.

The Mobility and Access Component of the Pomona General Plan addresses circulation of pedestrians, bicycles, and motor vehicles, as well as the implications of public safety, environmental, and social equality issues related to transportation (City of Pomona 2014a). The General Plan envisions an expansion of the existing bikeway network that aims to provide a safe and effective method of connecting activity centers and promoting active transportation. To provide a framework for implementation, the General Plan outlines goals and policies related to regional and local transportation. The proposed project would align with Goal 7D.G21 to “develop a comprehensive bicycle network that connects local and regional commuter and recreation routes” and Goal 7D.P52 to “implement the Active Transportation Plan including installation of marked on-street bike lanes along potential bike routes.” The proposed project is consistent with the planned improvements identified by the City’s ATP and aligns with the goals set forth in the City’s General Plan related to regional transportation. Therefore, the proposed would not conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. This impact would be less than significant.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b), which pertains to vehicle miles travelled?
Less than significant impact. Section 15064.3(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines outlines the criteria for analyzing the transportation impacts of projects. The guidelines state that “transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.” Consistent with guidance provided by the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LUCI), formerly the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), in its Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, an induced travel analysis is generally not required for projects that do not lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel (OPR 2018). Projects are generally considered to increase vehicle travel if they include the “addition of through lanes on existing or new highways, including general purpose lanes, HOV [high-occupancy vehicle] lanes, peak period lanes, auxiliary lanes, or lanes through grade-separated interchanges.” Furthermore, the Technical Advisory lists project types that do not increase vehicle capacity and are not likely to substantially increase vehicle travel, such as the following:
 Rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement, safety, and repair projects designed to improve the condition of existing transportation assets (e.g., highways; roadways; bridges; culverts; Transportation Management System field elements such as cameras, message signs, detection, or signals; tunnels; transit systems; and assets that serve bicycle and pedestrian facilities) and that do not add additional motor vehicle capacity;  Roadway shoulder enhancements to provide “breakdown space,” dedicated space for use only by transit vehicles, to provide bicycle access, or to otherwise improve safety, but which will not be used as automobile vehicle travel lanes;
Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-78 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study  Addition of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing streets/highways or within existing public rights-of-way; and
 Addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi-use paths, or other off-road facilities that serve non-motorized travel.

The proposed project consists of a 3.5-mile off-road bike and pedestrian path and would not increase roadway capacity for vehicle travel. Rather, implementation of the proposed project would facilitate alternative modes of transportation through improving the connectivity of the existing active transportation network. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase vehicle travel. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b). The impact would be less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than significant impact. Construction activities would involve the use of construction vehicles on local roadways, which would temporarily increase roadway hazards due to incompatible uses. Roadway hazards could occur on Temple Avenue and Murchison Avenue during construction of the termini trailheads and on Kellogg Drive, Ridgeway Street, Fairplex Drive, Glen Avenue, Dudley Street, and Weber Street during construction of the at-grade street crossing improvements. However, the City would be required to implement traffic controls and comply with transportation permit requirements for any work within the City’s public right-of-way to ensure the safety of the traveling public. The traffic controls would be subject to review and approval by the City’s traffic engineer and the police department prior to the initiation of any work within City right-of-way.

Once constructed, the proposed project is envisioned to provide pedestrians and bicyclists with a safer off-street path of travel between community destinations and amenities in the city. The separated, off-street path is intended to reduce the potential for collisions between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists related to sight distance and visibility.

The project includes six at-grade street crossings, which have been designed to reduce the potential for vehicle collisions. Safety improvements would vary for each street crossing location, but would include:
 reconfiguring vehicle through-lanes and turn lanes to accommodate bike lanes;  striping existing roadways for bicycle lanes;
 painting existing roadways with greenback sharrows;
 widening existing sidewalks and creating landing areas for queuing;  adjusting signal timing to providing leading pedestrian intervals;  installing curb extensions, curb ramps, and bulbouts;  striping new crosswalks;
 installing new crossing and vehicle signals and rectangular rapid flashing beacons; and  reconstructing existing curb ramps to meet accessibility standards.

Street improvements would be designed in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and applicable local design requirements and regulations. The proposed use would be compatible with existing land use designations for the project site. The proposed project would be designed to maximize user safety and reduce hazards, and the project design would be reviewed by the City of Pomona during the City’s plan review process to ensure all applicable requirements are met. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to geometric design or incompatible uses. This impact would be less than significant. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would be designed according to all regulations to maximize user safety and reduce hazards, including the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and City of Pomona Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-79 standards. Access to the multi-use bikeway would be provided by 15 entry/exit gates along the borders of the project site, and the project design would be reviewed by the City of Pomona during the City’s plan review process to ensure compliance with applicable emergency access requirements. Furthermore, the proposed project is an off-street facility that has limited overlap with roadways used by emergency service vehicles. Where the proposed project creates new at-grade street crossings, traffic signals would be designed to incorporate the City of Pomona’s emergency vehicle preemption standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. This impact would be less than significant.

Required Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with transportation. Mitigation measures are not required.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-80 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources.

Has a California Native American Tribe requested consultation in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1(b)?
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

3.18.1 Environmental Setting
Ascent completed a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on May 31, 2024. The results of the search were positive for the presence of known resources of tribal importance.

The NAHC identified the following Native American tribes as having knowledge of tribal cultural resources (TCRs) within the project site: Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Gabrielino/Tongva Nation, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians.

On July 2, 2025, the City sent formal notification letters of the proposed project via mail and email to these Native American tribes in accordance with AB 52 and PRC section 21080.3.1. In a letter dated July 2, 2025, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation requested formal consultation with the City. In their letter, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation indicated that they have ancestral and cultural ties to the project area and are concerned that the project may impact TCRs within their traditional territory. The City responded to the Tribe’s consultation request on August 5, 2025, to schedule a meeting, but did not receive a response. However, on March 9, 2026, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation followed up requesting a status update on the project and to formally initiate government-to-government consultation. On March 10, 2026, the City responded with an offer to schedule a meeting to which the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation responded on the same day that they will be providing substantial evidence for the lead agency to review and their proposed mitigation measures that would address their concerns and that if any meeting is necessary then one shall be scheduled. On March 17, 2026, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation providing confidential documents to the City that demonstrates the project site as sensitive for TCRs. AB 52 consultation with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-81 Indians - Kizh Nation has been completed. No other Native American tribes responded to the City’s notification. No known TCRs within the project site were identified as defined in PRC section 21074.

3.18.2 Discussion
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
No impact. The project site contains no TCRs that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources (SCCIC File No. 24-207). Refer to Section 3.5, “Cultural Resources,” for additional information. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. No known TCRs as defined in PCR section 21074 were identified within the project site. However, as a result of consultation with the City, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation has identified the project site as sensitive for TCRs and provided confidential substantial evidence along with proposed mitigation measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 would minimize the potential impacts associated with TCRs by requiring appropriate treatment and proper care of significant TCRs, in accordance with the wishes of the geographically and culturally affiliated tribe, in the case of a discovery, and by having a tribal monitor present from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation for all ground disturbance activities. Therefore, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation incorporated.

Required Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities The City shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Grounddisturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the City prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively TCRs), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-82 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the City upon written request to the Tribe. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the City that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the City that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.

Mitigation Measure TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/NonCeremonial) Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

Mitigation Measure TCR-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects
Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-83

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems.

Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand, in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Fail to comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

3.19.1 Environmental Setting
WATER
The City of Pomona Water Resources Department provides water services to customers in a 22.9 square-mile service area encompassing the City of Pomona, as well as portions of the cities of La Verne, Claremont, Montclair, and Chino Hills and neighboring unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. As of 2020, the service area population was 153,988 residents (City of Pomona 2021).

The demand within the City’s service area is met through a variety of sources including groundwater, local surface water, imported water, recycled water, and non-potable water. The existing potable water system consists of distribution system pipelines, storage reservoirs, booster pumping stations, groundwater wells, imported water connections, interagency connections, permitted water treatment facilities, spreading grounds, and pressure regulating stations. The potable water distribution system has approximately 421 miles of pipelines (City of Pomona 2021).

The City of Pomona obtains its water supplies primarily from groundwater produced from wells located in the Chino Basin, Spadra Basin, and Six Basins. Local surface water is obtained from the San Antonio and Evey Canyon watersheds. The City also purchases treated imported water from MWD through Three Valleys Municipal Water District (City of Pomona 2021).

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-84 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study

WASTEWATER AND SEWER
The City of Pomona Wastewater Operations Division is responsible for the operation and maintenance of an extensive wastewater collection system and is tasked with ensuring proper and efficient operation of the system. The City of Pomona provides sewer service throughout the city and to a limited area outside the city limits.

ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the City of Pomona. SCE is one of the nation’s largest electric utilities, providing service to approximately 15 million people in a 50,000-square-mile service area within Central, Coastal, and Southern California (SCE 2025).

Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas to the City of Pomona. SoCalGas is the nation’s largest natural gas distribution utility, providing service to approximately 21.1 million customers in a 24,000-squaremile service area throughout Central and Southern California (SoCalGas 2023).

TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Telecommunications providers in the City of Pomona include Verizon and Frontier Communications.

SOLID WASTE
The City of Pomona Public Works Department and franchise commercial waste haulers provide trash, recycling, and special pickup services for residential, commercial, governmental, and industrial customers throughout the City of Pomona. Table 3.19-1 includes a summary of the active landfills that serve the City of Pomona.

Table 3.19-1 Nearby Landfills
Landfill Operator Address
Approximate
Distance to the
Project Site
Maximum Permitted
Capacity
Remaining
Capacity
Anticipated
Closure Date
Olinda Alpha
Landfill
OC Waste and
Recycling
1942 N. Valencia Avenue
Brea, CA 92823 8 miles 148,800,000 cubic yards
17,500,000
cubic yards 12/31/2036
El Sobrante
Landfill
USA Waste
Services of
California, Inc.
10910 Dawson Canyon
Road, Corona, CA 91719 26 miles 209,910,000 cubic
yards
143,977,170
cubic yards 1/1/2051
Mid-Valley
Sanitary
Landfill
County of San
Bernardino Solid
Waste Management
Division
2390 N. Alder Avenue
Rialto, CA 92377 20 miles 101,300,000 cubic
yards
61,219,377
cubic yards 4/1/2045
Source: Compiled from the CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System in 2023.

3.19.2 Discussion
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would not result in population growth that would contribute to increases in the City’s existing utility demands. The potential for project construction and routine maintenance activities to require or result in the relocation or construction of construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities is described in the following sections.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-85 Water
The proposed project would not result in population growth that would contribute to increases in the City’s existing water demands or future water demands projected in the Urban Water Management Plan (City of Pomona 2021).

Construction and routine maintenance activities for the proposed project would require the consumption of water for activities such as cleaning surfaces, mixing concrete, and suppressing dust. Once operational, the proposed project would result in a minor increase in water consumption for landscape maintenance. Water consumption would be greatest during the plant establishment period; however, the landscape plan includes native plants and other waterefficient landscaping that would require little water beyond normal rainfall. Water consumption for construction and operational maintenance activities would be relatively minor and would be served by existing utility service providers.

Wastewater and Sewer
The proposed project would not result in population growth that would contribute to increases in the City’s existing demand for collecting, conveying, and treating wastewater. Any wastewater generated from construction activities, such as water containing diesel and oil, paint, solvents, cleaners, chemicals, and debris would be collected, screened, and discharged in accordance with the SWPPP. Any remaining waste would be discharged in accordance with water and solid waste disposal regulations. The wastewater treatment provider that serves the project site has adequate capacity to serve the construction needs of the proposed project. Once operational, the project would not generate wastewater. Landscaping, permeable pavers, and decomposed granite would be installed at the trailheads to minimize stormwater runoff. In addition, a bioswale is proposed at the Fairplex Drive trailhead to store and infiltrate stormwater runoff from the project site.

Electricity and Natural Gas
The proposed project would not result in population growth that would contribute to increases in the City’s existing energy demand. Construction and routine maintenance of the proposed project would require the consumption of electricity and natural gas to power equipment and vehicles. Energy usage would be relatively minor and would be served by existing utility service providers. The proposed project would not require the installation of permanent stationary energy sources that rely on electricity or natural gas; rather, the proposed project includes new solarpowered LED lighting at the trailheads and along the path that would operate independently of the electrical grid.

Telecommunications
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not increase demands for telecommunications services or require the construction of new telecommunications facilities.

Summary
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. The impact would be less than significant.
b) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than significant impact. As discussed in Section 3.10.1, “Environmental Setting,” the City anticipates that it can continue providing sufficient water supplies to its customers to meet projected water demands, including during long-term droughts (City of Pomona 2021). The proposed project would not result in population growth that would contribute to a permanent increase in the City’s existing water demands or future water demands projected in the Urban Water Management Plan (City of Pomona 2021). Construction and routine maintenance activities would result in a temporary increase in water consumption for cleaning surfaces, mixing with concrete or other materials, suppressing dust, and establishing plants. In addition, the landscape plan for the proposed project includes native plants and other water-efficient landscaping that would require little water beyond normal rainfall. The relatively minor water supply needed for construction and routine maintenance activities would leave sufficient water supplies available for other reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-86 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would not result in population growth that would contribute to a permanent increase in wastewater generation in the City compared to existing conditions. Construction and routine maintenance activities would result in temporary wastewater generation. However, wastewater generation would be minimal, and the existing wastewater treatment provider would have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project’s demand. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. The impact would be less than significant. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than significant impact. Project construction would include the removal of existing pavement, soil, and other debris, which would temporarily increase generation of solid waste. Approximately 288 cubic yards of concrete would be removed, and 5,480 cubic yards of unclassified material would be excavated during the construction period.

Construction activities would comply with all State and local waste reduction and recycling requirements for construction and demolition waste diversion, which include the California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) and the Los Angeles Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. Hazardous materials would be characterized and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The remaining solid waste would be sent to existing nearby landfills. As shown in Table 3.19-1, the landfills that serve the City of Pomona would have sufficient remaining capacity to accommodate the solid waste generated from project construction. The proposed project would not result in population growth that would contribute to a permanent increase in solid waste generation in the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. The impact would be less than significant. e) Fail to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No impact. As discussed in Section 3.19.2(d), solid waste generated during project construction and routine maintenance would be disposed in compliance with State and local statutes and regulations pertaining to the safe handling, transport, and disposal of solid waste. Applicable regulations include the California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill 939), Los Angeles Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with solid waste management reduction statutes and regulations. The impact would be less than significant.

Required Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with utilities and service systems. Mitigation measures are not required.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-87

3.20 WILDFIRE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. Wildfire.

Is the project located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as high fire hazard severity zones? If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Yes No
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary
or ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

3.20.1 Environmental Setting
According to CAL FIRE, the City of Pomona is within a local responsibility area and most of the project site is mapped as a non-very high FHSZ; however, the westernmost portion of the project site from Temple Avenue to approximately

0.1 mile east of Temple Avenue extends into the moderate and high FHSZs (CAL FIRE 2025).

3.20.2 Discussion
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than significant impact. Refer to Section 3.9.2(f). As discussed above, the project site is within a developed, urban area and is not adjacent to wildland areas. Although a small portion of the project site extends into moderate and high FHSZs in the local responsibility area, the proposed project would not result in the construction of structures that are intended for human occupancy or otherwise increase demand for emergency evacuation. The project primarily involves improvements within LACFCD right-of-way and would not alter roadway configurations in a manner that would restrict emergency access or evacuation routes. Although the proposed project includes six atgrade street crossing, these crossings would be designed in accordance with applicable City standards and would not impede emergency vehicle access or affect roadway capacity for evacuation. Any temporary lane closures and permanent roadway improvements within public rights-of-way would be reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department and the Los Angeles County Fire Department prior to issuance of any permits or rights of entry. This process would ensure that project implementation does not interfere with emergency response and evacuation.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-88 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.

The impact would be less than significant.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than significant impact. As discussed in Section 3.20.1, “Environmental Setting,” the project site extends into the moderate and high FHSZs in the local responsibility area; however, the project site is within a developed, urban area and is not adjacent to wildland areas. The proposed project would not introduce structures intended for human occupancy or otherwise increase the number of people residing in or regularly occupying the project site. The project would result in the construction of a new multi-use bikeway on a site that is fully developed with flood control and transportation infrastructure. The project site has relatively flat topography. Vegetation in and adjacent to the project site consists of ornamental landscaping that is regularly irrigated and is not considered a fire hazard. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, resulting in the exposure of occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The impact would be less than significant. c) Require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less than significant impact. As discussed in Section 3.20.1, “Environmental Setting,” a small portion of the project site extends into moderate and high FHSZs in the local responsibility area; however, the project site is located in a developed, urban area and is not adjacent to wildland areas. The proposed project would result in the construction of a new multi-use bikeway on a site that is fully developed with flood control and transportation infrastructure. The proposed project does not include the installation of infrastructure, such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities that may exacerbate fire risk. Minor improvements, such as lighting, signage, landscaping, and drainage features, would be limited in scale and would not introduce substantial new ignition sources. The impact would be less than significant.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Less than significant impact. As discussed in Section 3.20.1, a small portion of the project site extends into moderate and high FHSZs in the local responsibility areas; however, the project site is located in a developed, urban area and is not adjacent to wildland areas or steep hillside areas. The project site has a relatively flat topography and there are no steep slopes within or adjacent to the project site. In addition, the project site is within an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2008). As discussed in Section 3.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” the project site consists of predominately impervious surfaces, and the proposed project would result in minimal changes to existing drainage patterns. Landscaping, permeable pavers, and decomposed granite would be installed at the trailheads to minimize runoff. In addition, a bioswale is proposed at the Fairplex Drive trailhead to store and infiltrate stormwater runoff from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. The impact would be less than significant.

Required Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with wildfire. Mitigation measures are not required.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-89

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number
or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or
threatened species, or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

3.21.1 Environmental Setting
Refer to the “Environmental Setting” discussion in Sections 3.1 through 3.20 of this Initial Study for a summary of the existing environmental conditions in the project area.

3.21.2 Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As discussed in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics”; Section 3.3, “Air Quality”; Section 3.8, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions”; Section 3.9, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials”; Section 3.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality”; and Section 3.13, “Noise,” project construction would result in short-term and temporary changes to the visual environment; increases in air pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise and vibration levels; erosion and degradation of water quality; and potential releases of hazardous materials into the environment.

However, compliance with applicable permits, programs, regulations, and mitigation measures during construction would ensure that the project does not substantially degrade the quality of the environment.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-90 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study As described in Section 3.4, “Biological Resources,” the project site consists entirely of disturbed habitat and urban/developed land. There are no state or federally protected wetlands, riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural communities present within the project site. The project site does not contain sensitive habitat or designated critical habitat for any plant or wildlife species. No special-status plant species have potential to occur within the project site due to a lack of suitable habitat and microhabitat. However, suitable roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat for specialstatus wildlife species and migratory birds protected under the MBTA occurs within the vicinity of the project site.

Construction of the proposed project would involve vegetation and tree removal, grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities that could result in adverse effects on special-status wildlife species that may forage, roost, and nest in the project site and vicinity. The proposed project would also require the removal of two coast live oak trees and would involve trimming and/or digging within the drip line of coast live oak trees, which are considered sensitive under the City of Pomona Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. Potential impacts on special-status species and coast live oak trees would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4. Therefore, the proposed project would not have potential to 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, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species.

As described in Section 3.5, “Cultural Resources,” and Section 3.18, “Tribal Cultural Resources,” no historical resources or previously identified archaeological resources, known cemeteries or burials, or tribal cultural resources have been identified within the project site. However, ground-disturbing activities during the proposed project’s construction could result in discovery or damage of yet undiscovered buried resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and compliance with HSC section 7050.5 and PRC section 5097 would ensure that these resources are properly identified, evaluated, and recovered. In addition, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation has identified the project site as sensitive for TCRs and provided confidential substantial evidence along with proposed mitigation measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 would minimize the potential impacts associated with TCRs by requiring appropriate treatment and proper care of significant TCRs, in accordance with the wishes of the geographically and culturally affiliated tribe, in the case of a discovery, and by having a tribal monitor present from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation for all ground disturbance activities. Additionally, as described in Section 3.7, “Geology and Soils,” project-related excavation would not extend into native soils that are sensitive for supporting paleontological resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, CUL-1, NOI-1, NOI-2, and TCR-1 through TCR-3 and compliance with applicable permits, programs, and regulations, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Cumulative environmental effects are multiple individual effects that, when considered together, would be considerable or compound or increase other environmental impacts.

Individual effects may result from a single project or several separate projects and may occur at the same place and point in time or at different locations and over extended periods of time.

Several development and infrastructure improvement projects are also proposed throughout the city. Table 3.21-1 includes development projects in the City of Pomona for which an environmental document was prepared in the last five years and City-initiated public works projects.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-91 Table 3.21-1 Cumulative Projects
Project Name Location Status Description
Development
Elephant Hill Project 2889 W. Mission Boulevard
Draft EIR released for
public review in late
2025/early 2026
Development of 228 residential dwelling units, a
recreational center, developed open space
(including landscaped slopes and fuel
modification areas), onsite roads, and utility
infrastructure.

Double Tree Hotel
Expansion Project 3101 W. Temple Avenue NOD filed in March 2022 Development of a 6-story, 59,569-square-foot
expansion for the existing Double Tree Hotel.
1561 Via Estrella (CUP
15779-2021),
(PARCELMAP 15780-
2021), (ENV 9676-2018)
1561 Via Estrella NOI published
November 2021
Hillside development of a vacant 2.69-acre site
with two single-family structures as well as
associated improvements including, up to 16-foot
retaining walls, utilities, and new drive entries.

Development Plan
Review (DPR 15420-
2021), Tentative Tract
Map (TRACTMAP15421-
2021)
2769 N. Garey Avenue NOD published
September 2019
Development of a 3.1-acre site with 73 three-story
townhomes with attached garages and associated
on-site improvements.
(DPR 13326-2020);
(TRACTMAP 13327-2020) 2115 S. Garey Avenue NOD published August 2021
Development of a vacant 8.96-acre site with 156
residential units and associated on-site and offsite improvements, including utilities, private streets, common and private open space, tot lot,
and community swimming pool.

Hyatt Place and Hotel 55-65 Rancho Camino Drive NOD published August 2021
Development of 105 residential units and a
34,908-square-foot health club and associated
landscaping.

Pomona Stables and
Corporate Yard Project 148 North Huntington Street NOP published March 2021
Completion of the Pomona Corporate Yard
Facility improvements, including construction of
the Annex Lot, relocation, remediation, and
reconstruction of the Water Yard, and
reconstruction of the Pomona Stables.

Impex Fitness Expansion
Project 2801 S. Towne Avenue NOD published
February 2021
Demolition of 18,722 square feet of existing
warehouse and shed space and construction of
83,992 square feet of new warehouse and office
space for a total net new development of 65,270
square feet of space.
875 W. Orange Grove
Ave. (TRACTMAP 13497-
2020)
875 W. Orange Grove Avenue NOD published
February 2021
Development of 33 detached, two-story, singlefamily residential units, as well as on-site and offsite improvements including, utilities, private streets, and private and common open space.
1442 Murchison Ave
(MLC Holdings, Inc.) 1442 Murchison Avenue NOD published December 2020
Development of a vacant site with 152 three-story
attached townhomes and garages as well as
associated on-site and off-site improvements,
including utilities, private streets, common and
private open space, and community swimming
pool.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-92 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study Project Name Location Status Description
Public Works
Pomona Civic Center
Plaza 505 S. Garey Avenue
Construction began in
winter 2024 and is
anticipated to be
completed in winter
2026
The project consists of an all-inclusive play
environment for tots (2-5 age group) and schoolaged children (5-12 age group), shaded seating and picnic areas, walkway lighting, a restroom
building, a storage and utility building, and
landscape and irrigation improvements. The
project also includes renovation of an existing
fountain in the adjacent plaza.

Garey Avenue
Rehabilitation Project
Garey Avenue from Aliso Street to
Monterey Avenue
Construction began in
winter 2024 and is
anticipated to be
completed in summer
2026
The project includes streetscape improvements,
which include installing sidewalks and traffic signals, enhancing street striping, installing landscaping
and street trees, upgrading street lighting,
improving accessibility for persons with disabilities,
and installing new medians and bike lanes.

Garfield Park Masterplan 801 E Holt Avenue Planning/design phase The project includes conceptual design for improvements to Garfield Park.

Pomona Safe and Active
Improvements
Hamilton Boulevard and Park
Avenue Planning/design phase
The project includes enhanced sidewalks and bike
lanes through two key at-grade crossings at
Hamilton Boulevard and Park Avenue.

Multi-Neighborhood
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Improvements
9th Street and Hamilton
Boulevard, 9th Street and Park
Avenue, Franklin Avenue and San
Antonio Avenue, Franklin Avenue
and Bolivar Street, San Bernardino
Road and Washington Avenue,
and Humane Way from Valley
Boulevard to Mission Boulevard
Construction began in
March 2025 and was
completed in July
2025
Construction of new roundabouts at 9th Street
and Hamilton Boulevard, 9th Street and Park
Avenue, and Franklin Avenue and San Antonio
Avenue. New enhancements (e.g., bulb-outs,
asphalt resurfacing, concrete repairs, and updated
striping) at Franklin Avenue and Bolivar Street,
San Bernardino Road and Washington Avenue,
and Humane Way from Valley Boulevard to
Mission Boulevard.

Source: Compiled from the City of Pomona in 2025.

As described in Sections 3.1 through 3.20 of this IS/Proposed MND, construction activities would result in short-term and temporary effects on the environment, including the following: changes to the visual setting; increases in air pollutants and noise and vibration levels; erosion and degradation of water quality; potential releases of hazardous materials into the environment; potential disturbance to special-status species; and potential destruction of cultural and tribal cultural resources. An evaluation of the potential for the proposed project to contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact is provided for each of these resource areas.

As discussed in Sections 3.1 through 3.20, the proposed project would have no impact related to the following resource areas: agriculture and forestry resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, and population and housing.

Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulative effect to these resources, and no further analysis is required for these resource areas.

Aesthetics
The geographic scope for evaluating cumulative aesthetics impacts is the project site and surrounding areas with views to and from the project site. This area is characterized as highly developed and urbanized, with existing views of flood control and transportation infrastructure surrounded by urban development, consisting of one- and twostory residences, commercial and industrial facilities, parks, and schools. The cumulative study area includes light and glare sources that are characteristic of a typical urban environment, including building façades, traffic signals, streetlights, parking lot lighting, automotive headlights, and spillover light from adjacent buildings. The City enforces standards to ensure that development complies with regulations governing scenic quality and lighting. Therefore, a less-than-significant cumulative impact exists in the area with respect to aesthetics.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-93 Construction activities associated with the proposed project and other reasonably foreseeable development could potentially overlap and be visible from neighboring communities. However, construction activities would be shortterm and temporary. The proposed project would not include features of substantial height or massing that, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable development, would obstruct or detract from views of scenic resources. Rather, the proposed project would enhance views of the project site through the addition of new trees and other landscaping. Although new lighting is proposed, light sources would be directed on-site and would be of similar intensity to existing light sources in the surrounding area and would not result in a measurable contribution to sky glow or night sky pollution. Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative aesthetics impacts.

Air Quality
The geographic scope for evaluating cumulative air quality impacts is the South Coast Air Basin, which is designated as a nonattainment area for ozone and PM2.5 with respect to both the NAAQS and CAAQS and a nonattainment area for PM10 with respect to the CAAQS. Therefore, a significant cumulative impact exists in the South Coast Air Basin with respect to these criteria air pollutants.

Construction activities associated with other reasonably foreseeable projects would result in cumulative air pollutant emissions when construction activities overlap with construction of the proposed project. Based on the analysis in Section 3.3.2, construction of the proposed project would not generate emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors that would exceed SCAQMD’s LSTs. These thresholds were developed as a metric to indicate whether a project’s emissions would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the South Coast Air Basin.

Criteria air pollutant emissions would be further reduced because the City would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which regulates fugitive dust emissions. Health risks from air pollutants would be minor and at sufficient distance to not result in health effects to nearby sensitive receptors. Additionally, vehicle trips generated from construction of these projects would not result in traffic volumes at intersections surrounding the project site that would exceed 100,000 vehicles per day and would not contribute to CO concentrations that exceed standards.

Furthermore, impacts related to odors would not be cumulatively considerable because odors would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance.

Following construction, the proposed project would not introduce new stationary sources of emissions. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in long-term increases in vehicle trips during operations. Rather, the proposed project would facilitate alternative modes of transportation through improving the connectivity of the existing active transportation network. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in operational emissions that would exceed SCAQMD’s LSTs.

The proposed project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would not expose sensitive receptors to quantities of pollutants greater than significance thresholds or to significant risks of adverse health impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

Biological Resources
The geographic scope for evaluating cumulative biological resources impacts is the project site and surrounding areas within a 500-foot buffer. This area is characterized as highly developed and urbanized and offers limited habitat for sensitive biological resources. However, this area contains suitable roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat for special-status wildlife species and migratory birds protected under the MBTA. Because urbanization has contributed to the loss of habitat over time, a significant cumulative impact exists with respect to biological resources.

Implementation of the proposed project and other reasonably foreseeable projects would occur on previously developed properties with low biological habitat value. However, construction activities that involve vegetation and tree removal, grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities could result in direct effects (e.g., entrapment, disturbance, injury, and mortality of individuals and destruction of nests and roots) and indirect effects (e.g., temporary increases in noise levels, dust, and pollutants; increased human presence; and habitat modification or loss) on special-status wildlife species. All projects are required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on special-status species. In addition, the proposed project would implement Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-94 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to minimize impacts on oak trees and Mitigation Measures BIO-2 through BIO-4 to avoid impacts on special-status species (refer to Section 3.4.2 for additional information). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts on biological resources.

Cultural Resources
The geographic scope for evaluating cumulative cultural resources impacts is the Southern California region. The region has an extensive collection of significant historic and archaeological resources, many of which have been destroyed or substantially altered from development over the years. Even with the extensive laws that have been established to protect such resources, many were destroyed during the period before preservation efforts began or have been inadvertently destroyed during grading and excavation for construction. For these reasons, a significant cumulative impact exists in the region with respect to cultural resources.

As described in Section 3.5, “Cultural Resources,” no cultural resources were identified within the project site. In addition, the project site is heavily disturbed with urban landfill material and has a very low potential for the presence of intact buried deposits of cultural resources. However, construction activities for the proposed project and other reasonably foreseeable projects that involve ground-disturbing activities could result in the unanticipated discovery of buried cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 identifies procedures to follow if archaeological materials are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, which would protect against the potential for the project to adversely affect archaeological resources. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 outline the requirements for the proper treatment and disposition of human remains, such that no substantial adverse impacts would occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative cultural resources impacts.

Energy
The geographic scope for evaluating cumulative energy impacts consists of the service areas for Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas, which are the electric and natural gas service providers for the project site. The use of alternative fuels and renewable energy supplies are replacing conventional fossil fuel supplies, thereby contributing to cleaner energy sources. Development in the region has been incorporating more energy efficient design and fixtures to reduce energy consumption in compliance with State regulations, such as CALGreen.

Therefore, a less-than-significant cumulative impact exists in the region with respect to energy.

As described in Section 3.6.2, the proposed project would increase energy consumption for temporary construction activities related to vehicle use and material transport. However, construction activities would be temporary and would not increase long-term energy or fuel demand. Operation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in energy consumption and would support the State’s goals to improve energy efficiency by facilitating alternative modes of transportation through improving the connectivity of the existing active transportation network. The proposed project would not develop uses or involve activities that would conflict with goals of: (1) decreasing per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on oil (petroleum), and (3) increasing uses of renewable energy sources. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative energy impacts.

Geology and Soils
The geographic scope for evaluating geology and soils impacts is generally site-specific, rather than cumulative in nature, because each development site has unique geologic considerations that is subject to uniform site development and construction standards. In this way, potential cumulative impacts resulting from soil conditions would be minimized on a site-by-site basis to the extent provided by modern construction methods and code requirements. While Southern California is a seismically active region and is susceptible to various geologic hazards, all development is required to comply with appropriate building codes and site-specific geotechnical design that minimizes the potential for projects to exacerbate or be subject to geologic hazards. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on geology and soils.

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-95 The geographic scope for evaluating cumulative impacts on paleontological resources is the Southern California region. Many of the paleontological resources in the region were destroyed during the period before federal, State, and local regulations were in place to protect these resources or were inadvertently destroyed during grading and excavation for construction. The destruction of paleontological resources from past development has resulted in the loss of scientific data. Therefore, a significant cumulative impact exists in the region with respect to paleontological resources. Excavation would not extend into native soils that are sensitive for supporting paleontological resources.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts on paleontological resources.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The geographic scope for evaluating cumulative GHG impacts is global. GHG emissions contributing to climate change and global warming are inherently a cumulative impact in the context of CEQA. No single project alone would measurably contribute to an incremental change in the global average temperature, or to global, local, or microclimates. GHG emissions are attributable largely to the transportation sector and electricity generation from fossil fuel combustion. New development or operational characteristics from cumulative projects that contribute prominent GHGs contribute to a significant cumulative impact on GHGs.

As discussed in Section 3.8.2, GHG emissions from the proposed project would be far below SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e numerical threshold recommended for non-industrial projects when amortized over the life of the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with State and local plans for reducing emissions from these activities and sources in order to meet its targets and goals for GHG reduction in 2030 and beyond. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts with respect to GHG emissions.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The geographic scope for evaluating cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts is the project site and adjacent properties. Although the project site and adjacent properties are not identified as hazardous materials sites on any regulatory databases, there is potential for undocumented contamination to be present in subsurface soils and groundwater. Because ground disturbance in the project site and vicinity could release contaminants into the environment, a significant cumulative impact exists in the region with respect to hazards and hazardous materials.

As discussed in Section 3.9.1, the proposed project and other reasonably foreseeable development are subject to local, State, and federal regulatory requirements to evaluate, disclose, and mitigated the potential for releases of hazardous materials into the environment prior to grading activities, if such conditions are suspected or known.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The geographic scope for evaluating cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts is the San Gabriel River watershed for surface waters and the Main San Gabriel Basin for groundwater. Development within the watershed has contributed to increased impervious surface areas within the watershed, increased stormwater runoff volumes, and increased pollutant loads in the storm drain system that discharge to creeks and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean.

However, development projects are required to comply with drainage and grading regulations and ordinances that control runoff and regulate water quality at each development site. Development projects would be required to demonstrate that stormwater volumes could be managed by on-site and downstream conveyance facilities and would not induce flooding. New projects also would be required to comply with local, State, and federal permits and regulations governing stormwater discharge during construction (e.g., NPDES Construction General Permit and SWPPP).

The projects would be subject to review and approval by the appropriate city, county, and State agencies to ensure that appropriate BMPs and treatment measures are implemented to reduce pollutants in stormwater and avoid adverse impacts to surface water quality. New development projects would be required to retain and treat a specified volume of stormwater runoff on-site through incorporation of BMPs. Therefore, a less-than-significant cumulative impact exists in the watershed with respect to hydrology and water quality.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-96 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study As described in Section 3.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” the proposed project would result in temporary and localized ground disturbance during construction and would involve construction activity within the San Jose Creek channel. The City would comply with all applicable permit requirements, including design, management, and monitoring requirements to protect water quality and reduce impacts related to stormwater (and some nonstormwater) discharges during construction through implementation of BMPs for preventing water quality degradation. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in a net increase in impervious surface area and drainage patterns would remain similar to existing conditions. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality.

Noise
The geographic scope for evaluating cumulative noise and vibration impacts is the project site and immediate surroundings. Noise and vibration effects are localized by nature because they attenuate with increasing distance from the source. The City has established standards to regulate noise and vibration levels to protect the public welfare. Therefore, a less-than-significant cumulative impact exists in the area with respect to noise and vibration.

Construction activities for the proposed project and other reasonably foreseeable development in the immediate vicinity of the project site could result in combined increases in noise and vibration levels when construction activities overlap.

These noise and vibration sources would be intermittent, temporary, and would cease at the end of the construction phase. Additionally, noise and vibration associated with cumulative construction activities would be reduced to the degree reasonably and technically feasible through proposed mitigation measures for each individual project. With implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, construction-related impacts from the proposed project would be reduced to levels that would not be cumulatively considerable. During operations, the proposed project would not contribute to an increase in vehicle trips or stationary noise sources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on noise and vibration.

Public Services and Recreation
The geographic scope for evaluating cumulative public services and recreation impacts is the City. The City periodically evaluates the need for new and expanded public services in response to population growth and imposes developer impact fees on new housing development to fund public services. These fees are used to fund improvements for parks, schools, and other public services in the City. Therefore, a less-than-significant cumulative impact exists in the area with respect to public services. Further, the proposed project would not contribute to an increase in the City’s population; therefore, the proposed project would not increase the demand for public services in the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on public services and recreation.

Transportation
The geographic scope for evaluating cumulative transportation impacts is the transportation network serving the City.

Continued population growth and development within the City has contributed to increased use of the existing transportation network. Therefore, a significant cumulative impact exists in the transportation network serving the City.

Overlapping construction activities for the proposed project and other reasonably foreseeable projects would increase vehicle trips on the surrounding roadway network associated with construction worker commutes, haul trips, and the transportation of construction equipment. These trips would be distributed throughout the workday and across multiple roadways. Additionally, construction activities would be temporary and would not result in long-term increases in vehicle trips. Construction activities would not generate permanent increases in vehicle trips. If haul trips and the operation of heavy vehicles were to occur along roadways with constrained right-of-way, construction activities could potentially result in an increase in roadway hazards due to incompatible uses. Construction activities may also require temporary lane closures near trailhead termini and at-grade street crossings. However, the City would be required to implement traffic controls and comply with transportation permit requirements for any work within the City’s public right-of-way to ensure the safety of the traveling public. Following construction, operation of the proposed project would not generate new vehicle trips. Rather, implementation of the proposed project would facilitate alternative modes of transportation through improving the connectivity of the existing active transportation Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 3-97 network. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts with respect to transportation.

Tribal Cultural Resources
The geographic scope for evaluating cumulative impacts on tribal cultural resources is the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the following tribes: Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Gabrielino/Tongva Nation, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. Past development has contributed to the loss and destruction of tribal cultural resources. Therefore, a significant cumulative impact exists in the region with respect to tribal cultural resources. As discussed in Section 3.18.2, in accordance with AB 52 and PRC section 21080.3.1, the City sent formal notification letters of the proposed project to these tribes on July 2, 2025. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation requested formal consultation with the City. The Tribe provided confidential documents demonstrating the project site as sensitive for tribal cultural resources and proposed mitigation measures that would address their concerns. With implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3, impacts from the proposed project would be reduced to levels that would not be cumulatively considerable. No other Native American tribes responded to the City’s notification. No known resources within the project site were identified as tribal cultural resources as defined in PRC section 21074. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts with respect to tribal cultural resources.

Utilities and Service Systems
The geographic scope for evaluating cumulative impacts on utilities and service systems is the City of Pomona. The City of Pomona is largely built out, and existing infrastructure is generally able to serve the utility needs for cumulative projects throughout the City. Development within the City has resulted in increased demands on water supply, stormwater drainage, wastewater treatment, electricity, telecommunications, and solid waste disposal systems.

Therefore, a significant cumulative impact exists in the City with respect to utilities and service systems.

Construction of the proposed project would require the consumption of water as well as electricity and natural gas to power equipment and vehicles. Water and energy usage would be relatively minor, limited to the construction periods, and would be served by existing utility service providers. Once operational, the proposed project would not contribute to an increase in growth that would contribute to a permanent increase in demand for water, wastewater treatment, energy, and solid waste disposal services that would necessitate the construction of new utility infrastructure. The proposed project and other reasonably foreseeable development would be required to comply with State regulations and local policies (e.g., CALGreen, California Integrated Waste Management Act, and the Los Angeles Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan), which would reduce per capita water and energy consumption and wastewater and solid waste generation in the City over time. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on utilities and service systems.

Wildfire
The geographic scope for evaluating cumulative impacts on wildfire is Los Angeles County. Climate change has increased the likelihood and intensity of wildfires in Los Angeles County (NOAA 2025). According to CAL FIRE’s recent updates to its fire hazard severity zone maps, more than 440,000 acres of land have been added to Los Angeles County’s hazard zones over the last decade, including an approximately 30 percent increase in acres classified as very high FHSZs (Los Angeles Times 2025). Therefore, a significant cumulative impact exists in the City with respect to wildfire. As discussed in Section 3.20, “Wildfire,” the proposed project would not involve any changes to the local roadway network that would interfere with emergency evacuation routes, introduce new infrastructure that would exacerbate wildfire risks, or increase the exposure of people or structures to wildfire risks. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on wildfire.

Summary
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project’s contribution to environmental impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Pomona
3-98 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than significant impact. As discussed in Section 3.3, “Air Quality”; Section 3.8, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions”; Section 3.9, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials”; Section 3.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality”; Section 3.13, “Noise”; and Section 3.17, “Transportation”; the proposed project’s construction would result in the short-term and temporary increases in air pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise and vibration levels; degradation of water quality; potential releases of hazardous materials into the environment; and disruptions to the transportation network.

However, with implementation of required BMPs and compliance with applicable permits, programs, and regulations during construction, these environmental effects would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.

Required Mitigation Measures
With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, CUL-1, NOI-1, NOI-2, and TCR-1 through TCR-3 the proposed project would not result in significant impacts.

City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 4-1 4 REFERENCES
1 Introduction
No references were used in this chapter.
2 Project Description
Craftwater Engineering, Inc. 2024 (October). Hydrology Report, San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project. Prepared for City of Pomona, Pomona, CA.

Fehr & Peers. 2012 (November). Active Transportation Plan: Bicycle Master Plan, and Pedestrian Master Plan. Available:
https://www.pomonaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2548/637521796925100000. Accessed June 2, 2023.
3 Environmental Checklist
Fehr & Peers. 2012 (November). Active Transportation Plan: Bicycle Master Plan, and Pedestrian Master Plan. Available:
https://www.pomonaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2548/637521796925100000. Accessed July 24, 2024.

3.1 Aesthetics
City of Pomona. 2014a. Pomona General Plan. Available:
https://www.pomonaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2402/637521057423830000. Accessed June 27, 2023.

California Department of Transportation. 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Retrieved from:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

Accessed July 3, 2023.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources
California Department of Conservation. 2020 (November). Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2018, Sheet 2 of 2.

Retrieved from: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/LosAngeles.aspx. Accessed June 27, 2023.

DOC. See California Department of Conservation.

3.3 Air Quality
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2024. CalEEMod. Available: https://caleemod.com/ CAPCOA. See California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.

California Air Resources Board. 2004. Revision to the California State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide, Updated Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal Planning Areas. Available:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/co/final_2004_co_plan_update.pdf. Accessed April 29, 2024 ———. 2013. California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/almanacemissions-air-quality. Accessed: April 28, 2025. ———. 2023a. Maps of State and Federal Area Designations. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations. Accessed June 11, 2025.
———. 2023b. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-dieselexhaust-and-health. Accessed April 29, 2025.

References Ascent
City of Pomona
4-2 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study ———. 2024a. Table of Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 08/AAQS%20Table_ADA_FINAL_07222024.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2025.

CARB. See California Air Resources Board.

EPA. See US Environmental Protection Agency.

SCAQMD. See South Coast Air Quality Management District.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ceqa-air-quality-handbook-(1993). Accessed June 11, 2025. ———. 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. Available:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidancedocument.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed April 23, 2025. ———. 2006. Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance Thresholds.

Available: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/particulate-matter-(pm)-2.5-significance-thresholds-and-calculationmethodology/final_pm2_5methodology.pdf?sfvrsn=e91ff961_2. Accessed April 29, 2025. ———. 2008a. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2025.
———. 2018. NAAQS/CAAQS and Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. Available:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs-caaqsfeb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=2385ca61_23. Accessed: June 11, 2025. ———. 2022. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/airquality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf.

Accessed April 23, 2025.
———. 2023. Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook. Available: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook. Accessed April 23, 2025. ———. 2024 Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/permitting/hra-procedures/hraprocedures9-0_103124.pdf?sfvrsn=8. Accessed April 23, 2025. ———. 2025. South Coast AQMD Rule Book. Avaialble: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/rules/scaqmd-rule-book. Accessed: June 11, 2025 US Environmental Protection Agency. 2024. NAAQS Table. Available: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-airpollutants/naaqs-table. Accessed July 2, 2025.

Western Regional Climate Center. See WRCC.

WRCC. 2012. Retrieved from: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca1779. Accessed on April 29, 2025

3.4 Biological Resources
Blackhawk. See Blackhawk Environmental, Inc.

Blackhawk Environmental, Inc. 2025 (July). San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Biological Letter Report.

Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. State of California, the Resources Agency. Department of Fish and Game.

Oberbauer, T., Kelly, M. and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.” Holland.

USACE. See US Army Corps of Engineers.

Ascent References
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 4-3 US Army Corps of Engineers. 2022. Nationwide Permit 14—Linear Transportation Projects. Available:
https://www.swt.usace.army.mil/Portals/41/docs/missions/regulatory/2021%20NWP/NWP14.pdf?ver=_lanIsfJ_cR3Ss9P1ckicQ%3D%3D. Accessed June 24, 2025.

3.5 Cultural Resources
California Department of Transportation. 2008 (April). A Geoarchaeological Overview and Assessment of Caltrans District 3. Prepared by Far Western Anthropological Group, Davis. ———. 2010. Volume I: A Geoarchaeological Overview and Assessment of Caltrans Districts 6 and 9 – Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 6/9 Rural Conventional Highways. Prepared by Jack Meyer, Craig Young, and Jeffrey S. Rosenthal, Far Western Anthropological Group, Davis.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

Dibblee, T.W. and J.A. Minch. 2002. Geologic Map of the San Dimas and Ontario quadrangles, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California. California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey.

Rosenthal, J.S., and J. Meyer. 2004a. Landscape Evolution and the Archaeological Record: A Geoarchaeological Study of the Southern Santa Clara Valley and Surrounding Region. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publication No. 14. University of California, Davis.
———. 2004b. Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 10, Rural Conventional Highways. In Vol. III:

Geoarchaeological Study, Landscape Evolution and the Archaeological Record of Central California. Report prepared by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis, California.

USDA. See US Department of Agriculture.

US Department of Agriculture. 2024. Web Soil Web. Available:
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed on May 14, 2024.

3.6 Energy
BTS. See Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2023. US Energy Consumption by the Transportation Sector. Available:
https://www.bts.gov/content/us-energy-consumption-transportation-sector. Accessed April 24, 2025.

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. 2024. Fuel Taxes Statistics & Reports. Available:
https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm. Accessed July 2, 2025.

California Energy Commission. 2019. 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan. Available:
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=231261&DocumentContentId=62916. Accessed: June 24, 2025.
_______. 2023a. 2023 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Annual Report. Available: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/- /media/cpuc-website/divisions/office-of-governmental-affairs-division/reports/2023/2023-rps-annualreport-to-the-legislature.pdf. Accessed: June 24, 2025. ———. 2023b. Annual Power Content Labels for 2023. 2 Power Content Label. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/power-source-disclosure-program/powercontent-label/annual-power-4. Accessed April 29, 2025.

CEC. See California Energy Commission.

City of Pomona. 2012 (November). Green Plan. Available:
https://www.pomonaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2550/637521797735570000. Accessed April 30, 2025.

EIA. See US Energy Information Administration.

References Ascent
City of Pomona
4-4 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study State of California. 2008 (February). 2008 Energy Action Plan Update. Available: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/- /media/cpuc-website/files/uploadedfiles/cpuc_public_website/content/utilities_and_industries/energy_- _electricity_and_natural_gas/2008-energy-action-plan-update.pdf. Accessed July 2, 2025.

US Energy Information Administration. 2023. California State Profile. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA. Accessed April 22, 2024.

3.7 Geology and Soils
California Department of Transportation. 2024. Construction Manual. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/construction/documents/policies-procedures-publications/constructionmanual/cmsearchabledoc.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2025. ———. 2025a. Geotechnical Manual. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/engineeringservices/manuals/geotechnical-manual. Accessed April 24, 2025. ———. 2025b. Memo to Designers. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/engineering-services/manuals/memo-todesigners. Accessed April 24, 2025.

California Geological Survey. 2021 (September). California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Retrieved from:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp. Accessed July 5, 2023.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

CGS. See California Geological Survey.

Geosyntec Consultants. 2025. Final Geotechnical Report, San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway, Pomona, California.

USACE. See US Army Corps of Engineers.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 2024 (June). Earthquake Analysis, Evaluation, and Design for Civil Works Projects.

Available: https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerRegulations/ER%201110- 2-1806%20effective%2029%20June%202024.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2025.

US Geological Survey. n.d. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Retrieved from:
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html. Accessed October 15, 2024.

USGS. See US Geological Survey.

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
California Air Resources Board. 2017 (November). California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. Available:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed September 8, 2022. ———. 2020. State of California Air Resource Board Executive Order G-20-239 Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 2020 Sustainable Communities Strategy CARB Acceptance of GHG Quantification Determination. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 02/SCAG%202020%20SCS%20CARB%20Acceptance%20of%20GHG%20Quantification%20Determination%20 Executive%20Order.pdf. Accessed April 30, 2025.
———. 2022 (December). 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf. Accessed July 2, 2025.

CARB. See California Air Resources Board.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. Chapter 6, Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. Pages 465– 570 in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf. Accessed December 21, 2020.

Ascent References
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 4-5 ———. 2022. Summary for Policymakers. Available:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf.

Accessed April 18, 2025
IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

SCAG. See Southern California Association of Governments.

SCAQMD. See South Coast Air Quality Management District.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008b. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. Available: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-qualityanalysis-handbook/ghg-significance-thresholds. Accessed April 29, 2025. ———. 2010. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15. Available:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significancethresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf. Accessed: July 8, 2022.

Southern California Association of Governments. 2024. Final Connect SoCal 2024. Available:
https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal. Accessed June 11, 2025.

UN. See United Nations.

United Nations. 2015. Paris Agreement. Available:
https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf.

Accessed July 2, 2025.

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2025 (March). Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones as Identified by the State Fire Marshal. Retrieved from: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-wedo/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones. Accessed April 13, 2026.

CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

CalEPA. See California Environmental Protection Agency.

California Environmental Protection Agency. 2016a. Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit. Available: https://calepa.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList-CurrentList.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2026. ______. 2016b. List of “active CDO and CAO from Water Board. Retrieved from:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed July 12, 2023. ______. 2023. Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a). Available: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962- 5a/. Accessed July 12, 2023.

Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2023. EnviroStor. Retrieved from: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

Accessed July 12, 2023.

DTSC. See Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Federal Highway Administration. 2003. Living With Noise. Available: https://highways.dot.gov/publicroads/julyaugust-2003/living-noise. Accessed July 12, 2023.

FHWA. See Federal Highway Administration.

Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. 2015 (December). Los Angeles County Brackett Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Retrieved from: https://planning.lacounty.gov/long-range-planning/brackett-fieldairport-land-use-compatibility-plan/. Accessed April 2025.

LADPW. See Los Angeles Department of Public Works.

References Ascent
City of Pomona
4-6 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study Los Angeles Department of Public Works. 2008. Disaster Route Map – City of Pomona. Available:
https://pw.lacounty.gov/dsg/DisasterRoutes/map/Pomona.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2023.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2023. GeoTracker. Retrieved from: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

Accessed July 12, 2023.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
California Geological Survey. 2009. CGS Information Warehouse: Tsunami Hazard Area Map. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ts_evacuation/. Accessed July 5, 2023.

CGS. See California Geological Survey.

City of Pomona. 2014b (March). City of Pomona General Plan Update, Corridors Specific Plan, Active Transportation Plan and Green Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc., Ventura, California. Retrieved from: https://www.pomonaca.gov/government/departments/developmentservices/planning-division/general-plan?locale=en. Accessed June 27, 2023. ______. 2021 (June). Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available:
https://www.pomonaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3336/637635136177670000. Accessed July 11, 2023.

Craftwater Engineering, Inc. 2024 (October). Hydrology Report, San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project. Prepared for City of Pomona, Pomona, CA.

California Department of Water Resources. 2020 (May). SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Retrieved from:
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/. Accessed July 12, 2023.

DWR. See California Department of Water Resources.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008 (September). Retrieved from:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=690%20Medina%20St%2C%20Pomona%2C%20CA%209 1768. Accessed July 5, 2023.

FEMA. See Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Geosyntec Consultants. 2025. Final Geotechnical Report, San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway, Pomona, California.

LARWQCB. See Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2020. Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Adopted September 11, 2014; reflects updates through May 18, 2020. Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_documentation.ht ml. Accessed July 11, 2023.
______. 2022 (May). 2020-2022 California Integrated Report. Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2020_2022_integrated_re port.html. Accessed July 12, 2023.

Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster. 2023. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster. Retrieved from:
https://www.watermaster.org/. Accessed July 11, 2023.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 2022. Nationwide Permit 14—Linear Transportation Projects. Available:
https://www.swt.usace.army.mil/Portals/41/docs/missions/regulatory/2021%20NWP/NWP14.pdf?ver=_lanIsfJ_cR3Ss9P1ckicQ%3D%3D. Accessed June 24, 2025.

USACE. See US Army Corps of Engineers.

Ascent References
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 4-7

3.11 Land Use and Planning
City of Pomona. 2012 (November). Green Plan. Available:
https://www.pomonaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2550/637521797735570000. Accessed April 30, 2025.

Fehr & Peers. 2012 (November). Active Transportation Plan: Bicycle Master Plan, and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Available: https://www.pomonaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2548/637521796925100000. Accessed July 24, 2024.

SCAG. See Southern California Association of Governments.

Southern California Association of Governments. 2020 (September). Connect SoCal. Available:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176. Accessed July 24, 2024.

3.12 Mineral Resources
California Division of Mines and Geology. 1981. Generalized Aggregate Resource Classification Map, Orange County – Temescal Valley and Adjacent Production-Consumption Regions. Retrieved from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc. Accessed June 27, 2023.

California Geological Survey. 2007. Update of Mineral Land Classification for Portland Cement Concrete-Grate Aggregate in the Claremont-Upland Production-Consumption Region, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California. Retrieved from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc. Accessed June 27, 2023.

Accessed June 27, 2023.

CGS. See California Geological Survey.

City of Pomona. 2014a. Pomona General Plan. Available:
https://www.pomonaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2402/637521057423830000. Accessed June 27, 2023.

3.13 Noise
California Department of Transportation. 2013 (September). Technical Noise Supplement. California Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis. Sacramento, CA. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes.

Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tenssep2013-a11y.pdf. Accessed April 2025. ———. 2020 (April). Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf. Accessed April 2025.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

City of Pomona. 2014a. Pomona General Plan. Available:
https://www.pomonaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2402/637521057423830000. Accessed June 27, 2023.
———. 2025. City of Pomona Municipal Code. Available:
https://library.municode.com/ca/pomona/codes/city_code?nodeId=13712. Accessed April 2025. ———. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Washington, D.C. Prepared by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Cambridge, MA.

FHWA. See Federal Highway Administration.

References Ascent
City of Pomona
4-8 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Washington, D.C. Available:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed April 2025.

FTA. See Federal Transit Administration.

Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. 2015 (December). Los Angeles County Brackett Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Retrieved from: https://planning.lacounty.gov/long-range-planning/brackett-fieldairport-land-use-compatibility-plan/. Accessed April 2025.

National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 1999. Mitigation of Nighttime Construction Noise, Vibrations, and Other Nuisances. Transportation Research Board National Research Council.

NCHRP. See National Cooperative Highway Research Program.

3.14 Population and Housing
US Census Bureau. 2023. Quick Facts, Pomona city, California. Available:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pomonacitycalifornia. Accessed June 27, 2023.

3.15 Public Services
City of Pomona. 2023. Library Services. Available:
https://www.pomonaca.gov/government/departments/library/services. Accessed July 11, 2023.

LA County Parks. See Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation.

Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation. 2016. Los Angeles Countywide Comprehensive Park & Recreation Needs Assessment – City of Pomona - Northside Study Area Profile. Available:
https://lacountyparkneeds.org/wp-content/root/FinalReportAppendixA/StudyArea_155.pdf. Accessed July 11, 2023.

LACoFD. See Los Angeles County Fire Department.

Los Angeles County Fire Department. 2022. 2021 County of Los Angeles Fire Department Annual Report. Available:
https://fire.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/LACoFD-2020-Annual-Report_Final_081722.pdf.

Accessed July 11, 2023.

Pomona Police Department. 2021. Pomona Police 2020 Annual Report. Available:
https://www.pomonaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3583/637667952020500000. Accessed July 11, 2023.

Pomona Unified School District. 2023. 2022-2023 Fingertip Facts. Retrieved from:
https://proudtobe.pusd.org/apps/pages/Facts. Accessed July 10, 2023.

PUSD. See Pomona Unified School District.

3.16 Recreation
No references were used in this section.

3.17 Transportation/Traffic
City of Pomona. 2014a. Pomona General Plan. Available:
https://www.pomonaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2402/637521057423830000. Accessed June 27, 2023.
______. 2020 (October). City of Pomona Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment. Available:
https://www.pomonaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2412/637521138994870000. Accessed October 11, 2024.

Ascent References
City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 4-9 Fehr & Peers. 2012 (November). Active Transportation Plan: Bicycle Master Plan, and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Available: https://www.pomonaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2548/637521796925100000. Accessed July 24, 2024.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018 (April). Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Available: https://lci.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf. Accessed October 17, 2024.

OPR. See Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
No references were used in this section.

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2023. SWIS Facility/Site Search. Retrieved from:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search. Accessed July 2023.

CalRecycle. See California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.

City of Pomona. 2021 (June). Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available:
https://www.pomonaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3336/637635136177670000. Accessed July 11, 2023.

SCE. See Southern California Edison.

SoCalGas. See Southern California Gas Company.

Southern California Edison. 2025. Southern California Edison’s Service Area. Available:
https://download.newsroom.edison.com/create_memory_file/?f_id=5cc32d492cfac24d21aecf4c&content_veri fied=True. Accessed July 2, 2025.

Southern California Gas Company. 2023. Company Profile. Available: https://www.socalgas.com/about-us/companyprofile. Accessed July 26, 2023.

3.20 Wildfire
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2025 (March). Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones as Identified by the State Fire Marshal. Retrieved from: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-wedo/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones. Accessed April 13, 2026.

CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008 (September). Retrieved from:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=690%20Medina%20St%2C%20Pomona%2C%20CA%20917

68. Accessed July 5, 2023.

FEMA. See Federal Emergency Management Agency.

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Los Angeles Times. 2025. New fire maps increase hazard zones in L.A. and Southern California by 3.5 million acres.

Available: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-03-24/new-fire-hazard-maps-for-los-angelesand-southerncalifornia#:~:text=The%20California%20Department%20of%20Forestry,in%20the%20highest%20severity%20 rating. Accessed April 21, 2025.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2025. The weather and climate influences on the January 2025 fires around Los Angeles. Available: https://content-drupal.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/weatherand-climate-influences-january-2025-fires-around-los-angeles. Accessed April 21, 2025.

NOAA. See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

References Ascent
City of Pomona
4-10 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study This page is intentionally left blank.

City of Pomona
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study 5-1 5 REPORT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

5.1 CITY OF POMONA
Arnold Dichosa ................................................................................................................................................................................City Engineer Shandy Dittman........................................................................................................................ Public Works Fiscal and Project Manager Ron Chan....................................................................................................................................................................Principal Traffic Engineer Matt Pilarz ......................................................................................................................................................................Principal Civil Engineer

5.2 ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL
Chad Beckstrom, AICP ..................................................................................................................................................... Principal-in-Charge Nicole Greenfield.....................................................................................................................................................................Project Manager Dimitri Antoniou..........................................................................................Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise Practice Leader Matthew McFalls ......................................................................................................Senior Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Specialist Jing Qian, PhD ........................................................................................................................Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Specialist Elena Savignano.............................................................................................................................................................................Noise Analyst Alta Cunningham...........................................................................................................................................Director of Cultural Resources Roberto Mora, RPA.......................................................................................................................................................................Archaeologist Michele Mattei ...................................................................................................................................................................Publishing Specialist Lisa Merry ............................................................................................................................................................................Senior GIS Specialist Alyssa Luna .......................................................................................................................................................................................GIS Specialist Brian Perry.............................................................................................................................. Senior Publications and Graphics Specialist

5.3 ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Steven Frieson..............................................................................................................................................................Chief Operating Officer Sasha Fox, PE...................................................................................................................................................................Engineering Manager Talia Agazaryan, PE, ENV SP...................................................................................................................................... Engineering Designer

5.4 FEHR & PEERS
Miguel Núñez ..........................................................................................................................................................................................Principal Baldwin Ngai ..............................................................................................................................................................Senior Engineer/Planner

5.5 BLACKHAWK ENVIRONMENTAL
Hayley Milner ..................................................................................................................................................................................Staff Biologist Report Preparers Ascent
City of Pomona
5-2 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project Initial Study This page is intentionally left blank.

Appendix A
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
and Energy Modeling

San Jose Creek Bikeway Report Tables
Construction
AQ Estimated Maximum Pounds per day Mass Regional Construction Emissions Construction Phase ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 SO2
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing 1 7 14 2.6 0.8 0
Linear, Grading & Excavation 4 27 40 4.2 1.6 0
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade 3 22 32 3.8 1.3 0 Linear, Paving 1 8 19 2.2 0.7 0
Maximum Daily 4 27 40 4.2 1.6 0
Mass Emissions Threshold 75 100 550 150 55 150
Exceed Threshold? a No No No No No No
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing N/A 5 5 0.4 0.2 N/A
Linear, Grading & Excavation N/A 27 31 2.4 1.2 N/A
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade N/A 21 23 1.9 0.9 N/A Linear, Paving N/A 7 11 0.3 0.3 N/A
Maximum Daily N/A 27 31 2.4 1.2 N/A
Localized Significance Threshold N/A 103 612 4.0 3.0 N/A Exceed Threshold? a N/A No No No No N/A
Assuming no overlapping phases
GHG Construction GHGs Emissions Energy Construction Energy Consumptions Construction Phases MTCO2e
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing 69 Diesel Gasoline Diesel Gasoline Linear, Grading & Excavation 618 36 34 3,483 3,822
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade 490 486 132 47,645 15,000 Linear, Paving 92 375 115 36,730 13,099
Total Construction Emissions 1,269 46 46 4,493 5,245
Amortized Construction Emissions 42 943 326 92,351 18,343 30 years amortization Assume Off-road construction equipment and vendor/haul trucks are all diesel fueled.

All worker vehicles are gasoline fueled.

Climate Registry 2025 MT to kg 1000
Emission factors 8.78 kg CO₂ per gallon of gasoline

10.21 kg CO₂ per gallon of diese
Regional Emissions
Localized Emissions
Linear, Grading & Excavation
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & SubGrade
Linear, Paving
Total
MTCO2e Gallons of fuel
Construction Phases
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing
Compiled CalEEMod Output
Max Daily by Phase Unit: lbs/day
Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10 PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5 CO2e Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade 2.90861215 22.0684018 31.7301145 0.056023 0.829471 2.931314 3.760784 0.763367 0.558955 1.322322 7851.907 Linear, Grading & Excavation 3.65346694 27.3621884 40.0076407 0.063589 1.123494 3.088807 4.212301 1.033461 0.567872 1.601333 8755.928 Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing 1.07275261 6.78325613 13.5826649 0.015608 0.240455 2.357191 2.597645 0.222426 0.538636 0.761063 3779.663 Linear, Paving 1.31716768 7.85531476 19.2611596 0.016139 0.28147 1.878268 2.159738 0.259136 0.442167 0.701303 3694.252 Onsite Max Daily by Phase Unit: lbs/day
Phase Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10 PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5 CO2e Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade 2027 2.39260553 21.1522666 23.32935 0.054356 0.826295 1.034611 1.860906 0.760191 0.111741 0.871932 5712.129 Linear, Grading & Excavation 2026 3.13654096 26.673297 30.93278 0.063128 1.122594 1.240873 2.363467 1.032787 0.133989 1.166776 6761.895 Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing 2026 0.5430314 4.71598977 5.309234 0.00768 0.225353 0.209762 0.435115 0.207325 0.022778 0.230103 736.974 Linear, Paving 2027 0.81804584 7.17958375 10.78058 0.014953 0.279171 0 0.279171 0.256837 0 0.256837 1625.054 Construction Emission Summary Units: Max Daily: lbs/day, Annual: CO2e MTs, other Tons Temporal Metric Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Annual 2026 0.40111539 3.00047248 4.356757 0.007105 0.119665 0.380858 0.500523 0.110112 0.072573 0.182685 915.4121 Annual 2027 0.14086603 0.99299537 1.657866 0.002533 0.036324 0.159994 0.196319 0.033433 0.032773 0.066206 354.0505 Max Daily 2026 3.65346694 27.3621884 40.00764 0.063589 1.123494 3.088807 4.212301 1.033461 0.567872 1.601333 8757.187 Max Daily 2027 2.81605809 20.7105334 31.73011 0.056017 0.765775 2.931314 3.697088 0.704767 0.558955 1.263721 7853.591 Construction Schedule
Phase Name Start Date End Date Days Per WeeWork Days Phase Description Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing 1/1/2026 2/25/2026 5 40 demolition phase in PD Linear, Grading & Excavation 2/26/2026 10/2/2026 5 157 grading phase in PD Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade 10/3/2026 4/14/2027 5 138 construction phase in PD Linear, Paving 4/15/2027 7/1/2027 5 56 architectural finishing phase in PD Compiled Annual Onsite Offsite Construction Emissions from CalEEMod Output Phase Location Site
Location
Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Off-Road Equipment Onsite 2026 0.0109 0.0943 0.1062 0.0002 0.0045 0.0045 0.0041 0.0041 13.371 Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Dust From Material Movement Onsite 2026 0.0042 0.0042 0.0005 0.0005 Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Worker Offsite 2026 0.0102 0.0133 0.1615 0 0 0.0362 0.0362 0 0.0085 0.0085 33.554 Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Hauling Offsite 2026 0.0004 0.0295 0.0111 0.0002 0.0003 0.0063 0.0066 0.0003 0.0017 0.002 22.195 Linear, Grading & Excavation Off-Road Equipment Onsite 2026 0.2462 2.0939 2.4282 0.005 0.0881 0.0881 0.0811 0.0811 481.54 Linear, Grading & Excavation Dust From Material Movement Onsite 2026 0.0974 0.0974 0.0105 0.0105 Linear, Grading & Excavation Worker Offsite 2026 0.04 0.0521 0.6339 0 0 0.1419 0.1419 0 0.0332 0.0332 131.7 Linear, Grading & Excavation Vendor Offsite 2026 7E-05 0.0028 0.0013 2E-05 4E-05 0.0007 0.0007 2E-05 0.0002 0.0002 2.32 Linear, Grading & Excavation Hauling Offsite 2026 4E-05 0.0034 0.0013 2E-05 4E-05 0.0007 0.0008 4E-05 0.0002 0.0002 2.5921 Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Off-Road Equipment Onsite 2026 0.0769 0.6799 0.7499 0.0017 0.0266 0.0266 0.0244 0.0244 166.56 Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Dust From Material Movement Onsite 2026 0.0333 0.0333 0.0036 0.0036 Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Worker Offsite 2026 0.0164 0.0213 0.2596 0 0 0.0581 0.0581 0 0.0136 0.0136 53.926 Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Hauling Offsite 2026 0.0001 0.01 0.0037 5E-05 0.0001 0.0021 0.0022 0.0001 0.0006 0.0007 7.5015 Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Off-Road Equipment Onsite 2027 0.086 0.7358 0.862 0.002 0.0283 0.0283 0.0261 0.0261 192.44 Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Dust From Material Movement Onsite 2027 0.0384 0.0384 0.0042 0.0042 Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Worker Offsite 2027 0.0181 0.0224 0.2781 0 0 0.0671 0.0671 0 0.0157 0.0157 61.082 Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Hauling Offsite 2027 0.0001 0.0111 0.0042 6E-05 0.0001 0.0025 0.0026 0.0001 0.0007 0.0008 8.5021 Linear, Paving Off-Road Equipment Onsite 2027 0.0229 0.201 0.3019 0.0004 0.0078 0.0078 0.0072 0.0072 41.278 Linear, Paving Worker Offsite 2027 0.0137 0.0169 0.2097 0 0 0.0506 0.0506 0 0.0119 0.0119 46.047 Linear, Paving Hauling Offsite 2027 6E-05 0.0057 0.002 3E-05 6E-05 0.0013 0.0014 6E-05 0.0004 0.0004 4.5967 Diesel Gasoline Total
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing 35.56616151 33.55372 69.12 Linear, Grading & Excavation 486.4542914 131.6984 618.15 Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade 375.0114936 115.008 490.02 Linear, Paving 45.87502445 46.04673 91.922
Total 942.906971 326.3068 1269.2
Assume worker commute vehicles use gasoline, others diesel CO2e MT by Fuel Type Phase
Additional truck data from client
Landscaping component
Truck load
(cy)
# of round
trips
# of oneway trips
One-way
trip length
(mi)
# of oneway trips
per day
Total material
moved (fugitive dust
input) (cy)
soil+amendment 14 34 68 20 1.21429 476
plants/trees/shrubs* 50' semi 8 16 60 0.28571
site amenities (bench, lights)* 50' semi 4 8 75 0.14286 Total 92 31.73913 1.64286
* 50' semi-truck. Trip length were estimated as minimum trip length (provided) times F F= 1.5
Phase duration (days) Caleemod 56
80,000 lbs per 50' semi
40 tons/truck

1.5 tons/cy soil
San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
1 / 30
San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

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

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

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

3.7. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027) - Unmitigated

3.9. Linear, Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
2 / 30

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation
San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
3 / 30

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
4 / 30

8. User Changes to Default Data
San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
5 / 30

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name San Jose Creek Bikeway
Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.60
Precipitation (days) 18.8
Location 34.062036172081704, -117.80022271015261
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Pomona
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5018
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Road Construction 3.50 Mile 6.00 0.00 — — — —
San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
6 / 30

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.32 3.65 27.3 40.0 0.06 1.12 3.09 4.21 1.03 0.57 1.60 — 8,703 8,703 0.36 0.15 6.58 8,757 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.32 3.65 27.4 38.7 0.06 1.12 3.09 4.21 1.03 0.57 1.60 — 8,604 8,604 0.36 0.26 0.23 8,652 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.61 2.20 16.4 23.9 0.04 0.66 2.09 2.74 0.60 0.40 1.00 — 5,488 5,488 0.23 0.11 2.18 5,529 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.48 0.40 3.00 4.36 0.01 0.12 0.38 0.50 0.11 0.07 0.18 — 909 909 0.04 0.02 0.36 915

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 4.32 3.65 27.3 40.0 0.06 1.12 3.09 4.21 1.03 0.57 1.60 — 8,703 8,703 0.36 0.13 6.58 8,757 San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
7 / 30
2027 3.34 2.82 20.6 31.7 0.06 0.77 2.93 3.70 0.70 0.56 1.26 — 7,794 7,794 0.32 0.15 6.31 7,854 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 4.32 3.65 27.4 38.7 0.06 1.12 3.09 4.21 1.03 0.57 1.60 — 8,604 8,604 0.36 0.26 0.23 8,652 2027 3.34 2.81 20.7 30.4 0.06 0.77 2.93 3.70 0.70 0.56 1.26 — 7,698 7,698 0.27 0.15 0.16 7,750 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.61 2.20 16.4 23.9 0.04 0.66 2.09 2.74 0.60 0.40 1.00 — 5,488 5,488 0.23 0.11 2.18 5,529 2027 0.92 0.77 5.44 9.08 0.01 0.20 0.88 1.08 0.18 0.18 0.36 — 2,122 2,122 0.07 0.05 0.96 2,138 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.48 0.40 3.00 4.36 0.01 0.12 0.38 0.50 0.11 0.07 0.18 — 909 909 0.04 0.02 0.36 915 2027 0.17 0.14 0.99 1.66 < 0.005 0.04 0.16 0.20 0.03 0.03 0.07 — 351 351 0.01 0.01 0.16 354

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.65 0.54 4.72 5.31 0.01 0.23 — 0.23 0.21 — 0.21 — 734 734 0.03 0.01 — 737 San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
8 / 30
Dust — — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.06 0.52 0.58 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 80.5 80.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.8 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.3 13.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.4 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.58 0.51 0.61 7.72 0.00 0.00 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.43 0.43 — 1,798 1,798 0.08 0.07 0.17 1,820 San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
9 / 30
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.08 0.02 1.46 0.56 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.33 0.02 0.09 0.10 — 1,165 1,165 0.06 0.19 0.07 1,223 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 200 200 0.01 0.01 0.30 203 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 128 128 0.01 0.02 0.12 134 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 33.1 33.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 33.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.1 21.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 22.2

3.3. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.74 3.14 26.7 30.9 0.06 1.12 — 1.12 1.03 — 1.03 — 6,739 6,739 0.27 0.05 — 6,762 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.24 1.24 — 0.13 0.13 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
10 / 30
Off-Roa
Equipment

3.74 3.14 26.7 30.9 0.06 1.12 — 1.12 1.03 — 1.03 — 6,739 6,739 0.27 0.05 — 6,762 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.24 1.24 — 0.13 0.13 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.61 1.35 11.5 13.3 0.03 0.48 — 0.48 0.44 — 0.44 — 2,899 2,899 0.12 0.02 — 2,909 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.53 0.53 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.29 0.25 2.09 2.43 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 480 480 0.02 < 0.005 — 482 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.58 0.52 0.54 9.04 0.00 0.00 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.43 0.43 — 1,897 1,897 0.08 0.07 6.42 1,925 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 31.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 32.6 San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
11 / 30
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.7 34.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 36.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.58 0.51 0.61 7.72 0.00 0.00 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.43 0.43 — 1,798 1,798 0.08 0.07 0.17 1,820 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 31.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 32.6 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.7 34.7 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 36.4 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.25 0.22 0.29 3.47 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 785 785 0.04 0.03 1.19 795 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.4 13.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.0 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.9 14.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 15.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 130 130 0.01 < 0.005 0.20 132 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.22 2.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.32 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.47 2.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.59

3.5. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

2.85 2.39 21.2 23.3 0.05 0.83 — 0.83 0.76 — 0.76 — 5,693 5,693 0.23 0.05 — 5,712 San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
12 / 30
Dust — — — — — — 1.03 1.03 — 0.11 0.11 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.50 0.42 3.73 4.11 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.13 — 0.13 — 1,003 1,003 0.04 0.01 — 1,006 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.18 0.18 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.09 0.08 0.68 0.75 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 166 166 0.01 < 0.005 — 167 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.58 0.51 0.61 7.72 0.00 0.00 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.43 0.43 — 1,798 1,798 0.08 0.07 0.17 1,820 San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
13 / 30
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.31 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 245 245 0.01 0.04 0.01 257 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.12 1.42 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 321 321 0.01 0.01 0.49 326 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 43.2 43.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 45.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 53.2 53.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 53.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.14 7.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.50

3.7. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

2.76 2.32 19.8 23.2 0.05 0.76 — 0.76 0.70 — 0.70 — 5,692 5,692 0.23 0.05 — 5,711 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.03 1.03 — 0.11 0.11 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
14 / 30
Off-Roa
Equipment

2.76 2.32 19.8 23.2 0.05 0.76 — 0.76 0.70 — 0.70 — 5,692 5,692 0.23 0.05 — 5,711 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.03 1.03 — 0.11 0.11 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.56 0.47 4.03 4.72 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.14 — 0.14 — 1,158 1,158 0.05 0.01 — 1,162 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.10 0.09 0.74 0.86 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 192 192 0.01 < 0.005 — 192 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.04 0.04 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.56 0.50 0.48 8.41 0.00 0.00 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.43 0.43 — 1,861 1,861 0.08 0.07 5.80 1,888 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
15 / 30
Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.28 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 240 240 0.01 0.04 0.51 253 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.56 0.49 0.60 7.13 0.00 0.00 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.43 0.43 — 1,764 1,764 0.02 0.07 0.15 1,784 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.30 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 240 240 0.01 0.04 0.01 252 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.12 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 364 364 0.01 0.01 0.51 369 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.9 48.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 51.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 60.3 60.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 61.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.09 8.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.50

3.9. Linear, Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.97 0.82 7.18 10.8 0.01 0.28 — 0.28 0.26 — 0.26 — 1,619 1,619 0.07 0.01 — 1,625 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
16 / 30
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.15 0.13 1.10 1.65 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 248 248 0.01 < 0.005 — 249 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.02 0.20 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 41.1 41.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.3 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.56 0.50 0.48 8.41 0.00 0.00 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.43 0.43 — 1,861 1,861 0.08 0.07 5.80 1,888 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.19 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 172 172 0.01 0.03 0.37 181 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.07 0.09 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 275 275 < 0.005 0.01 0.38 278 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.4 26.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 27.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
17 / 30
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 45.5 45.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 46.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.38 4.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.60

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
18 / 30
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
19 / 30
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
1/1/2026 2/25/2026 5.00 40.0 demolition phase in PD
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
2/26/2026 10/2/2026 5.00 157 grading phase in PD
Linear, Drainage, Utilities,
& Sub-Grade
Linear, Drainage, Utilities,
& Sub-Grade
10/3/2026 4/14/2027 5.00 138 construction phase in PD
Linear, Paving Linear, Paving 4/15/2027 7/1/2027 5.00 56.0 architectural finishing phase in PD

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
20 / 30
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Signal Boards Electric Average 7.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Signal Boards Electric Average 7.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Rough Terrain Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 96.0 0.40 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Signal Boards Electric Average 7.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
21 / 30
Linear, Drainage, Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Linear, Paving Rollers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Linear, Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Linear, Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Linear, Paving Signal Boards Electric Average 7.00 8.00 6.00 0.82 Linear, Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing — — — —
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Worker 140 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Hauling 17.1 20.0 HHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Grading & Excavation — — — —
Linear, Grading & Excavation Worker 140 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grading & Excavation Vendor 1.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grading & Excavation Hauling 0.51 20.0 HHDT
San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
22 / 30
Linear, Grading & Excavation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
— — — —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Worker 140 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Hauling 3.60 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Paving — — — —
Linear, Paving Worker 140 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Paving Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Paving Hauling 1.64 31.7 HHDT
Linear, Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
23 / 30
Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
— 5,480 6.00 0.00 —
Linear, Grading & Excavation 345 288 6.00 0.00 —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
3,976 0.00 6.00 0.00 —

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Road Construction 6.00 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 616 532 0.03 < 0.005
2027 411 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
24 / 30

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 18.2 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 6.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 2.73 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
25 / 30

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

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

San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
26 / 30
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 72.8
AQ-PM 88.9
AQ-DPM 44.1
Drinking Water 98.2
Lead Risk Housing —
Pesticides 75.8
Toxic Releases 72.8
Traffic 94.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 38.1
Groundwater 32.8
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 67.0
Impaired Water Bodies 51.2
Solid Waste 70.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 39.4
Cardio-vascular 20.8
Low Birth Weights —
San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
27 / 30
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education —
Housing —
Linguistic —
Poverty —
Unemployment 100

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty —
Employed —
Median HI —
Education —
Bachelor's or higher —
High school enrollment —
Preschool enrollment —
Transportation —
Auto Access —
Active commuting —
Social —
2-parent households —
Voting —
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability —
Park access —
Retail density —
San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
28 / 30
Supermarket access —
Tree canopy —
Housing —
Homeownership —
Housing habitability —
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden —
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden —
Uncrowded housing —
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults —
Arthritis 100.0
Asthma ER Admissions 17.2
High Blood Pressure 100.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 99.9
Asthma 58.2
Coronary Heart Disease 100.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 99.9
Diagnosed Diabetes 100.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.0
Cognitively Disabled 99.2
Physically Disabled 99.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 37.6
Mental Health Not Good 68.6
Chronic Kidney Disease 100.0
Obesity 99.9
Pedestrian Injuries 0.0
Physical Health Not Good 99.9
Stroke 100.0
San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
29 / 30
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.2
Current Smoker 78.6
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 99.8
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 35.3
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 99.4
Elderly 99.8
English Speaking 0.0
Foreign-born 0.0
Outdoor Workers 98.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 90.8
Traffic Density 0.0
Traffic Access 52.9
Other Indices —
Hardship 0.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 0.0

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) —
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) —
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No San Jose Creek Bikeway Detailed Report, 4/25/2025
30 / 30
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

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

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

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Adjusted default workdays to align with an 18-month construction duration, maintaining the same workday proportion ratio.

Construction: Dust From Material Movement per Project Description:" Approximately 288 cubic yards of concrete would be removed and 5,480 cubic yards of unclassified material would be excavated, Approximately 345 cubic yards of unclassified fill would be imported to the project site.", "... a 4-inch paved path made of 5,368 tons of asphalt concrete and a 6-inch path made of 3,976 cubic yards of crushed miscellaneous base..." Landscape material include soil/amendment total 476 cubic yards.

Construction: Trips and VMT Max of 70 workers according to PD. Updated haul trips as weighted average of truck trips for import soil/amendment, plants/trees/shrubs/, and site amenities (bench, lights) during Linear, Paving Phase.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment added concrete saw as provided in PD Appendix B
Biological Letter Report

4337 Sheridan Lane
San Diego, CA, 92120
Phone: 619.972.7932
Phone: 619.972.8714
www.blackhawkenv.com
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project
Biological Letter Report

CITY OF POMONA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

Ascent Environmental, Inc.
15642 Sand Canyon #54491
Irvine, CA 92619
Attn: Chad Beckstrom
[email protected]
Prepared by:

Blackhawk Environmental, Inc.
4337 Sheridan Drive
San Diego, CA 92120
Contact: Hayley Milner
Telephone: 585.739.9864
E-mail: [email protected]
July 1, 2025
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
2 Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Project Location and Description.................................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

2.1 Literature Review............................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Survey Methods................................................................................................................................................................. 7

2.2.1 Vegetation Mapping ................................................................................................................................................ 7

2.2.2 Biological Resource Assessment.............................................................................................................................. 7

2.3 Limitations That May Influence Results ........................................................................................................................... 8

3.0 REGULATORY SETTING............................................................................................................................................................ 8

3.1 State and Federal Take Authorizations for Listed Species ........................................................................................... 8

3.2 Federal ............................................................................................................................................................................... 9

3.2.1 Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) ............................................................................................................... 9

3.2.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)............................................................................................................................. 9

3.2.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act................................................................................................................ 10

3.2.4 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 .......................................................................................................... 10

3.2.5 Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)........................................................................................................................... 10

3.2.5 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 .............................................................................................................................. 11

3.3 State.................................................................................................................................................................................. 11

3.3.1 State of California Endangered Species Act (CESA).......................................................................................... 11

3.3.2 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ..................................................................................................... 12

3.3.3 California Fish & Game Codes 3500 Series........................................................................................................... 14

3.3.4 Native Plant Protection Act.................................................................................................................................... 16

3.3.5 California Lake and Streambed Alteration Program.......................................................................................... 16

3.3.6 RWQCB Jurisdictional Waters................................................................................................................................. 16

3.4 Local ................................................................................................................................................................................. 17

3.4.1 Pomona General Plan Conservation Component ............................................................................................. 17

3.4.1.2 Stormwater Pollution Control .............................................................................................................................. 17

3.4.1.3 City of Pomona Oak Tree Preservation.............................................................................................................. 18

3.4.2 Los Angeles County – Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs)................................................................................. 18

4.0 RESULTS.................................................................................................................................................................................. 19

4.1 Environmental Setting..................................................................................................................................................... 19

4.2 Soils and Hydrologic Features ....................................................................................................................................... 20

4.3 Vegetation Communities/Land Use Cover Types....................................................................................................... 20

4.3.1 Disturbed (Holland Code 11300) ........................................................................................................................... 20

4.3.2 Urban/Developed (Holland Code 12000)............................................................................................................ 21

4.3.3 Non-vegetated Floodplain or Channel................................................................................................................ 21

4.4 Special-Status Species ................................................................................................................................................... 21

4.4.1 Special-Status Plant Species................................................................................................................................... 23

4.4.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species............................................................................................................................... 26

4.5 Special-Status Vegetation Communities ..................................................................................................................... 32

4.6 Riparian Resources and Jurisdictional Resources ...................................................................................................... 34 San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
3 5.0 PROJECT IMPACTS - THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE, DIRECT/INDIRECT IMPACTS & TEMPORARY/ PERMANENT IMPACTS...................................................................................................................................................................................... 34

5.1 Project Impacts ............................................................................................................................................................... 35

5.1.1 Habitat Impacts....................................................................................................................................................... 35

5.1.2 Species Impacts....................................................................................................................................................... 35

5.2 CEQA Thresholds of Significance.................................................................................................................................. 37

5.2.1 CEQA Threshold Biological Resources- Special-Status Species......................................................................... 37

5.2.2 CEQA Threshold Biological Resources- Sensitive Natural Communities ........................................................... 40

5.2.3 CEQA Threshold Biological Resources- Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands................................................... 40

5.2.4 CEQA Threshold Biological Resources- Wildlife Movement ............................................................................... 41

5.2.5 CEQA Threshold Biological Resources- Local Policies and Ordinances........................................................... 41

5.2.6 CEQA Threshold Biological Resources- Conservation Plans............................................................................... 41

6.0 MITIGATION PROGRAM....................................................................................................................................................... 42

6.1 Mitigation Measures for Construction Impacts ........................................................................................................... 42

7.0 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................................................................... 43

8.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................................... 45

ATTACHMENTS

A FIGURES
FIGURE 1 – PROJECT VICINITY
FIGURE 2 – SOILS
FIGURE 3 – HYDROLOGY
FIGURE 4 – HISTORICAL SPECIES OCCURRENCES
FIGURE 5 – CRITICAL HABITAT
FIGURE 6 – VEGETATION

B REPRESENTATIVE SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

C OBSERVED WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST

D OBSERVED PLANT SPECIES LIST
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
4 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Blackhawk Environmental, Inc. (Blackhawk) conducted an assessment of biological resources on behalf of Ascent Environmental, Inc. (Ascent) in support of the proposed San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway Project (Project), in the City of Pomona (City), Los Angeles County, California (Attachment A, Figure 1).

The Project originates at the southern entrance to the California State Polytechnic University at Temple Avenue and spans approximately 3.5 miles along the San Jose Creek channel northwest to Interstate10 and Murchinson Avenue. The Project is situated within an entirely developed area of the City, running along the north and south sides of the San Jose Creek channel (canal). The proposed Project includes development of an approximately 3.5-mile-long multi-use bike and pedestrian greenway, 15 access points (9 at grade street crossings), road improvements at street crossings to support bike use (i.e., curb ramps and bike lanes), way-finding and safety signage, bridge crossings across San Jose Creek, and stormwater runoff reduction and collection drainage system.

The proposed Project falls under the purview of the Pomona General Plan (2014), including the City of Pomona Green Plan (2012) and the City of Pomona’s Oak Tree Ordinance, and all applicable State and Federal regulations outlined below in Section 3. The report herein is intended to satisfy the required evaluation of any potentially significant environmental impacts that could result from Project implementation. The biological resource assessment was conducted to identify presence or absence of sensitive natural resources, identify the potential for occurrence (PFO) of special-status plant and wildlife species, and to develop mitigation measures to offset potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to any such resources on and/or adjacent to the proposed Project alignment. Additionally, the Biological Letter Report (BLR) serves to illustrate the baseline conditions for which the determination of impacts and mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) should be analyzed during the environmental review process.

1.1 Project Location and Description
The Project site is situated along 3.5 miles of the San Jose Creek channel (also known as Thompson Wash) originating at the southern entrance to the California State Polytechnic University at Temple Avenue and terminating at the intersection of Interstate-10 and Murchinson Avenue in the City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, California. The Project is located within Section 27, Township 1 South, Range 9 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. The Project site is depicted within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) San Dimas, California 7.5- minute topographic quadrangle (Attachment A, Figure 1). The Project is situated within an almost entirely developed area of the City, with no connectivity to natural areas.

Project implementation will result in approximately 5.44 acres of impacts from installing new asphalt pavement and/or concrete sidewalks along the length of the project, removing existing fence lines, installing road ramps and other upgrades to associated public streets, and planting of landscaped trees and shrubs. As part of the Project, improvement measures will be implemented to the drainage system to prevent backflow at drainage outlets and ponding conditions at the SR-71 undercrossing. This work will include installation of a drop inlet grate, a secondary inlet and a trench drain. Runoff from the drainage system would be directed into the San Jose Creek channel. A dry dock would be temporarily installed within the channel to allow installation of this new drainage system. Additionally, two oak trees San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
5 will be removed within the Project area, with several additional oaks that will require trimming or will otherwise be impacted (i.e. digging within the dripline of the canopy) as a result of the Project. The Project falls almost entirely within the existing dirt access roads along the canal. Primary access will be via the following existing cross streets to the canal: W Temple Avenue, Kellogg Drive, Ridgeway Street, Fairplex Drive, Glen Avenue, N Dudley Street, Weber Street, and Murchison Avenue.

The proposed Project is situated within a mostly developed area of the City. The Project is largely surrounded to the north and south by residential and commercial developments, with the exception of agricultural land associated with California State Polytechnical University situated north of the Project on the western end. There is also one middle school, one elementary school, and two parks that occur within the immediate surrounding area of the Project. There is no direct connectivity from the Project limits to any open, natural space. The Project area consists entirely of disturbed habitat or urban/developed land, with the majority of the vegetation consisting of landscaped/ornamentals associated with urban/developed areas or ruderal non-natives associated with disturbed areas.

2.0 METHODS
Methods described below focused on determination of potential for occurrence of special-status plant and wildlife species. Species are considered to be special-status, and are therefore subject to analysis in this section, if they meet one or more of the following criteria:
● Plant and animal species listed as endangered (FE), threatened (FT), or candidates (FPE or FPT) for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA); ● Plant and animal species listed as endangered (SE), threatened (ST), or candidates (SC) for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA);
● Animals designated as Fully Protected Species (FP), as defined in California Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515;
● Animal species designated as Species of Special Concern (SSC) by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
● Bat species designated as High Priority (H) by the Western Bat Working Group; ● Plants that are state listed as Rare1; or
● Plant species ranked by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as having a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1 or 2.2
Sensitive natural communities are communities that have a limited distribution and are often vulnerable to the environmental effects of projects. CDFW identifies sensitive communities and keeps records of their occurrences in CNDDB. These communities may or may not contain special-status species or their habitats.
● Vegetation communities listed in the CNDDB;
● Communities listed in the Natural Communities List with a rarity rank of S1 (critically imperiled), S2 (imperiled), or S3 (vulnerable).

San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
6 2.1 Literature Review
Prior to conducting the biological resource assessment, a desktop analysis was completed to evaluate the potential for the Project area and vicinity to contain state and/or federally-listed (threatened or endangered) and/or otherwise special-status plant and animal species. Soil type data from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was reviewed to assist with identifying suitable habitat for specialstatus species potentially present (USGS 2011; Attachment A, Figure 2). Reviews of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; USFWS 2024b) and the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD; USGS 2024) were conducted to assess any aquatic features within the Survey Area (Attachment A, Figure 3).

Information queries were conducted by evaluating species occurrences from CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2024; Attachment A, Figure 4), the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database (USFWS 2024a), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) database (NOAA 2025), the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2016; Attachment A, Figure 5), and the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory (CNPS 2024).

A 5-mile radius surrounding the Project site was reviewed in the CNDDB and Critical Habitat Portal. For the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory, the query focused on the San Dimas, California topographic quadrangle in which the Project site is located. The results of the literature review were used to focus biological survey efforts for any special-status species perceived to have some potential to occur on and/or adjacent to the Project area.

Following the habitat assessment, potentials for special-status species to occur were evaluated based on proximity, connectivity, recency and abundance of known occurrences, availability of suitable habitats1, historic distributions of the species, elevation range, and existing site conditions. Potential for occurrence (PFO) were generally evaluated based on the following criteria:
● Present – The species was observed within the Project area during the survey effort. ● High Potential – Historic, database, and/or inventory records indicate that the species has been known to occur within the vicinity of the Project (5 miles), and suitable habitat occurs onsite. The species has a high probability of being found on the site. ● Moderate Potential – Historic, database, and/or inventory records indicate that the species has been known to occur within the vicinity of the Project, but low-quality suitable habitat occurs onsite, or; no records occur within the vicinity of the Project, but the Project occurs within the historic range of the species, and moderate to high quality habitat occurs onsite. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site.
● Low Potential – Historic, database, and/or inventory records indicate that the species has not been known to occupy the immediate vicinity of the Project, and low-quality habitat for the species exists onsite, or; records occur within the vicinity of the Project, but the majority of the habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site.
● Absent – The species is restricted to habitats not occurring within the Project site or is considered extirpated from the Project area.
1 Only habitat requirements for the species range in California are listed San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
7 2.2 Survey Methods
The biological resource survey was conducted on September 19, 2024, by Blackhawk biologists Hayley Milner, Sarah Toback and Zach Fenske. The survey was conducted on foot and via vehicle from 07:30 to 12:30, under favorable weather conditions of 63°F to 69°F, 1 to 5 mph winds, no precipitation, and 80-50 percent cloud cover.

Onsite and adjacent areas were characterized for their existing conditions and current land uses. In order to analyze the potential for direct and indirect impacts to biological resources, the survey included the proposed Project limits plus an additional 100 feet surrounding the Project (Survey Area). The vegetation communities were identified by dominant species present and mapped directly onto highresolution aerial imagery for Geographic Information System (GIS) extrapolation (Attachment A, Figure 6). In addition, sensitive resources were evaluated for up to 500 feet surrounding the proposed Project limits.

PFO of special-status plant and animal species resulting from the literature review were assessed in relation to the existing conditions of the Project site and up to 500 feet surrounding the Project site.

Elevation ranges for evaluated plant species were taken from the Jepson Manual. Representative photographs were collected to document current conditions of the Project area as well as the general surroundings (Attachment B). All plant and wildlife species observed within the Project area and Survey Buffer were cataloged in field notes and used to compile species lists (Attachments C and D). Wildlife species observations included detections by sight and sound in addition to wildlife sign (scat, tracks, carcasses, nests, middens etc.). The Survey Area was assessed for the presence/absence of potentially jurisdictional waters of the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, including vernal pools.

2.2.1 Vegetation Mapping
On September 19, 2024, Blackhawk conducted detailed digital mapping of vegetation communities within the Project area and Survey Buffer. Vegetation communities were described according to vegetation community classifications according to Holland (1986) and Oberbauer (2008) to the extent feasible.

Vegetation community classifications and boundaries were made directly into the geographic information system (GIS) mapping application, “FieldMaps for ArcGIS”. GIS software (i.e., ArcGIS) was used to calculate acreages of the features within the Project limits and the entire Survey Area. Biological field notes were prepared to document the dominant and subdominant plant species within each community. Plants were identified by visual observation, and nomenclature for common native plants followed Calflora.

2.2.2 Biological Resource Assessment
Blackhawk biologists Hayley Milner, Sarah Toback and Zach Fenske conducted a biological resource assessment on September 19, 2024. Focused surveys were not conducted for special-status wildlife species; however, wildlife species observed or detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs were recorded in the field notes of the biologists. Binoculars were used when necessary to assist with wildlife species identification.

San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
8 PFO of special-status plant and wildlife species resulting from the literature review was assessed in relation to the existing conditions of the Project area plus a 500-foot buffer. The ability to identify wildlife species was limited by seasonal and temporal factors. Nocturnal animals were not observed directly, as the survey was performed during the day. In addition, seasonally migratory species that may be present within the area only at specified periods outside survey timing, or special-status plants outside of their blooming period, may not have been detected. Latin and common names of wildlife species followed the American Ornithologists’ Union (2018) and Unitt (2004) for birds; Crother (2012) for amphibians and reptiles.

2.3 Limitations That May Influence Results
These surveys were conducted during the daytime, which usually results in few observations of nocturnal mammals. In addition, many species of reptiles and amphibians are nocturnal, cryptic, or subterranean in their habits and are difficult to observe using standard survey methods. Therefore, conservative estimates regarding the PFOs of certain special-status plant and wildlife species have been considered with appropriate mitigation measures proposed herein.

3.0 REGULATORY SETTING
This section is divided into sub-sections that include Federal, State, and Local regulations that apply to the Project as proposed.

3.1 State and Federal Take Authorizations for Listed Species Federal or state authorizations of impacts to or incidental take of a listed species by a private individual or other private entity would be granted in one of the following ways:
• Section 7 of the FESA stipulates that any federal action that may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered requires a formal consultation with USFWS to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2).
• In 1982, the FESA was amended to give private landowners the ability to develop Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) pursuant to Section 10(a) of the FESA. Upon development of an HCP, the USFWS can issue incidental take permits for listed species where the HCP specifies at minimum, the following: (1) the level of impact that will result from the taking, (2) steps that will minimize and mitigate the impacts, (3) funding necessary to implement the plan, (4) alternative actions to the taking considered by the applicant and the reasons why such alternatives were not chosen, and (5) such other measures that the Secretary of the Interior may require as being necessary or appropriate for the plan. • Sections 2090-2097 of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) require that the state lead agency consult with CDFW on projects with potential impacts on state-listed species. These provisions also require CDFW to coordinate consultations with USFWS for actions involving federally listed as well as state- listed species. In certain circumstances, Section 2080.1 of the California Fish and Game Code San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
9 allows CDFW to adopt the federal incidental take statement or the 10(a) permit as its own based on its findings that the federal permit adequately protects the species under state law.

3.2 Federal

3.2.1 Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA)
The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (FESA) defines an endangered species as “any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Under provisions of Section 9(a)(1)(B) of the FESA it is unlawful to “take” any listed species. “Take” is defined in Section 3(18) of FESA: “...harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Further, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), through regulation, has interpreted the terms “harm” and “harass” to include certain types of habitat modification that result in injury to, or death of species as forms of “take.” These interpretations, however, are generally considered and applied on a case-by-case basis and often vary from species to species. In a case where a property owner seeks permission from a Federal agency for an action that could affect a federally listed plant and animal species, the property owner and agency are required to consult with USFWS. Section 9(a)(2)(b) of the FESA addresses the protections afforded to listed plants.

Federally-Designated Special-Status Species
All references to federally protected species in this Report (whether listed, proposed for listing, or candidate) include the most current published status or candidate category to which each species has been assigned by USFWS. Additionally, the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 report was published to identify the migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already federally listed) that represent the highest conservation priorities for USFWS.

For this report, the following acronyms are used for federal special-status species:
• FE: Federally listed as Endangered
• FT: Federally listed as Threatened
• FPE: Federally proposed for listing as Endangered
• FPT: Federally proposed for listing as Threatened
• FC: Federal Candidate species (Former Category 1 candidates) • BCC: USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern

3.2.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (PL 65-186, as amended; 16 USC §§ 703 et seq.) protects most birds, whether or not they migrate. Birds, their nests, eggs, parts, or products may not be killed or possessed. Game birds are listed and protected except where specific seasons, bag limits, and other features govern their hunting. Exceptions are made for some agricultural pests, which require a USFWS permit (yellow-headed, red-winged, bi-colored, tri-colored, Rusty and Brewer’s Blackbirds, cowbirds, all grackles, crows and magpies). Some other birds that injure crops in California may be taken under the authority of the County Agricultural Commissioner (meadowlarks, horned larks, golden-crowned sparrows, white- and other San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
10 crowned sparrows, goldfinches, house finches, acorn woodpeckers, Lewis’ woodpeckers and flickers).

Permits may be granted for various non-commercial activities involving migratory birds and some commercial activities involving captive-bred migratory birds.

3.2.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (PL 95-616; 16 USC §§ 668 et seq.) provides for protection of the bald and golden eagles by prohibiting taking, possession, and commerce in the birds.

3.2.4 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980
The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (PL 96-366; 16 USC §§2901 et seq.) provides for conservation, protection, restoration and propagation of certain species, including migratory birds threatened with extinction.

3.2.5 Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
The purpose of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” Section 404 of the CWA prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, Section 401 of the CWA (33 USC 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States to obtain a certification that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. A Water Quality Certification or waiver pursuant to Section 401 is required for Section 404 permit actions and is issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. “Discharges of fill material” are defined as the addition of fill material into waters of the United States including, but not limited to, the following: placement of fill that is necessary for the construction of any structure, or impoundment requiring rock, sand, dirt, or other material for its construction; site‐ development fills for recreational, industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways or road fills; fill for intake and outfall pipes and subaqueous utility lines [33 CFR §328.2(f)]. The definition of waters of the United States includes rivers, streams, estuaries, the territorial seas, ponds, lakes, mudflats, sandflats, sloughs, wet meadows, and wetlands. Boundaries between jurisdictional waters and uplands are determined in a variety of ways depending on which type of water is present. Methods for delineating wetlands and non‐ tidal waters are described below. • Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” [33 CFR §328.3(b)]. Presently, to qualify as a wetland, the feature must exhibit three wetland criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology existing under the “normal circumstances” for the site.
• The lateral extent of non‐tidal waters is determined by delineating the ordinary high‐ water mark [33 CFR §328.4(c)(1)]. The ordinary high‐water mark is defined by USACE as “that line on shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
11 means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” [33 CFR §328.3(e)].

3.2.5 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
The purpose of Section 408 under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA) is to ensure the proposed alterations to federally authorized civil works do not compromise integrity or public safety. Section 408 of the RHA prohibits alterations to a USACE Civil Works project, such as levees, dams, or navigational channels, without a permit from USACE.

3.3 State

3.3.1 State of California Endangered Species Act (CESA) California’s Endangered Species Act (CESA) defines an endangered species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that is in danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease.” The State defines a threatened species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an Endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the commission as rare on or before January 1, 1985, is a threatened species.” Candidate species are defined as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list.” Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), CESA does not list invertebrate species.

Article 3, Sections 2080 through 2085, of the CESA addresses the taking of threatened, endangered, or candidate species by stating “No person shall import into this state, export out of this state, or take, possess, purchase, or sell within this state, any species, or any part or product thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those acts, except as otherwise provided.” Under the CESA, “take” is defined as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Exceptions authorized by the state to allow “take” require permits or memoranda of understanding and can be authorized for endangered species, threatened species, or candidate species for scientific, educational, or management purposes and for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. Sections 1901 and 1913 of the California Fish and Game Code provide that notification is required prior to disturbance.

State-Designated Special-Status Species
Some mammals and birds are protected by the state as Fully Protected (FP) Mammals or Fully Protected Birds, as described in the California Fish and Game Code, Sections 4700 and 3511, respectively. California Species of Special Concern (SSC) are species designated as vulnerable San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
12 to extinction due to declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. This list is primarily a working document for the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) project. Informally listed taxa are not protected but warrant consideration in the preparation of biotic assessments. For some species, the CNDDB is only concerned with specific portions of the life history, such as roosts, rookeries, or nest sites.

For this report the following acronyms are used for State special-status species:
• SE: State-listed as Endangered
• ST: State-listed as Threatened
• SCE: State candidate for listing as Endangered
• SCT: State candidate for listing as Threatened
• FP: State Fully Protected
• SSC: Species of Special Concern
California Rare Plant Rank
The CNPS is a private plant conservation organization dedicated to the monitoring and protection of special-status species in California. The California Native Plant Society’s California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California separates plants of interest into five categories. CNPS has compiled an inventory comprised of the information focusing on geographic distribution and qualitative characterization of Rare, Threatened, or Endangered vascular plant species of California. The list serves as the candidate list for listing as threatened and endangered by CDFW.

3.3.2 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Shortly after the United States federal government passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was passed in 1970 to institute a statewide policy of environmental protection. CEQA does not directly regulate land uses, but instead requires state and local agencies within California to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of environmental impacts of proposed projects and adopt all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts. CEQA makes environmental protection a mandatory part of every California state and local agency’s decisionmaking process.

CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Environmental impacts relative to biological resources are assessed using impact significance threshold criteria, which reflect the policy statement contained in CEQA, Section 21001(c) of the California Public Resources Code. Accordingly, the State Legislature has established it to be the policy of the State of California to:
“Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities...” Determining whether a project may have a significant effect, or impact, plays a critical role in San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
13 the CEQA process. According to CEQA, Section 15064.7 (Thresholds of Significance), each public agency is encouraged to develop and adopt (by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation) thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant. In the development of thresholds of significance for impacts to biological resources CEQA provides guidance primarily in Section 15065, Mandatory Findings of Significance, and the CEQA Guidelines, Attachment G, Environmental Checklist Form. Section 15065(a) states that a project may have a significant effect where:
“The project has 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 wildlife community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, ...”
Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, impacts to biological resources are considered potentially significant (before considering offsetting mitigation measures) if one or more of the following criteria discussed below would result from implementation of the proposed Project.

Criteria for Determining Significance Pursuant to CEQA
Attachment G of the 1998 State CEQA guidelines indicate that a project may be deemed to have a significant effect on the environment if the project is likely to:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
14 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15380
The CEQA requires evaluation of a project’s impacts on biological resources and provides guidelines and thresholds for use by lead agencies for evaluating the significance of proposed impacts. Sections 5.1.1 and 5.2.2 below set forth these thresholds and guidelines. Furthermore, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, CEQA provides protection for non-listed species that could potentially meet the criteria for state listing. For plants, CDFW assigns California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) to species categorized as List 1A, 1B, or 2 of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants in California may meet the criteria for listing and should be considered under CEQA. CDFW also recommends protection of plants, which are regionally important, such as locally rare species, disjunctive populations of more common plants, or plants on the CNPS Lists 3 or 4.

3.3.3 California Fish & Game Codes 3500 Series
California Fish & Game Codes 3500, 3503, 3503.5, 3505, 3511 and 3513 are State regulations that cover resident and non-resident game birds, protected bird nests, protected raptor nests, egrets, ospreys, Fully Protected bird species, and take considerations for Migratory Bird Treaty Act birds. • Code 3500: “(a) Resident game birds are as follows:
(1) Doves of the genus Streptopelia, including, but not limited to, spotted, ringed turtledoves, and Eurasian collared-doves.
(2) California quail and varieties thereof.
(3) Gambel’s or desert quail.
(4) Mountain quail and varieties thereof.
(5) Sooty or blue grouse and varieties thereof.
(6) Ruffed grouse.
(7) Sage hens or sage grouse.
(8) Hungarian partridges.
(9) Red-legged partridges including the chukar and other varieties. (10) Ring-necked pheasants and varieties thereof.
(11) Wild turkeys of the order Galliformes.
(b) Migratory game birds are as follows:
(1) Ducks and geese.

San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
15 (2) Coots and gallinules.
(3) Jacksnipe.
(4) Western mourning doves.
(5) White-winged doves.
(6) Band-tailed pigeons
(c) Reference in this code to “game birds” means both resident and migratory game birds.”
● Code 3503: “It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” ● Code 3503.5: “It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” ● Code 3511: “(a) (1) Except as provided in Section 2081.7 or 2835, fully protected birds or parts thereof may not be taken or possessed at any time. No provision of this code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take any fully protected bird, and no permits or licenses heretofore issued shall have any force or effect for that purpose. However, the department may authorize the taking of those species for necessary scientific research, including efforts to recover fully protected, threatened, or endangered species, and may authorize the live capture and relocation of those species pursuant to a permit for the protection of livestock.

Prior to authorizing the take of any of those species, the department shall make an effort to notify all affected and interested parties to solicit information and comments on the proposed authorization. The notification shall be published in the California Regulatory Notice Register and be made available to each person who has notified the department, in writing, of his or her interest in fully protected species and who has provided an e-mail address, if available, or postal address to the department. Affected and interested parties shall have 30 days after notification is published in the California Regulatory Notice Register to provide any relevant information and comments on the proposed authorization.
(2) As used in this subdivision, "scientific research" does not include any actions taken as part of specified mitigation for a project, as defined in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code.
(3) Legally imported fully protected birds or parts thereof may be possessed under a permit issued by the department.
(b) The following are fully protected birds:
(1) American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). (2) Brown pelican (Pelican occidentalis).
(3) California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus). (4) California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus).

San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
16 (5) California condor (Gymnogyps californianus).
(6) California least tern (Sterna albifrons browni).
(7) Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos).
(8) Greater sandhill crane (Grus Canadensis tabida).
(9) Light-footed Ridgway’s rail (Rallus longirostris levipes). (10) Southern bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus). (11) Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator).
(12) White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus).
(13) Yuma Ridgway’s rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis). • Code 3513: “It is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Treaty Act.”

3.3.4 Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) was enacted in 1977 and allows the California Fish and Game Commission to designate plants as rare or endangered. There are 64 species, subspecies, and varieties of plants that are protected as rare under the NPPA. The NPPA prohibits take of endangered or rare native plants, but includes some exceptions for agricultural and nursery operations, emergencies, and/or with proper notification to the CDFW for vegetation removal from canals, roads, and other sites, changes in land use, and in certain other situations.

3.3.5 California Lake and Streambed Alteration Program
Sections 1600 through 1616 of the CFG Code require that a Lake and Streambed Alteration Program Notification Package be submitted to CDFW for “any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.” CDFW reviews the proposed actions and, if necessary, submits to the applicant a proposal for measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal on which CDFW and the applicant agree is the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. Often, projects that require a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement also require a permit from the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA. In these instances, the conditions of the Section 404 permit and the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement may overlap.

3.3.6 RWQCB Jurisdictional Waters
RWQCB is the regional agency responsible for protecting water quality in California. The jurisdiction of this agency includes Waters of the State as mandated by the federal CWA Section 401. When CWA San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
17 Section 404 jurisdiction is not present for isolated water, the RWQCB may assert jurisdiction via the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Waters of the State are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state”. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act provides a regulatory framework to provide comprehensive protections for surface and groundwater within the State of California. Waters subject to jurisdiction under the PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act require that any discharge that may negatively impact or otherwise affect a Water of the State must coordinate with RWQCB. During coordination, RWQCB may require implementation of mitigation measures or other requirements to protect overall water quality.

3.4 Local

3.4.1 Pomona General Plan Conservation Component
The purpose of the Conservation Component is to provide direction regarding the conservation, development and utilization of natural resources. This Plan was developed to meet the requirements of the California Government Code Section 65302(d) which requires that a General Plan include:
“A conservation element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources. The conservation element shall consider the effect of development within the jurisdiction, as described in the land use element, on natural resources located on public lands, including military installations.

The conservation element may also cover: (1) the reclamation of land and waters; (2) prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters; (3) regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas required for the accomplishment of the conservation plan; (4) prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches, and shores; (5) protection of watersheds; (6) the location, quantity and quality of the rock, sand and gravel resources; and (7) flood control.”

3.4.1.2 Stormwater Pollution Control
Local stormwater pollution control measures are implemented pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), Federal Water Quality Control Act and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) was developed as part of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Municipal Stormwater Program. The SUSMP addresses stormwater pollution from certain types of new development and redevelopment. The SUSMP specifies the minimum required BMPs that must be used for a designated project. Additional BMPs may be required on certain targeted categories of projects based on these regulations at the discretion of the City of Pomona. Applicable project applicants are required to incorporate appropriate SUSMP requirements into their development plans.

The City requires that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Monitoring Program Plan be completed for industries that require a NPDES General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit and for any construction activity in the City requiring a NPDES construction permit. SWPPPs are operator/owner prepared plans that identify BMPs for implementation and monitor the effectiveness of the BMPs. The SWPPP identifies the source control and/or treatment control practices (BMPs) that would significantly San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
18 reduce, avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants to the “maximum extent practicable.” The Community Plan includes the following applicable measures as they relate to the protection of water resources within the region:

Planning Consideration: The potential environmental impacts of stormwater runoff are a significant concern to Pomona residents. Stormwater runoff can carry pollutants into the watershed, negatively affecting local and regional water quality. Maintenance and improvement of the City’s stormwater system to reduce potential impacts to water quality should be a priority.

Goal CON-8 Proper conveyance and treatment of stormwater and implementation of techniques to reduce pollutants consistent with Federal, State and regional regulations and standards.

Policies CON-8.1 Ensure existing drainage facilities are properly maintained.

CON-8.2 Ensure all new development and redevelopment projects comply with Federal, State, regional and City regulations and ordinances related to stormwater.

CON-8.3 Incorporate project-level stormwater mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to water quality and ensure mitigation measures are adequately monitored.

3.4.1.3 City of Pomona Oak Tree Preservation
The City of Pomona's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (Section .5809-23 of the Municipal Code) mandates the protection of all healthy mature oak trees on both public and private property. This includes oak trees designated as "specimen trees" under City Council Resolutions No. 62-65 and No. 73-68, as well as any oak trees outside designated Historic Districts and Historic Landmarks that have not been classified as specimen trees and have a trunk diameter greater than eight inches, measured

4.5 feet above the ground (DBH). To address potential impacts on oak trees, Major and Minor Oak Tree Permits must be obtained (Major for removal or relocation, Minor for trimming). Mitigation is required for any oak trees with a DBH greater than eight inches, following the Pomona Tree Preservation Guidelines. Additionally, the City has three designated Historic Districts. Section .5809-13 of the zoning code outlines requirements for these areas, including the necessity of applying for and obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness before removing any tree larger than 10 inches in diameter or 38 inches in circumference for multi-trunk trees.

The Project does not fall within any of the designated Historic Districts. Furthermore, all oak trees requiring trimming or removal within the Project site fall within Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) or on City-owned property, which are exempt from the requirements of the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, as stated in Section .5809-23(E).

3.4.2 Los Angeles County – Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
19 Through the County of Los Angeles’ General Plan, 61 SEAs were established to protect a wide variety of biological communities within the County. If a project falls within a County SEA, a conditional use permit is required for development in order to protect resources contained in SEAs from incompatible development. The County CEQA Thresholds Guide also states that a biological constraints analysis is required to describe in “a general manner the extent, location, and sensitivities of ecological resources found within an SEA”.

The Project does not fall within any SEAs.

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Environmental Setting
The proposed approximately 3.5-mile-long Project is located in the City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, California (Attachment A, Figure 1). The Project is situated along the San Jose Creek channel, which is a concrete-lined canal, and runs through a completely urbanized portion of Pomona. The Project site originates at the southern entrance to the California State Polytechnic University at Temple Avenue and terminates at the intersection of Interstate-10 and Murchinson Avenue.

Project implementation will result in approximately 5.44 acres of permanent impacts from installing new asphalt pavement and/or concrete sidewalks along the length of the project, removing existing fence lines, installing road ramps and other upgrades to associated public streets, planting of landscaped trees and shrubs, and drainage system improvements at the SR-71 undercrossing. Approximately 600 square feet (sq ft) of temporary impacts would occur from the placement of a dry dock within the concrete channel immediately east of SR-71 to allow for the construction of an inlet to the channel that would prevent ponding conditions in the SR-71 underpass. Additionally, several coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees were observed within the Project limits or have canopies/drip lines that fall within the project limits (Attachment A, Figure 7). Two of these oaks will be removed and several others will be trimmed or otherwise impacted as a result of the project. The Project falls almost entirely within the existing dirt access roads along the canal. Primary access will be via the following existing cross streets to the canal: W Temple Avenue, Kellogg Drive, Ridgeway Street, Fairplex Drive, Glen Avenue, N Dudley Street, Weber Street, and Murchison Avenue.

The proposed Project is situated within a mostly developed area of the City. The Project is largely surrounded to the north and south by residential and commercial developments, with the exception of agricultural land associated with California State Polytechnical University situated north of the Project on the western end. There is also one middle school, one elementary school, and two parks that occur within the immediate surrounding area of the Project. There is no direct connectivity from the Project limits to any open, natural space. The Project area consists entirely of disturbed habitat or urban/developed land with the majority of the vegetation consisting of landscaped/ornamentals or ruderal non-natives associated with disturbed areas. The Project does not fall within any SEAs.

San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
20 4.2 Soils and Hydrologic Features
Two soil series mapped by USDA (2011) occur within the Project limits: Urban land, frequently flooded, 0 to 5 percent slopes (99%), and Urban land- Palmview- Tujunga complex, slopes 0 to 5 percent slopes (1%);
The Project area is located along the north and south sides of the San Jose Creek channel, situated on flat ground and further surrounded by flat, developed land. Several non-jurisdictional concrete stormwater run-off channels occur within the project footprint and flow into the canal. While San Jose Creek is considered a jurisdictional feature, no impacts are proposed to the channel.

Elevations within the Project limits range from approximately 693 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the western end of the project to 857 feet amsl at the eastern end.

4.3 Vegetation Communities/Land Use Cover Types
A total of three vegetation communities/land use cover types were described and mapped within the Survey Area. The geographical distribution of these communities within the Project limits and Survey Area are depicted on Figure 3. Permanent and temporary impacts are proposed within the Project limits.

Vegetation communities/land use cover types and associated acreages are as follows:

Table 2. Vegetation Communities
Vegetation Community
(Holland Code)
Project Limits Survey Area
(Project limits plus 100-foot
Survey Buffer; acres) Permanent Impacts
(acres)
Temporary Impacts
(sq ft)
Disturbed (11300) 4.41 0 18.13
Urban/Developed (12000) 1.03 0 57.47
Non-vegetated Floodplain
or Channel
0 600 11.60
TOTAL 5.44 acres 600 sq ft 87.21 acres
Each vegetation community/land use cover type is described in the following sub-sections. A map showing the location and extent of vegetation communities is provided in Figure 6. Representative photographs of each vegetation community within the Project limits are provided in Attachment B.

4.3.1 Disturbed (Holland Code 11300)
Disturbed habitat consists of low-growing, ruderal vegetation or bare ground associated with urban development and anthropogenic disturbance. These areas are regularly maintained and/or disturbed, limiting vegetative growth, particularly native species. Onsite, vegetation within this community is heavily dominated by nonnative species such as compact brome (Bromus madritensis), smilo grass (Stipa San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
21 miliacea var. miliacea), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus). Some ruderal native species often associated with disturbed areas, including horseweed (Erigeron bonariensis) and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), also occur within this community. This land cover was mainly associated with the existing dirt access roads running along the north and south sides of the canal.

4.3.2 Urban/Developed (Holland Code 12000)
Developed land is characterized by permanent or semi-permanent structures, pavement or hardscape, and landscaped areas that often require irrigation. This vegetation community typically includes unvegetated or landscaped areas with a variety of ornamental (usually non-native) plants (Oberbauer 2008). Within the Project limits and survey buffer, this vegetation community included existing paved roads and sidewalks, residential and commercial developments, and associated landscaped/ornamental plantings which are nearly or entirely devoid of native vegetation and show significant evidence of intentional, human caused conversion of previously existing natural habitats into development. Landscaped/ornamental vegetation provides a buffer between South Campus Drive and the western portion of the project site and is dominated by planted and maintained California sycamore (Plantanus racemosa), coastal wattle (Acacia cyclops), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Siberian elm (Ulmus parvifolia), and African fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum). Other areas of landscape/ornamental vegetation occur in private residences, which buffer the majority of the southern canal road and parts of the northern canal road. Species dominating in these areas include Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolia), blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), cape honeysuckle (Tecoma capensis), and great bougainvillea (Bougainvillea spectabilis).

4.3.3 Non-vegetated Floodplain or Channel
Non-vegetated floodplain or channel occurs on site as the San Jose Creek (also known as Thompson Wash), which is channelized with concrete embankments within the Survey Area. The Project runs along the north and south sides of the canal, and no permanent impacts to the canal are anticipated. Approximately 600 square feet (sq ft) of temporary impacts would occur from the placement of a dry dock within the concrete channel immediately east of SR-71 to allow for the construction of an inlet to the channel that would prevent ponding conditions in the SR-71 underpass.

During the time of the biological reconnaissance survey, no measurable water flow was observed in the canal. Some sections of the canal were observed ponded with water up to a few inches with these areas supporting algae growth. Only one section at the far east end of the canal within the Survey Area was observed to have any vegetation growth. The majority of the canal was dry during the time of the survey, suggesting that water flow is intermittent and likely based off rainfall fed to the canal through roadside drainages.

4.4 Special-Status Species
A total of 11 special-status plant species and 29 special-status wildlife species occurrences were found within a five-mile radius of the Project through the CNDDB, CNPS, and IPaC occurrence record review (Attachment A, Figure 4). The Project does not fall within Critical Habitat for any wildlife or plant species (Attachment A, Figure 5). Special-status species that were evaluated for this Project and associated San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
22 PFO of each species are described in Table 3 below. Special-status species that were evaluated for this Project include the following:

Plants
● Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis)
● Intermediate mariposa lily Calochortus weedii var. intermedius ● Many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis)
● Mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula)
● Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii)
● Rigid fringepod (Thysanocarpus rigidus)
● Salt spring checkerbloom (Sidalcea neomexicana)
● San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum)
● Sanford's arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii)
● Slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras)
● White rabbit-tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum) Wildlife
● American badger (Taxidea taxus)
● Arroyo chub (Gila orcuttii)
● Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
● Big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis)
● California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis cotumiculus) ● California glassy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis) ● Coast range newt (Taricha torosa)
● Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii)
● Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) ● Coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri)
● Crotch bumblebee (Bombus crotchii)
● Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
● Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii bellii)
● Merlin (Falco columbarius)
● Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus)
● Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)
● Pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus)
● Red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber)
● Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae)
● Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi) ● Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) ● Swaison’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
● Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
● Two-striped gartersnake (Thamnophis hammondii)
● Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus)
● Western pond turtle (Actinemys pallida)
● Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii)
● Western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus)
● Yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia brewsteri)
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
23 The CNDDB and/or CNPS also documented California androsace (Androsace elongata ssp. acuta), Catalina mariposa lily (Calochortus catalinaeI, Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii), Plummer’s Mariposa Lily (Calochortus plummerae), Robinson’s peppergrass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii), southern California black walnut (Juglans californica), Western spleenwort (Asplenium vespertinum), American bumble bee (Bombus pensylvanicus), California diplectronan caddisfly (Diplectrona californica), western rigid mussel (Gonidea angulata), and the white cuckoo bee (Neolarra alba).

These species are not addressed herein as they do not meet criteria outlined in Section 2 as sensitive species. Additionally, the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) was not evaluated as it is not listed as an animal species designated as a Species of Special Concern (SSC) by the CDFW and/or designated as High Priority (H) by the Western Bat Working Group.

4.4.1 Special-Status Plant Species
The literature search resulted in 11 special-status plant species within a five-mile radius of the Project limits. The habitat assessment determined that none of the special-status plant species have any potential to occur within the Project area due to a lack of suitable habitat(s) and microhabitat(s) within the Survey Area. Therefore, a focused rare plant survey was not necessary and impacts to special-status plant species are not anticipated.

Table 2. Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring Within the Project Site Species Name Status Habitat Requirements/
Blooming Period
Potential for Occurrence
chaparral ragwort
(Senecio aphanactis)
Federal ESA:

None
State CESA: None
CRPR: 2B.2
Annual herb found in alkaline
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and coastal sage
scrub habitats.

Blooms: Jan-May
Elevation: 15-800 m (50-2,625 ft)
Absent due to a lack of
suitable habitat. In
addition, the only CNDDB
record within 5 miles is from
1932.
intermediate mariposa
lily
(Calochortus weedii
var. intermedius)
Federal ESA:

None
State CESA: None
CRPR: 1B.2
Perennial bulbiferous herb
prefers rocky, calcareous soils.

Found in chaparral, coastal
scrub and valley and foothill
grasslands.

Blooms: May-Jul
Elevation: 105-855 m (345-2,805
ft)
Absent due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Furthermore, as a perennial
herb, this species likely
would have been
observed during the survey
if present.
many-stemmed
dudleya
(Dudleya multicaulis)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
CRPR: 1B.2
Perennial herb found in clay soils
in chaparral, coastal scrub and
valley and foothill grassland
communities.

Blooms: Apr-Jul
Elevation: 15-790 m (50-2,590 ft)
Absent due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Furthermore, as a perennial
herb, this species likely
would have been
observed during the survey
if present.

San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
24 mesa horkelia
(Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
CRPR: 1B.1
Sparsely hairy, matted perennial
forb that occurs in dry, sandy or
gravelly areas within coastal
chaparral, coastal scrub and
cismontane woodlands. Prefers
gravelly or sandy habitats.

Blooms: Feb-Jul
Elevation: 70-810 m (230-2,660 ft)
Absent due to a lack of
suitable habitat and soils.

Furthermore, as a perennial
herb, this species likely
would have been
observed during the survey
if present.

Nevin’s barberry
(Berberis nevinii)
Federal ESA: FE
State CESA: SE
CRPR: 1B.1
Perennial, evergreen, hollyleafed, multi-trunked shrub found in chaparral, foothill
woodland, washes and coastal
sage scrub habitats. Prefers
sandy to gravelly soils.

Blooms: Mar-Jun
Elevation: 70-825 m (230-2,705
ft)
Absent due to a lack of
suitable habitat and soils.

Furthermore, as a perennial
shrub, this species would
have been observed
during the survey if present.
rigid fringepod
(Thysanocarpus rigidus)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
CRPR: 1B.2
An annual herb preferring dry,
rocky slopes found within pinyon
and juniper woodland.

Blooms: Feb-May
Elevation: 600-2,200 m (1,970-
7,220 ft)
Absent due to a lack of
suitable habitat. In
addition, the only CNDDB
record within 5 miles is over
100 years old.

Salt spring
checkerbloom
(Sidalcea
neomexicana)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
CRPR: 2B.2
A perennial herb preferring
playas with alkaline or mesic soils
in chaparral, coastal scrub,
lower montane coniferous or
Mojavean desert scrub
communities.

Elevation: 0-1390 m (50-5,020 ft)
Blooms: Mar-Jun
Absent due to a lack of
suitable habitat. In
addition, the two CNDDB
records within 5 miles are
over 100 years old.

Furthermore, as a perennial
herb, this species likely
would have been
observed during the survey
if present.

San Bernardino aster
(Symphyotrichum
defoliatum)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
CRPR: 1B.2
A perennial rhizomatous herb
Usually found near ditches,
streams or springs in cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous forest,
meadow and seep, marsh and
swamp and valley and foothill
grassland communities (vernally
mesic).

Blooms: Jul-Nov
Absent due to a lack of
suitable habitat. In
addition, the two CNDDB
records within 5 miles are
over 100 years old.

Furthermore, as a perennial
herb, this species likely
would have been
observed during the survey
if present.

San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
25 Elevation: 2-2040 m (5-6,695 ft)
Sanford's arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
CRPR: 1B.2
A perennial rhizomatous herb
endemic to California typically
found in shallow freshwater (i.e.,
marshes and swamps).

Blooms: May-Oct
Elevation: <650 m (<2,135 ft)
Absent due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Furthermore, as a perennial
herb, this species likely
would have been
observed during the survey
if present.

Slender-horned
spineflower
(Dodecahema
leptoceras)
Federal ESA: FE
State CESA: SE
CRPR: 1B.1
Annual herb found in sandy soil
in association with mature
alluvial scrub. In the Vail Lake
area this species is also
associated with gravel soils of
Temecula arkose deposits in
association with open chamise
chaparral. The ideal habitat
appears to be a terrace or
bench that receives over-bank
deposits every 50 to 100 years.

Blooms: Apr-Jun
Elevation: -200-760 m
Absent due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

White rabbit-tobacco
(Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
CRPR: 2B.2
Biennial or short-lived perennial
herb found in chaparral,
cismontane woodland, coastal
sage scrub, and riparian
woodland habitats, often
associated with sandy or
gravelly benches, dry stream
bottoms and canyon bottoms.

Blooms: Jul-Nov
Elevation: <2,100 m (<6,890 ft
Absent due to a lack of
suitable habitat.

Key to Table 2
Federal
FE – Federally Endangered
FC – Federal Candidate
State
SE – State Endangered
ST – State Threatened

CNPS
List 1B – Plants rare, threatened, or
endangered in California and elsewhere.

List 2B – Plants rare, threatened, or
endangered in California, but more
common elsewhere.

San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
26 Threat Code extension
.1 – Seriously endangered in
California (over 80% occurrences
threatened)
.2 – Fairly endangered in California
(20‐80% occurrences threatened)

4.4.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species
The literature search documented 29 special-status wildlife species within a five-mile radius of the Project limits. This total includes two fish, seven reptilian, two amphibian, two insect, ten avian, and six mammalian species. Seven of these species were found to have a low to moderate potential for occurrence. Pallid bat and pocketed free-tailed bat were determined to have low potential for occurrence due to the presence of bridges and buildings within the Survey Area, providing marginally suitable roosting habitat. Monarch butterfly has a low potential to forage on flowering plants within and adjacent to the Survey Area, but the Survey Area lacks breeding host plants and is outside the known overwintering roost sites for this species. Crotch’s bumblebee has a low potential to occur due to the presence of some flowering non-natives associated with disturbed habitat and landscaped/ornamental areas, which provide marginally suitable nectar sources for this species. Southern California legless lizard was determined to have moderate potential for occurrence due to the presence of suitable suburban gardens within the Survey Buffer. Western yellow bat has a moderate potential to occur due to the presence of palm trees throughout the Survey Area that provide suitable roosting habitat. Lastly, yellow warbler has a moderate potential to occur in the shrubby thickets along portions of the flood control channel. The remaining 22 wildlife species evaluated were determined to be absent (Table 3).

Each of these species, along with their listing statuses, relative abundances, habitat associations, and general locations within the Project area and Survey Buffer, are described in Table 3 below. Wildlife species that were presumed absent, as described in Table 3 are not discussed further in this report. There were no narrow endemic, federal or state-listed wildlife species observed within the Survey Area.

Table 3. Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring Within the Project Site Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for
Occurrence
American badger
(Taxidea taxus)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW-SSC
Found in a variety of open habitats
including grasslands, alluvial fans,
scrubs, fallow agricultural lands, and
deserts where rodent prey is ample in
flat terrain to moderate slopes.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable open
habitats including
grasslands, alluvial
fans, alluvial scrub,
agricultural land, and
deserts.
arroyo chub
(Gila orcuttii)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW-SSC
Found in small, cool, shallow,
permanent streams in water ranging
in depth from a few centimeters to a
meter or more. Preferred substrates
are generally coarse and consist of
gravel, rubble, and boulders with
growths of filamentous algae, but
occasionally they are found on
sand/mud substrates.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable aquatic
habitat.

San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
27 bald eagle
(Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)
Federal ESA:

Delisted
State CESA: None
Other: USFWSNon-BCC –
Vulnerable

CDFW- FP
Occurs primarily at or near seacoasts,
rivers, swamps, and large lakes within
such areas with an adequate food
base, perching areas, and nesting
sites.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable nesting
and foraging habitat.
big free-tailed bat
(Nyctinomops
macrotis)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW-SSC
Occurs in a variety of habitat types,
including coastal sage scrub, pineoak woodlands, and rocky canyon lands. Forages on a variety of insects
in flight.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable roosting
habitat including
rock crevices and
caves.

California black rail
(Laterallus jamaicensis
cotumiculus)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: ST
Other: USFWS-BCC

CDFW-FP
Occurs in fresh, brackish and
pickleweed-dominated salt marshes
along the California coast, along the
lower Colorado River and around the
Salton Sea.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable salt marsh
habitat.

California glossy snake
(Arizona elegans
occidentalis)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW-SSC
This nocturnal species inhabits a
variety of grassland, sage scrub, dry
wash and chaparral habitats from
sea level to over 7,000 feet in
elevation. Tends to prefer sandy,
loose soils. It remains in its burrow by
day.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable grassland,
sage scrub, dry wash,
and chaparral
habitats with sandy,
loose soils.
coast range newt
(Taricha torosa)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW-SSC
Found in chaparral, oak woodland,
and grassland habitats no further
than one to two miles from a water
source that is required for breeding,
egg-laying, and larval development.

Breeding occurs in ponds, reservoirs,
and pools of low gradient streams.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable chaparral,
oak woodland, and
grassland habitats
with nearby aquatic
breeding habitats.
coastal California
gnatcatcher
(Polioptila
californica
californica)
Federal ESA: FT
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW-SSC
This resident southern California
species is strongly associated with
coastal sage scrub communities but
will also utilize other habitats where
coastal sage scrub species forms
some component. It prefers a gap
rate of about 25% between mature
shrubs from three to five feet tall.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable habitat.
coast horned lizard
(Phrynosoma
blainvillii)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW-SSC
Inhabits open areas of sandy soil and
low vegetation in valleys, foothills and
semiarid mountains. Found in
grasslands, coniferous forests,
woodlands, and chaparral, with
open areas and patches of loose soil.

Often found in lowlands along sandy
washes with scattered shrubs and
along dirt roads. Often associated
with the presence of native harvester
ants.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable habitat
with sandy soils and
low vegetation.

San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
28 coastal whiptail
(Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW-SSC
Prefers open scrub, chaparral, and
woodland habitats with open areas
for basking and native ants as a prey
base.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable scrub,
chaparral, and
woodland habitats.

Crotch bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: CE
Other: None
Inhabits open grassland and scrub
habitats. Food plants include
Asclepias, Chaenactis, Lupinus,
Medicago, Phacelia and Salvia. Nests
are often located underground in
abandoned rodent nests, or above
ground in tufts of grass, old bird nests,
rock piles, or cavities in dead trees.

Low potential to
occur due to the
presence of some
flowering non-natives
associated with
disturbed habitat
and landscaped/
ornamental areas.

However, the lack of
suitable undisturbed
soils and rodent
burrows for ground
nesting, a lack of
various natives
flowering over
differing times of the
year, an overall lack
of flowering plant
density within the
Survey Area, and a
lack of direct
connectivity to
native habitats
preferred by this
species provides lowquality habitat for this
species.
golden eagle
(Aquila chrysaetos)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: USFWSNon-BCC -
Vulnerable

CDFW-FP
In southern California, occupies
grasslands, brushlands, deserts, oak
savannas, open coniferous forests,
and montane valleys. Typically nests
on rock outcrops and ledges.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable grassland,
brushland, desert,
oak savannas, open
coniferous forest, and
montane valley
habitats.
least Bell’s vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus)
Federal ESA: FE
State CESA: SE
Other: None
Occupies riverine riparian habitats
that typically feature dense cover
within 1-2 meters of the ground and a
dense, stratified canopy. It inhabits
low, dense riparian growth along
water or along dry parts of
intermittent streams. Primarily
associated with willows and mule fat.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable riparian
habitat.
merlin
(Falco columbarius)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW-WL
Open conifer woodland, prairie
groves; in migration, also foothills,
marshes, open country. Generally,
breeds in semi-open terrain having
Absent due to a lack
of suitable conifer
woodland, prairie,
marsh, and open
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
29 trees for nest sites and open areas for
hunting. Habitat varies from
coniferous forest in north and on
northwest coast to isolated
deciduous groves and suburban
yards on prairies. May winter in more
open areas, such as grasslands,
coastal marshes.
country habitats.
monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus;
California
overwintering
population)
Federal ESA:

Candidate
State CESA: None
Other: None
At overwintering sites, monarchs
require high humidity, fresh water,
and an absence of freezing
temperatures or high winds. They are
found at sites consisting of roost trees,
in which monarchs cluster,
surrounded by a larger grove or
windrow of trees. Trees most
commonly used for roosting include
Monterey pine, Monterey cypress
blue gum eucalyptus, red gum
eucalyptus, western sycamore, and
coast live oak. This species is still
observed passing through many
habitat types of the region, including
both urban and natural lands on the
coastal strand.

Low potential to
occur due to the
lack of host plant
(milkweed) identified
in the project area.

The project area is
not within a known
overwintering site.

However, flowering
plants within and
adjacent to the
project site may
provide marginally
suitable foraging
habitat for this
species.
pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW-SSC
Forages within a number of habitat
types, frequently by pursuing insects
while walking on the ground. Most
commonly associated with arid open
scrub or grassland and gentle terrain
with scattered rocky outcrops. Can
also be found in higher elevation
coniferous forests on steep terrain.

Often occurs on oak- and sycamorelined flood plain terraces at low elevations in the inland valleys. Uses
some agricultural areas for foraging.

Roosts in man-made structures, rock
and sandstone crevices and caves,
under tree bark, and in rodent
burrows or crevices in the ground.

Low potential to
occur due to the
presence of
marginally suitable
bridges for roosting
within the project
area. However, the
only CNDDB record
within 5 miles is from
1951.
pocketed free-tailed
bat
(Nyctinomops
femorosaccus)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW-SSC
Colonial species that roosts primarily
in crevices in steep rugged cliffs, high
rocky outcrops and slopes; it is readily
found in abandoned quarries. May
also roost in buildings, caves, and
under roof tiles. It has been found in a
wide variety of plant associations,
including riparian, oak woodland,
coniferous forest, open meadow and
Low potential to
occur due to the
presence of
marginally suitable
bridges and buildings
for roosting within the
project area.

However, the only
CNDDB record within
San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
30 grassland, and coastal and desert
scrublands, including over scrubby
ridges, reservoirs, ponds, wetlands,
and artificial lights.
5 miles is from 1985.
red-diamond
rattlesnake
(Crotalus ruber)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW-SSC
Inhabits arid scrub, coastal chaparral,
oak and pine woodlands, rocky
grassland, cultivated areas.

On the desert slopes of the
mountains, it ranges into rocky desert
flats.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable scrub,
chaparral,
woodland, rocky
grassland, and
cultivated habitats.

Santa Ana sucker
(Catostomus
santaanae)
Federal ESA: FT
State CESA: None
Other: None
Small, cool, shallow, permanent
streams in water ranging in depth
from a few centimeters to a meter or
more (Smith 1966). Preferred
substrates are generally coarse and
consist of gravel, rubble, and
boulders with growths of filamentous
algae (Smith 1966; Moyle 1976a), but
occasionally they are found on
sand/mud substrates (Moyle et al.
1995).

Absent due to a lack
of suitable aquatic
habitat.
southern California
legless lizard
(Anniella stebbinsi)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW-SSC
Occurs in moist, loose soils with some
plant cover in coastal sand dunes,
suburban gardens, chaparral, pineoak woodlands, stream terraces with sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks,
oak woodlands, Joshua/juniper
woodland, mixed conifer forest,
desert scrub, sandy washes, and
alluvial fans.

Moderate potential
due to the presence
of marginally suitable
habitat within
suburban gardens in
the Project site and
adjacent areas.

There are multiple
CNDDB records
within 5 miles of the
Project site.
southern California
rufous-crowned
sparrow
(Aimophila ruficeps
canescens)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW-WL
Found in coastal lowlands and
foothills in sage scrub, open or
burned chaparral, and grassland with
scattered shrubs. Typical habitat is
fairly steep south-facing slopes with
about 50% cover of low shrubs. Sage
scrub on gentle rolling hillsides is even
more favorable but now greatly
reduced and fragmented.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable sage
scrub, grassland, and
chaparral habitats.

Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: ST
Other: USFWS-BCC
Prefers open habitats including plains,
dry grasslands, agricultural fields, and
ranchlands with nearby stands of
trees for nesting sites.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable plains,
grasslands,
agricultural, and
ranchland habitats.

San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
31 tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: ST
Other: USFWS-BCC

CDFW-SSC
Nests in colonies and prefers
freshwater marshes dominated by
cattails or bulrushes and occasionally
in willows, blackberries, thistles and
nettles. Breeding habitat now
includes diverse upland and
agricultural areas. Small breeding
colonies in southern California occur
at lakes, reservoirs, and parks
surrounded by urban development.

Adults from such colonies may forage
in nearby undeveloped uplands.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable nesting
habitat consisting of
freshwater marshes,
lakes, and reservoirs.
two-striped
gartersnake
(Thamnophis
hammondii)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW-SSC
Generally found around pools,
creeks, cattle tanks, and other water
sources, often in rocky areas, in oak
woodland, chaparral, brushland, and
coniferous forest.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable aquatic
habitats as well as a
lack of chaparral,
brushland, and
coniferous forest
habitats.
western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW-SSC
Occurs in many open, semi-arid to
arid habitats, including conifer and
deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub,
annual and perennial grasslands,
palm oases, chaparral, desert scrub,
and urban. Roosts in crevices in cliff
faces, high buildings, trees, and
tunnels. When roosting in rock
crevices, it needs vertical faces to
drop off to take flight. Nursery roosts
described as tight rock crevices at
least 35 inches deep and two inches
wide, or crevices in buildings. Suitable
habitat consists of extensive open
areas with abundant roost locations
provided by crevices in rock outcrops
and buildings. Is known to forage over
25 miles away from its roost site
(Zeiner et al 1988).

Absent due to a
lack of suitable
open habitat for
foraging and a lack
of cliff faces, high
buildings, and
tunnels for roosting.

In addition, the
three CNDDB
records within 5
miles of the Project
site are over 50
years old.
western pond turtle
(Actinemys pallida)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW- SSC
Found in ponds, lakes, rivers, streams,
creeks, marshes, and irrigation
ditches, with abundant vegetation,
and either rocky or muddy bottoms,
in woodland, forest, and grassland. In
streams, prefers pools to shallower
areas. Logs, rocks, cattail mats, and
exposed banks are required for
basking. May enter brackish water
and even seawater. Estivates during
summer droughts by burying itself in
mud.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable aquatic
habitat.

San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
32 western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: CDFW-SSC
Prefers open areas with sandy or
gravelly soils, in a variety of habitats
including mixed woodlands,
grasslands, coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, sandy washes, lowlands,
river floodplains, alluvial fans, playas,
alkali flats, foothills, and mountains.

Breeding sites include vernal pools
and other temporary rain pools,
cattle tanks, and occasionally in
pools of intermittent streams.

Typically, the pools are turbid with
little or no cover.

Absent due to a lack
of suitable aquatic
habitat for breeding
with adjacent
upland habitats for
aestivation.
western yellow bat
(Lasiurus xanthinus)
Federal: None
State: None
Other: CDFW-SSC
Forages over water and among trees
in coastal, foothill, and desert riparian
areas, and in suburban
neighborhoods. Roosts are commonly
in palm trees, and occasionally in
cottonwood trees or yuccas, often
near surface water in open grassy
areas or scrub habitat.

Moderate potential
due to the presence
of suitable palm trees
for roosting and
suburban areas for
foraging. However,
there is only one
CNDDB record within
5 miles and it is from
1985.
yellow warbler
(Setophaga petechia
brewsteri)
Federal ESA: None
State CESA: None
Other: USFWS-BCC

CDFW-SSC
Breeds in shrubby thickets and woods,
particularly along watercourses and
in wetlands.

Moderate potential
due to the presence
of shrubby thickets
along portions of the
flood control
channel. There are
two recent CNDDB
records within 5 miles
of the Project site.

Key to Table 3
Federal
FE – Federally Endangered
FT – Federally Threatened
USFWS BCC – Bird of Conservation
Concern
State
SE – State Endangered
ST – State Threatened
CE – Candidate Endangered
CDFW
SSC – California Species of Special Concern
FP – California Fully-Protected Species
WL – California Watch List

4.5 Special-Status Vegetation Communities
A total of five CDFW special-status vegetation community (natural communities) occurrences were found within a five-mile radius of the Project limits through the CNDDB review (Figure 4). These include the following:

San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
33 Vegetation Communities
● California Walnut Woodland
● Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
● Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest
● Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland
● Walnut Forest
None of the five special-status vegetation communities were documented within the Survey Buffer:

Furthermore, the Project limits and Survey Buffer are entirely surrounded by developed or agricultural land with no connectivity to natural communities. All other vegetation communities within the Project Survey Area are not considered to be special-status according to USFWS or CDFW. Therefore, no impacts to state or federally designated special-status vegetation communities would occur.

San Jose Creek Multi-Use Bikeway – Biological Letter Report City of Pomona, Los Angeles County, CA
34 4.6 Riparian Resources and Jurisdictional Resources
The literature review identified potential jurisdictional resources within the Survey Area, but outside of proposed Project permanent impact areas (Attachment A, Figure 3). The Project runs along the San Jose Creek channel, which is a jurisdictional canal considered a non-wetland of the U.S., and also falls within the jurisdiction of CDFW and RWQCB. This channel was historically a natural waterway, but has been anthropogenically altered and channelized. Portions of this flow-way have been undergrounded within the portion of the Survey Area. The on-site biological survey confirmed that the entire span of this feature, adjacent to the Project, is a concrete lined channel, lacking the ecological components to support wetlands or riparian habitat. The Project does not propose any permanent impacts to any jurisdictional features, however, approximately 600 square feet (sq ft) of temporary impacts are proposed within the concrete channel. No additional riparian resources or jurisdictional waterways were documented within the proposed impact areas of the Project, and due to the limited temporary impacts to the canal, impacts to riparian resources would not result from development of the proposed Project.

5.0 PROJECT IMPACTS - THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE, DIRECT/INDIRECT IMPACTS & TEMPORARY/ PERMANENT IMPACTS
This section of the report includes a discussion of the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to onsite special-status biological resources that may result upon the construction and implementation of the Project. Direct impacts include those involving the loss, alteration, and/or disturbance of plant communities, and consequently, the flora and fauna of the affected area. Direct impacts also include the destruction of individual plants and/or wildlife. Direct impacts may adversely affect regional populations of certain species, or result in isolated populations, reducing genetic diversity and range wide population stability: conversely, direct impacts may also have intended or unintended positive effects in some cases.