INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Transcription

1 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION BOULDER AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT CITY OF HIGHLAND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA December 11, 2008

2 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION BOULDER AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT CITY OF HIGHLAND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: City of Highland Baseline Highland, California (909) Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 Riverside, California (951) LSA Project No. LIM532 December 11, 2008

3 Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND SCOPE FINDINGS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY CONTACT PERSON PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT SITE SETTING PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT APPROVALS DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN APPENDICES (ON ATTACHED CD-ROM) A Visual Assessment B Air Quality Analysis C Natural Environment Study D-1 Biological Assessment D-2 Biological Assessment Memorandum E Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands F Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) G Water Quality Assessment Report H Noise Impact Analysis I Draft Traffic Study Figures 1: Regional and Project Location : Conceptual Design... 5 Tables A: Summary of Species within Project Boundaries B: Existing Traffic Noise Levels (dba L eq ) C: Sound Barrier Modeling (dba L eq ) Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page i

4 1.0 Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This Initial Study has evaluated each of the issues contained in the checklist provided in Section 3.0 of this document. The objective of this environmental document is to inform City of Highland decisionmakers, representatives of other affected/responsible agencies, and other interested parties of the potential environmental effects that may be associated with the proposed project. This Initial Study serves as the environmental review of the proposed project, as required pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code 21000, et seq. and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study was prepared to identify whether the proposed project will produce significant environmental effects. If an Initial Study prepared for a proposed project determines that no significant effects on the environment will occur or significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation, the Lead Agency can prepare a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections et seq. A (Mitigated) Negative Declaration is a statement by the Lead Agency attesting that a project will produce less than significant impacts or significant impacts that can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. If an Initial Study prepared for a proposed project determines it may produce significant effects on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. This further environmental review is required to address the significant environmental effects of the project and provide mitigation where feasible. Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Highland is the Lead Agency, and is charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the proposed project. 1.2 FINDINGS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY Pursuant to CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines, this Initial Study has been prepared in order to determine whether implementation of the proposed project will result in significant environmental impacts, which would require the preparation of an EIR. This Initial Study is based on an Environmental Checklist Form (Form), as suggested in Section (d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Form is found in Section 3.1 of this Initial Study. It contains a series of questions about the proposed project for each of the listed areas. The Form is used to evaluate whether or not there are any significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project. Following the Form in Section 3.2 is an explanation for each answer on the Form. The Form and accompanying evaluation of the responses provide the information and analysis upon which the City of Highland may make its determination as to whether or not an EIR may be required for the project. The Form is used to review the potential environmental effects of the proposed project for each of the following areas: Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 1

5 1.0 Introduction Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 1.3 CONTACT PERSON The Lead Agency for the Initial Study for the proposed project is the City of Highland. Any questions about the preparation of this Initial Study, its assumptions, or its conclusions should be referred to the following: Lawrence A. Mainez, City Planner City of Highland Baseline Highland, California (909) Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 2

6 2.0 Project Description 2.1 PROJECT SITE SETTING The proposed project site is located in the northeast portion of the City of Highland in San Bernardino County. The project site is generally located east of California State Route 30 (SR-30), south of Baseline Street, north of 5 th Street, west of Webster Street, and crosses over City Creek. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the proposed project. 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is the replacement of the existing two-lane Boulder Avenue Bridge with a new fourlane structure and widened northern and southern approaches to match the existing configuration of Boulder Avenue north and south of the project limits. The proposed project would also include the construction of street improvements (e.g., curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and decorative lighting); the extension, relocation, and/or modification of drainage features; and the relocation (as necessary) of utility features. In addition to the bridge replacement, accommodation for the future extension of a multifunction trail (pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian use) will be incorporated into the project design for possible future connection with the Santa Ana River Trail. As illustrated in Figure 2, the project limits on Boulder Avenue are limited to approximately 0.14 mile south of Baseline Street at the City Creek crossing. The project includes the following objectives: (1) Implement roadway improvements consistent with the Circulation Element of the City of Highland General Plan; (2) Implement improvements that will enhance traffic operations and reduce existing traffic congestion on Boulder Avenue by improving the level of service (LOS), especially at the Boulder Avenue Bridge; and (3) Improve the design speed of the Boulder Avenue Bridge overcrossing. According to the City of Highland s General Plan Circulation Element, Boulder Avenue is identified as a modified primary arterial north of Greenspot Road. This modified primary arterial is designated as a fourlane divided roadway plus a Class I bike lane, with a typical right-of-way width of 135 feet and a curb-tocurb pavement width of approximately 98 feet with a raised median. Boulder Avenue has previously been widened to four (4) lanes with the exception of the existing Boulder Avenue Bridge and the roadway approaches from 190 feet north and to 1,430 feet south of the existing bridge. The transition from a four-lane roadway to a two-lane roadway on the existing Boulder Avenue Bridge results in a traffic condition that contributes to roadway congestion in the project area. To resolve the existing condition, the replacement of the existing two-lane bridge with a four-lane bridge, along with the proposed improvements, would tie into existing improvements on both ends of the project limits. As currently proposed, the project will require the acquisition of additional right-of-way that would be for temporary construction easements and/or utility relocations. 2.3 PROJECT APPROVALS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Section 404 Permit U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Section 7 Consultation California Regional Water Quality Control Board: Water Quality Certification Section 401 Permit California Regional Water Quality Control Board: Statewide Construction Activity General Permit California Department of Fish and Game: Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Permit California Department of Fish and Game: Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 3

7 }þ 330 Project Location BASELINE STREET CHURCH AVENUE 210 City Creek BOULDER AVENUE 5TH STREET Aä Regional Location %&g(?l Los Angeles County A»!"`$?q!"a$!"a$ A» %&h( San Bernardino County?q Project Area Riverside County AÌ Santa Ana River ORANGE STREET A Orange County!"a$ S!N %&h( A Miles FIGURE 1 S!N 0 1,000 2,000 FEET METERS SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quads: Redlands and Harrison Mtn. (1988), CA; Thomas Bros., R:\LIM532\G\Reports\IS\Fig1_reg_loc.mxd (12/08/08) Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement Initial Study Regional and Project Location

8 N FEET Figure 2 R:\LIM532\G\Reports\InitialStudy\Fig2_SitePlan.cdr (12/08/08) SOURCE: LAN Engineering, 2006 Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement Initial Study Conceptual Design

9 2.0 Project Description California Department of Fish and Game: Section 2080 Consistency Determination San Bernardino County Flood Control District: Encroachment Permit City of Highland, Planning Commission: Approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.4 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Various technical reports have been prepared to assess specific issues that may result from the construction and operation of the proposed project. As relevant, information from these technical reports has been incorporated into the Initial Study. The following technical reports (provided as PDF files on the accompanying CD-ROM) are included as appendices to this Initial Study: Appendix A Visual Assessment, LSA Associates, Inc., November Appendix B Air Quality Analysis, LSA Associates, Inc., July Appendix C Natural Environmental Study, Michael Brandman & Associates, revised April 11, Appendix D Biological Assessment, City of Highland, revised December 18, Appendix E Jurisdictional Delineation, City of Highland Public Works Department, October Appendix F Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), Diaz-Yourman & Associates, September Appendix G Water Quality Assessment Report, LSA Associates, Inc., September Appendix H Noise Impact Analysis, LSA Associates, Inc., November Appendix I Draft Traffic Study, Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement, LSA Associates, Inc., August These reports/studies/letters are available for review at: Public Service Counter City of Highland Planning Division Baseline Highland, California Hours: Monday Thursday: 7:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Friday Sunday: Closed Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 6

10 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Background Project Title: Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement Project Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Highland Baseline Highland, California Contact Person and Phone Number: Lawrence A. Mainez, City Planner (909) Project Location: City of Highland, on Boulder Avenue, south of Baseline and north of Webster. Project Sponsor s Name and Address: City of Highland Baseline Highland, California General Plan Designation: Modified Primary Arterial Road Zoning: Not Applicable Description of Project: The proposed project is the replacement of the existing two-lane Boulder Avenue Bridge with a new four-lane structure and widened northern and southern approaches to match the existing configuration of Boulder Avenue north and south of the project limits. The proposed project would also include the construction of street improvements (e.g., curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and decorative lighting); the extension, relocation, and/or modification of drainage features; and the relocation (as necessary) of utility features. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed project is in an urbanized area of the City of Highland. To the north of the project site there are existing commercial uses consisting of fast-food establishments. To the east, the project is adjacent to a streambed, land set aside for utility easements, and existing residential development. To the south, the project site is surrounded by vacant land. West of the project site, there is an existing neighborhood shopping center and residential development. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Section 404 Permit U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Section 7 Consultation, Finding of No Effect California Regional Water Quality Control Board: Water Quality Certification Section 401 Permit California Regional Water Quality Control Board: Statewide Construction Activity General Permit California Department of Fish and Game: Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Permit California Department of Fish and Game: Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit California Department of Fish and Game: Section 2080 Consistency Determination San Bernardino County Flood Control District: Encroachment Permit Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 7

11

12 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except No Impact answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A No Impact answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A No Impact answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off site as well as on site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more Potentially Significant Impact entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially Significant Impact to a Less Significant Impact. The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section (c) (3) (d). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: (a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. (b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. (c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated, describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans and zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and Lead Agencies are free to use different formats; however, Lead Agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 9

13 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURAL 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 Mode (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. 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 nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 10

14 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 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 Game 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, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game 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 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? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in of the CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to of the CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 11

15 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to 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 Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VII. 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 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 onequarter-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 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 12

16 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 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 for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport, or helistop, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on site or off site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 13

17 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche or mudflow? k) Substantially degrade water quality by contributing pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? l) Substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses (i.e., swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving or downstream waters? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. 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? XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 14

18 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? XIV. 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 which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 15

19 XV. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus stops/routes, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, etc.)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including large scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section and described in Question No. 20 of the Environmental Checklist) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 16

20 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section is intended to provide evidence to substantiate the conclusions set forth in the Environmental Checklist. The section will discuss whether or not the proposed bridge (proposed project) is consistent with the existing General Plan policies and conclusions. I. AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. A visual assessment 1 was prepared for the proposed bridge replacement and is included as Appendix A. The following discussion is summary of the assessment. A scenic vista can be described as a pleasant view or prospect, especially one seen through a long, narrow passage or avenue. The proposed project includes the replacement of an existing two-lane bridge with a new fourlane bridge in the same area. The proposed project is within an area in which existing urban development such as commercial facilities and residential development currently exists. According to the City s General Plan, unique visual features within the City include topographic features, local flora, and historic buildings. Land uses within the project limits consist of roadway features or open space. Visual characteristics of the 1 Visual Resources Memorandum, LSA Associates, Inc., November 2006 (Appendix A). Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 17

21 project area include views of the San Bernardino Mountains to the north and east, as well as boulderstrewn wash areas in the City Creek channel. However, no City or State designated significant visual resource is located within the project limits. The proposed project does not require a large amount of cut or fill, nor will the project result in the construction of any feature that would alter the existing aesthetic character within the project limits. The replacement of the existing Boulder Avenue Bridge does not constitute a change in the overall visual character of the project site. Therefore, a less than significant impact related to this issue would occur and no mitigation is required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The proposed project is not located along a state scenic highway and there are no state scenic highways located within the project vicinity. The proposed site does not contain any trees, rockoutcroppings, historic buildings of significance, or other feature that has been identified as a scenic resource by either the City or State. As no impact to an identified scenic resource would result from development of the proposed project, no impact associated with this issue would occur. No mitigation is required. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would result in the replacement of the existing two-lane bridge with a new four-lane bridge. The proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character of the site as the project consists of replacing an existing structure with a similar structure that has been approved by the City s Public Works Committee (refer to Appendix A). Because the proposed project would result in development of structures and features that fully incorporate established design criteria, no significant impact related to the change to the existing visual character of the project site would occur and no mitigation is required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project will necessitate the installation of lighting necessary for the maintenance of public safety and security as well as to accommodate bridge use after dark. All lighting shall comply with applicable City standards related to the installation and operation of lighting features. Although the Highland Municipal Code Lighting Standards generally do not apply to public right-of-way street light standards, these standards require that all lighting associated with non-residential uses shall be shielded and arranged to reflect, or illuminate, away from adjoining properties and public streets. Lighting for non-residential uses is not to exceed one-half-foot candles of illumination beyond the property and shall not blink, flash, oscillate, or be of unusually high intensity of brightness. The nearest sensitive receptor (residential) is approximately 1,000 feet to the west and east of the project site; therefore, incorporation of street lighting standards similar to those used throughout the City and implementation of City lighting development standards, impacts associated with lighting will be reduced to less than significant levels and no mitigation is required. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 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 Resource Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), compiles Important Farmland maps pursuant to the provisions of Section of the California Government Code. These maps utilize data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 18

22 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey, and current land use information using eight mapping categories and represent an inventory of agricultural resources within San Bernardino County. The maps depict currently urbanized lands and a qualitative sequence of agricultural designations. Maps and statistics are produced biannually using a process that integrates aerial photo interpretation, field mapping, a computerized mapping system, and public review. Mapping of county farmland categories is conducted every two years. The majority of the project site is designated as Other Land, which is land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. The northernmost and southernmost extremes of the project site are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land, which is land used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes. No Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important Farmland is located within the project limits. 1 The proposed project would not result in the conversion of land designated as Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important Farmland; therefore, no impacts would result from the development of the proposed project and no mitigation is required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. Williamson Act 2 contracts restrict land development of contract lands. The contracts typically limit land use in contract lands to agriculture, recreation, and open space, unless otherwise stated in the contract. The property is not in the Williamson Act Conservation Contract database. 3 Because the project site is not part of a Williamson Act contract, no impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to occur with the development of the proposed project. No mitigation is required. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use? No Impact. Please refer to responses 2(a) and 2(b). The proposed project site currently consists of an existing two-lane bridge crossing over City Creek; therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Surrounding properties consisting of flood control, commercial, and residential uses are already urbanized. Therefore, no impact with respect to conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses would occur and no mitigation is required. III. AIR QUALITY a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) and is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. It includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Metadata, The Williamson Act is a procedure authorized under state law to preserve agricultural lands as well as open space. Property owners entering into a Williamson Act contract receive a reduction in property taxes in return for agreeing to protect the land s open space or agricultural values. Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Williamson Act Program metadata, Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 19

23 Basin-wide air pollution levels are administered by the SCAQMD through the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Adopted in June 2007, the AQMP provides a program for obtaining attainment status for key monitored air pollution standards, based on existing and future air pollution emissions resulting from employment and residential growth projections. Because the proposed project is a transportation project, consistency of the project with the AQMP is determined by the regional transportation improvement program s (RTIP) consistency with the AQMP. This is determined by comparing the emissions from the transportation projects with the emissions budget in the AQMP. If the AQMP growth assumptions are likely to be exceeded as a result of the RTIP improvements, then the RTIP cannot be found consistent with the AQMP. However, since the source of the 2006 RTIP s growth assumptions are the same as the 2007 AQMP, the two documents would be consistent. Several of the RTIP roadway improvement projects provide improved access to areas with existing or anticipated congestion. These projects may be needed due to lack of sufficient roadway capacity or are proposed in local General Plan Circulation Elements as necessary to reduce future congestion anticipated as local General Plans are built out. Because the proposed project is identified in the RTIP and because the RTIP is consistent with the current AQMP, the proposed project is consistent with the AQMP. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue would occur and no mitigation is required. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. An air quality assessment 1 prepared for the proposed project is contained in Appendix B. The following analysis is a summary of the findings in this study. Currently, the Basin is designated as a non-attainment area for ozone, PM 10, and PM 2.5. Development of the project would contribute to air emissions on a short-term basis. Short-term emissions would result from construction activities, such as fugitive dust from grading/site preparation and equipment exhaust. The project is required to comply with regional rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. The purpose of SCAQMD Rule 403 is to reduce the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere resulting from man-made fugitive dust sources. Among the requirements under this rule, fugitive dust must be controlled so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. This is achieved by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate dust emissions. Adherence to Rule 403 is a standard requirement for any development project occurring within the SCAQMD. Adherence to Rule 403 with the following construction practices measures, air quality emission impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant. The following measures have been identified: AIR-01 AIR-02 AIR-03 AIR-04 The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer s specifications. The construction contractor shall use electric or diesel-powered equipment in lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. The construction contractor shall time the construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic and so as to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the 1 Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement Air Quality Analysis, LSA Associates, Inc., July 2008 (Appendix B). Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 20

24 site; if necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. AIR-05 The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. Adherence to these measures would reduce short-term air quality impacts to a less than significant level. No further analysis is required. Long-term emissions would improve from the enhanced traffic flow due to the roadway improvements. The proposed project is not expected to generate any additional traffic and regional traffic trips would remain similar to what is projected. The proposed project would improve traffic movement in the project vicinity, thereby lowering the total pollutants emitted by vehicles crossing the bridge. Because the proposed project would reduce rather than increase long-term air quality emissions, impacts related to this issue are less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation is required for long-term emissions and no further analysis is needed. c) 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. Currently, the Basin is in attainment/maintenance for Federal CO and in a nonattainment area for Federal PM 10, and PM 2.5 standards. Air pollution levels of the criteria air pollutants are monitored, or measured, by the applicable district at various locations throughout the Basin. While the future average daily traffic (ADT) stays the same without or with the project, the level of service (LOS) improves from an F to an A with the project. This improvement in the LOS would result in better traffic flow and lower emissions and therefore the project would not worsen air quality and a detailed CALINE4 CO hot-spot analysis was not required. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue are anticipated to be less than significant and no further discussion is required. Although the proposed project is within a non-attainment area for Federal PM 2.5 and PM 10 standards, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not require hot-spot analysis, qualitative or quantitative, for projects that are not listed as an air quality concern. The proposed project would improve roadway operations by reducing traffic congestion and improving traffic operations and would not introduce a new source of PM 2.5 or PM 10. These factors were presented to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG s) Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) for discussion and review on November 28, The project was approved and concurred upon by the Interagency Consultation at the TCWG meeting as a project that would not have an adverse impact on air quality and would meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Therefore, the proposed project would not create a new, or worsen an existing, PM 10 or PM 2.5 violation. Impacts associated with this issue are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of pollution than the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long-term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities. Because emissions generated from the proposed project are below those identified by the SCAQMD and because there are no sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site, impacts related to this issue are anticipated to be less than significant and no further analysis is required. Boulder Avenue Bridge Replacement City of Highland Page 21