HomeMy WebLinkAboutInitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
MASTER CASE NO. 21-000129 DESIGN REVIEW NO. DRP-21-051 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: CUP-21-026 Lead Agency:
City of Fontana Planning Department 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335
909.350.6656 Contact: Salvador Quintanilla
Prepared for:
CRP/WP Alta Fontana Venture, L.L.C. 11849 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 204
Los Angeles, CA 90064 Prepared by:
Michael Baker International 801 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 250 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213.372.1014 Contact: Kathalyn Tung May 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section A. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE IS/MND ............................................ 1
I. Format and Content of the IS/MND ................................................................................ 1
II. Purpose of the IS/MND ................................................................................................... 1
III. Planning Context ............................................................................................................ 1
IV. Initial Study Findings ...................................................................................................... 2
V. Public Review and Processing of the IS/MND ................................................................ 3
Section B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... 4
I. Project Summary ............................................................................................................ 4
II. Project Location .............................................................................................................. 4
III. Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................................. 4
IV. Proposed Improvements ................................................................................................ 8
V. Project Construction and Phasing ................................................................................ 12
VI. Project Best Management Practices ............................................................................ 13
VII. Required Permits and Approvals .................................................................................. 16
Section C. Environmental Checklist Form ......................................................................... 17
I. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................. 19
II. Environmental Determination ....................................................................................... 20
Section D. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................. 21
I. Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................... 21
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................. 24
III. Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 26
IV. Biological Resources .................................................................................................... 39
V. Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 45
VI. Energy .......................................................................................................................... 49
VII. Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................ 54
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................... 60
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 68
X. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................ 73
XI. Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................ 80
XII. Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................ 81
XIII. Noise ............................................................................................................................ 82
XIV. Population and Housing ............................................................................................... 94
XV. Public Services ............................................................................................................. 96
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page ii
XVI. Recreation .................................................................................................................. 101
XVII. Transportation ............................................................................................................ 103
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 107
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................... 111
XX. Wildfire ........................................................................................................................ 117
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................ 119
Section E. References ....................................................................................................... 122
Section F. List of Preparers .............................................................................................. 127
List of Tables
Table 1: Current Land Uses, General Plan Designations, and Zoning ......................................... 8
Table 2: Short-Term Construction Emissions ............................................................................. 31
Table 3: Long-Term Operational Emissions ............................................................................... 32
Table 4: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions ........................................................ 35
Table 5: Project and Countywide Energy Consumption ............................................................. 50
Table 6: General Plan Consistency Analysis .............................................................................. 53
Table 7: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................ 62
Table 8: Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan ...................................................................... 63
Table 9: Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS .................................................................. 64
Table 10: Consistency with the City of Fontana General Plan Update ....................................... 67
Table 11: Existing Conditions and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels ............................ 86
Table 12: Future Traffic Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 87
Table 13: Cumulative Traffic Noise Levels ................................................................................. 88
Table 14: Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment (Reference and Nearest Structures) .... 91
Table 15: Construction Equipment Buffer Zone Distances ......................................................... 92
Table 16: Existing School Facilities Capacity and Student Enrollment1 ...................................... 99
Table 17: Projected Enrollment from Project Operation ............................................................. 99
List of Figures
Figure 1: Regional Location .......................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Project Location ............................................................................................................. 6
Figure 3: Site Photos .................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Conceptual Site Plan ..................................................................................................... 9
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page iii
Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality Technical Memorandum
Appendix B Health Risk Assessment Technical Memorandum
Appendix C Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum
Appendix D Cultural Resources Identification Report
Appendix E Energy Technical Memorandum
Appendix F Geotechnical Investigation Report
Appendix G Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum
Appendix H Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix I Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix J Noise Technical Memorandum
Appendix K Transportation Impact Study
Appendix L AB 52 Tribal Consultation (with Confidential Appendix)
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter AB Assembly Bill AB 939 AB 939 – California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan APN Assessor’s Parcel Numbers APS auxiliary power system ATP City of Fontana Active Transportation Plan Basin South Coast Air Basin Basin Plan Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality Control Plan BMPs best management practices C-G General Commercial CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CalGEM California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division
CALGreen California Green Building Standards California Register California Register of Historical Resources CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDFC California Fish and Game Code CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CH4 methane CIRP Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California City City of Fontana CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL community noise equivalent level CNPS California Native Plant Society CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CRIAs Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities
CWMP Construction Waste Management Plan dB Decibel dBA A-weighted decibel scale
DPM diesel particulate matter du/ac dwelling units/acre EIFDs Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts
EIR environmental impact report EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FBC Form Based Code
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FFPD Fontana Fire Protection District FPD Fontana Police Department FTA Federal Transit Administration
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page v
FUSD Fontana Unified School District FWC Fontana Water Company g/bhp-hr grams per brake horsepower-hour General Plan General Plan Update 2015-2035 GHG greenhouse gases gpd gallons per day HI hazard index HRA health risk assessment HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning I-15 Interstate 15
IEPR Integrated Energy Policy Report IEUA Inland Empire Utility Agency IPAC Information for Planning and Consultation Project Planning Tool
IS Initial Study LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard LED high efficiency lighting
Leq equivalent sound level LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan LID Low Impact Development
LOS level of service LST localized significance threshold MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MEIR maximally exposed individual resident MG million gallons MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MPO metropolitan planning organization MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MTCO2e metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx nitrogen oxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O3 ozone
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration Pb lead
PM10 particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter PMI point of maximum impact ppm parts per million PPV peak particle velocity proposed project Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project R-1 Single Family R-3 Multiple Family
R-MF Multi-Family Residential R-MFH Multi-Family High Residential R-SF Single Family Residential
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page vi
R5 Multi-Family High Density Residential REL reference exposure level RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment ROG reactive organic gas ROW right-of-way RP regional plant RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SCE Southern California Edison
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SLCP Short-Lived Climate Pollutant SLF Sacred Lands File
SO2 sulfur dioxide SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company SRA State Responsibility Area
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TAC toxic area contaminant TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone USACE U.S. Army Corp of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds WL Watch List WMXU-1 Walkable Mixed Use Corridor & Downtown
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan ZEV zero-emission vehicle Zoning Code City of Fontana Zoning and Development Code
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 1
Section A. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE IS/MND
I. Format and Content of the IS/MND
Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.), this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for the proposed Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project (proposed project) at 14817
Foothill Boulevard in the City of Fontana, California.
The content and format of this IS/MND is designed to meet the requirements of CEQA and is organized as follows:
Section A, Introduction and Purpose of the IS/MND, identifies the purpose and scope of the IS/MND.
Section B, Project Description, describes the location, general environmental setting, project background, proposed project components, and the characteristics of the proposed project’s construction and operational phases.
Section C, Environmental Checklist Form, provides a checklist of environmental factors that would be potentially affected by this project and a description of the possible threshold responses.
Section D, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, presents the environmental setting and impact analysis for each resource topic.
Section E, References, identifies all printed references and individuals cited in this
IS/MND.
Section F, List of Preparers, identifies all individuals involved in preparing this IS/MND.
II. Purpose of the IS/MND
The purpose of the Initial Study is to identify environmental impacts; provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration; facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of the
project; and document the factual basis of the finding in a negative declaration that a project would not have a significant environmental effect.
III. Planning Context
Governing Body
CEQA applies to proposed projects initiated by, funded by, or requiring discretionary approvals from state or local government agencies. The proposed project constitutes a project as defined by CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). Section 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines states that a “Lead Agency” is “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” Accordingly, the City of Fontana (City) is the lead agency responsible for compliance with CEQA for the Alta Fontana Mixed Used Project. The City has reviewed the proposed project and, on the basis of the whole record before it, has determined
that there is no substantial evidence that the project, with mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study, will have a significant effect on the environment. This IS/MND evaluates the potential environmental impacts that may result from the development of the proposed project consistent
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 2
with Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines and reflects the lead agency’s independent judgement and analysis.
General Plan
The City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035 (General Plan) is the current general plan in place, adopted on November 13, 2018. The General Plan aligns with state planning priorities as stated in California Government Code Section 65041 and with the General Plan Guidelines, though sometimes with slightly different language. The General Plan covers a broad range of topics in 16 chapters. These chapters or “elements” include a summary of existing conditions and current trends, the planning process, and goals, policies, and actions for many different topic areas that will affect the physical and economic development of the City over the next 20 years.
Because the Housing Element is required by state law to be updated more frequently than the General Plan, it is published as a separate document (the City has updated the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, which is anticipated to be certified in Spring 2022).
General Plan Land Use Designations
The current General Plan land use designation of the project site is Multi-Family High Residential (R-MFH) (39.1-50 dwelling units/acre [du/ac]), which is described as follows, according to the
Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element (Chapter 15) of the City’s General Plan:
Multi-Family High Residential: This is the highest-density residential category in Fontana, allowing up to 50 du/ac. It was created in response to the State of California requirements
of the Housing Element.
Zoning
The current zoning designation of the project site is Multi-Family High Density Residential (R5). The Multi-Family High Density Residential designation is the most intense multiple-family residential zoning district and provides space for high density residential transit-oriented development commonly found in an urban environment, especially along existing and/or anticipated future bus routes. Permitted uses include multi-story apartments and mixed-use developments.
IV. Initial Study Findings
Section C of this document contains the Environmental Checklist/Initial Study that was prepared for the proposed project pursuant to CEQA requirements. The Environmental Checklist/Initial
Study determined that implementation of the proposed project would result in no impacts or less than significant environmental effects under the issue areas of Aesthetics, Agriculture, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water
Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.
The Environmental Checklist/Initial Study determined that the proposed project would result in
less than significant effects with mitigation incorporated to the following issue areas: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources.
The Environmental Checklist/Initial Study determined that there is no substantial evidence, in light
of the whole record before the lead agency (City of Fontana), that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 3
V. Public Review and Processing of the IS/MND
The environmental documentation and supporting analysis are subject to a public review period pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. During this review, comments on the document relative to environmental issues should be addressed to the City. Following review of any comments received, the City will consider these comments as a part of the project’s environmental review and include them with the IS/MND documentation for consideration by the City.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 4
SECTION B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
I. Project Summary
The proposed project includes construction of a mixed-use development of 340 multi-family residential units, 1,500 square feet of commercial space, and four live-work units on approximately 8.8 acres (9.5 gross acres with road improvements and sidewalks). The proposed
project would be located at 14817 Foothill Boulevard at the southwestern corner of the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Live Oak Avenue (project site) in the City of Fontana. The project is described in detail in Section B.IV., Proposed Improvements.
II. Project Location
The City of Fontana (City) is located in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County. The City is bounded by the San Bernardino National Forest to the north, the City of Rialto to the east, the Jurupa Hills to the south, and unincorporated San Bernardino County and the Cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario to the west. The City’s sphere of influence extends north to the San Bernardino National Forest and west to the Cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario. Refer to Figure 1, Regional Location and Figure 2, Project Location.
Regional access to the project site is available via Interstate 15 (I-15) at the Foothill Boulevard
exit, which is approximately three miles west of the project site. Local access to the project site is provided via Foothill Boulevard and Live Oak Avenue.
The project site comprises two parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APN] 0230-071-03 and
0230-071-04).
III. Existing Site Conditions
On-site Conditions
The project site is located on land that is currently undeveloped. The project site currently consists of vacant land, and grasses and weeds cover much of the project site. The project site is unimproved, and there are no existing structures on-site; however, an area in the northeastern
portion of the project site contains a slab foundation of a former structure. The project site topography is generally flat with a slight regional slope to the southwest. The project site is located in the northern portion of the Upper Santa Ana Valley, which is a broad downward and depressed area encompassing approximately 50 miles, at an elevation of approximately 1,240 to 1,245 feet, an approximate elevation difference of 5 feet. Overhead electrical lines are present at the north-central portion of the project site. Refer to Figure 3, Site Photos.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 5
Figure 1: Regional Location
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 6
Figure 2: Project Location
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 7
Figure 3: Site Photos
Overhead electrical lines running through the north-central portion of the project site
View from the southeastern portion of the project site looking toward the northwest
View from the north looking toward the south of the project site View from the southwest looking toward
the north of the project site
View from the central portion of the project site looking toward the east
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 8
Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is bounded by Foothill Boulevard to the north; a shopping plaza and multi-family residences to the west; single-family residences to the south; and Live Oak Avenue to the east. Immediately north of Foothill Boulevard are self-storage facilities and a small motel, and immediately east of Live Oak Avenue are multi-family residences. Table 1, Current Land Uses, General Plan Designations, and Zoning, below, shows the current land uses, General Plan
designations, and zoning of the project site and the surrounding sites.
Table 1: Current Land Uses, General Plan Designations, and Zoning
Land Use General Plan Designation Zoning Project Site Vacant Multi-Family High Residential (R-MFH) Multi-Family High Density Residential (R5)
North
Foothill Boulevard (immediately north) Self-storage Facilities and Motel
ROW General Commercial (C-G)
ROW Multiple Family (R-3)
East
Live Oak Avenue (immediately east) Multi-family Residences
ROW Multi-Family Residential (R-MF)
ROW
Multiple Family (R-3)
South Single-Family Residences Single Family Residential (R-SF) Single Family (R-1)
West Shopping Plaza and Multi-family Residences Walkable Mixed Use Corridor & Downtown (WMXU-1) Form Based Code (FBC)
Sources: City of Fontana, 2021, City of Fontana General Plan Land Use Map, available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General-Plan-Land-Use-Map-3-2-2021?bidId=; City of Fontana, 2021, City of Fontana Zoning District Map, available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/30623/Zoning-District-Map-3-2-21?bidId=
IV. Proposed Improvements
Residential Development
The project proposes development of a mixed-use residential apartment complex involving
construction of 340 multi-family units, 1,500 square feet of commercial space, and four live-work units. The proposed project would include the elements listed below. Refer to Figure 4, Conceptual Site Plan.
Two four-story buildings, with a maximum height of 55 feet
340 apartment units, ranging from 726 square feet to 1,388 square feet
4 live-work units, each 1,492 square feet
1,500 square feet of commercial space and adjacent outdoor public plaza
529 surface parking spaces, including 9 commercial parking spaces, located in the western, central, and southern portions of the project site
Approximately 5,600 square feet of indoor amenity space, comprised of 1,700 square feet of clubroom space, a 720 square-foot business center, 1,375 square feet of fitness space,
and 1,800 square feet of lobby/leasing office space
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 9
Figure 4: Conceptual Site Plan
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 10
Four courtyards and a pool courtyard (one building offers the pool courtyard and one additional courtyard and the other building offers three courtyards), offering outdoor amenities, including a tot-lot with multiple play equipment and barbecue facility equipped with grill and picnic benches
Landscaping surrounding both buildings, including installation of 243 trees
Modifications of Live Oak Avenue consisting of widening the road, new curb and gutters
for the entire eastern frontage of the project site along Live Oak Avenue, three driveway approaches, and public sidewalk
Undergrounding of existing overhead electrical lines and poles that bisect the project site
from west to east at the north-central portion of the project site
Installation of new driveway access points at the northwestern corner and eastern frontage of the project site
Installation of Low Impact Development (LID) improvements, where feasible and/or applicable, which may include, but are not limited to drywells, infiltration trenches, underground stormwater storage/detention systems, and proprietary filtration and
biofiltration systems
Building and Site Design
The proposed project is comprised of two buildings separated by surface parking spaces. The northern building is located along Foothill Boulevard, while the southern building is located just south of the center of the site. The project proposes three floor plan options with either 1, 2, or 3 bedrooms for the 340 units, ranging in size from 726 square feet to 1,388 square feet. The proposed project would also include four live-work units in the northern building fronting Foothill Boulevard, adjacent to the commercial space in the northwestern corner of the building. The
outdoor public plaza and many units of the northern building, including the live-work units, face the street and have direct access to Foothill Boulevard, creating a pedestrian friendly environment. The total building density of the project site would be 39.1 dwelling units per acre
(du/ac), which would be consistent with the minimum permitted density of 39.1 du/ac and maximum permitted density of 50 du/ac allowed for the R-MFH zoning designation.
The 5,600-square-foot indoor amenity space would include an 1,800-square-foot lobby/leasing
office, a 1,375-square-foot fitness center, 1,700-square-foot clubroom and 720-square-foot business center in the northern building. The northern building would have two landscaped courtyards, with one containing a pool and spa, and the southern building would have three
landscaped courtyards. The courtyards would contain a barbecue facility equipped with a grill and picnic benches and children’s tot lot with play equipment.
Both building elevations would be approximately 49 feet high from the ground level, which would
be within the maximum allowable building height of 55 feet for the R-MFH zoning designation. Additionally, accent towers and stairs would extend up to 62 feet at key locations as permitted by Section 30-420 of the Fontana Municipal Code.
Additionally, the existing overhead power lines that bisect the project site from west to east at the north-central portion of the project site would be relocated underground; the new underground alignment would remain through the project site in the parking lot areas within an easement and the system would be maintained from the northwest corner of the project site through connections at Live Oak Avenue. Along Foothill Boulevard, partial removal and replacement of some of the existing curb/gutter, as well as sidewalk improvements, would be required to install a new
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 11
driveway access point at the northwest corner of the project site. Additionally, the proposed project would widen Live Oak Avenue by approximately 9 feet to its ultimate street width of 44 feet, and install new curb and gutter along the entire eastern frontage of the project site along Live Oak Avenue. Modifications along Live Oak Avenue would also include three driveway approaches (i.e., one for residential access and two for emergency access) and installation of a public sidewalk. Various minimum setbacks from 5 to 15 feet from the westerly-, easterly- and
southerly-adjacent properties would occur, and no minimum setback would be required along Foothill Boulevard.
Site Access
The proposed project’s primary site access points would be gated entrances along Foothill Boulevard and Live Oak Avenue. The gated entry along Foothill Boulevard would feed into the eastbound lanes of Foothill Boulevard, which is classified as a Modified Major Highway for the
City.1 Vehicles entering and exiting the project site would be required to make a right turn into and out of the residential community. Vehicles entering the gated entry along Live Oak Avenue, which is classified as a Secondary Highway, would be able to enter from both the south- and north-
bound lanes, and vehicles exiting the project site would be able to turn right and left out of the community.2
Pedestrian access to the project site would be provided by the existing 10-foot-wide sidewalk
along Foothill Boulevard, and a new proposed sidewalk along Live Oak Avenue.
Parking
The proposed project would provide 529 total surface parking spaces, including 9 commercial parking spaces. All parking spaces other than commercial parking would be assigned to each specific unit or available for guest parking; residents would be permitted to register a guest to park for up to three days, whereas unregistered guests would be limited to a 24-hour stay. Property management and security that are on-site 24 hours a day would monitor and enforce such parking restrictions to prevent parking spillover into the surrounding neighborhood.
Sustainable Design Features
The proposed project would implement sustainable design features to enhance building energy efficiency and conserve energy including, but not limited to, the following:
Designed to meet the 2019 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards.
Enhanced wall and window insulation to improve energy efficiency and reduce project contributions to regional GHG emissions.
Water and energy efficient mechanical equipment and electric appliances (i.e., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC], water heaters, kitchen appliances and plumbing) that require less usage intensity for operation and comply with Title 24 of the California
Government Code, and lighting in accordance with all state and federal regulations,
1 City of Fontana, 2018, General Plan Update 2015–2035, Community Mobility and Circulation Element (Chapter 9),
Exhibit 9.2. 2 City of Fontana, 2018, General Plan Update 2015–2035, Community Mobility and Circulation Element (Chapter 9), Exhibit 9.2.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 12
including the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code and the 2019 Title 6 California Energy Code.
Water efficient landscaping and irrigation systems in compliance with California State law regarding water conservation measures, including Title 24 of the California Government Code.
Approximately 53 spaces for future installation of electric vehicle charging stations.
V. Project Construction and Phasing
Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in December 2022 and would take approximately 26 months to complete, concluding in January 2025. Construction activities would
occur from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday.
The construction period would include demolition, excavation, grading, trenching, installation of utilities, building construction, architectural coating, paving activities, and installation of
landscaping and hardscape elements. The project site would be excavated to a depth of approximately 5 feet below grade for the building foundation, 4 feet below grade for site improvements, and 12 feet below grade for the sewer trench. Approximately 45,360 cubic yards
of material would be excavated as part of the proposed project. Approximately 22,870 cubic yards of material would be imported to the project site to be used as backfill, and 2,600 cubic yards of material would be exported. Approximately 26 trees would be removed with implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project would comply with the policies of the City’s Tree Policy Manual for trees within the public right-of-way and with Chapter 28 Article III of the Fontana Municipal Code to obtain a tree removal permit prior to the removal of heritage and significant trees as part of the proposed project.
Anticipated construction equipment includes compactors, excavator, forklifts, grader, backhoe,
compactor, concrete saw, generators, air compressors, paver and paving equipment, rollers, scraper, signal boards, loaders, dozers, dump trucks, cement trucks, and a trencher. Construction equipment and materials staging would occur on the project site. During construction, the project
site would be accessed from Live Oak Avenue. It is anticipated that haul trucks would travel on I-15, then east on Foothill Boulevard and south on Live Oak Avenue to access the project site. An estimated daily average of 50 construction workers would be employed.
In order to connect utilities serving the proposed project to existing underground utility infrastructure, the proposed project would require temporary lane closures on Foothill Boulevard. It is anticipated that the eastbound right lane fronting the project site along Foothill Boulevard
would be temporarily closed during utility work. Additionally, the modifications of Live Oak Avenue and utilities connections would require the temporary closure of the southbound lane on Live Oak Avenue. Parking restrictions on the eastern side of Live Oak Avenue may be necessary in order
to allow lanes to remain open during portions of construction.
The proposed project would comply with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, and
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 13
contractor policies to maintain a healthy workplace environment for construction workers at the job site.
VI. Project Best Management Practices
An appropriate combination of monitoring and resource impact avoidance would be employed during construction of the proposed project, including implementation of the following best management practices (BMPs):
The proposed project would implement South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 401 (Visible Emissions) , which prohibits the discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever any air contaminant for a
period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour of such opacity as to obscure an observer’s view.
The proposed project would implement SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) , which prohibits
the discharge from any source whatsoever, such quantities of air contaminants or other materials that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety
of any such persons or the public or that cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.
The proposed project would implement SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which requires reasonable precautions to be taken to prevent visible particulate matter from being airborne, under normal wind conditions, beyond the property from which the emission originates. Reasonable precautions include, but are not limited to, the following:
o Backfilling: Backfill material stabilization when actively handling or inactive, and stabilize soil at completion of activity;
o Clearing/Grubbing: Maintain stability of soil through watering of site prior to, during, and after all clearing/grubbing activities;
o Cut and Fill: Pre-water soils prior to cut and fill activities using water trucks;
stabilize soil during and after activities;
o Disturbed Soil: Stabilize disturbed soil throughout the construction site by limiting vehicular traffic and disturbance on soil where possible and applying water or a
stabilizing agent in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes (Rule 401 – Visible Emissions);
o Disturbed Surface Areas: Apply dust suppression in sufficient quantity and
frequency to maintain a stabilized surface;
o Earth-moving Activities: Pre-apply water to depth of proposed cuts and reapply as necessary to maintain soils in a damp condition and to ensure that visible dust
plumes do not exceed 100 feet in any direction;
o Importing/Exporting Bulk Materials: Stabilize material with tarps or other suitable enclosures on trucks while loading/unloading to reduce fugitive dust emissions and maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul vehicle; provide water during loading/unloading to prevent dust plumes;
o Road Shoulder Maintenance: Apply water to unpaved road shoulders prior to clearing and apply chemical dust suppressants or washed gravel to maintain stabilized surfaces; install curbing and/or paving of road shoulders;
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 14
o Screening: Pre-water material prior to screening to limit fugitive dust emissions to opacity and plume length standards;
o Staging areas: Stabilize staging areas and limit vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour;
o Stockpiles/Bulk Material Handling: stabilize stockpiled materials with intermittent watering and limit stockpiles to eight feet in height within 100 yards of off-site
occupied buildings; and
o Trenching: Stabilize surface soils with pre-watering where trencher or excavator and support equipment will operate; wash mud and soils from equipment at
completion of activities.
The proposed project would implement California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485 which include clean fleet best available control measures to limit
nitrogen oxide (NOX) and particulate matter emissions.
o Diesel-Fueled Off-Road Equipment and On-Road Trucks: Ensure that all diesel-fueled construction equipment and vehicles would be maintained and operated
within manufacturer’s specifications to limit unnecessary emissions during use, and limit idling of any in-use heavy duty diesel trucks to no more than five minutes in any particular location in accordance with California Air Resources Board
(CARB) Airborne Toxic Control Measure of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485; additionally, truck drivers shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment during sleeping or resting for more than five minutes within 100 feet sensitive receptors and PM (0.008 grams per brake horsepower-hour [g/bhp-hr]) during construction of the proposed project.
In compliance with City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-63, construction activities shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday except for purposes of emergencies.
Construction noise reduction methods shall be used, including but not limited to, shutting off idling equipment, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging
areas and occupied residential areas, and the use of electric air compressors and similar power tools, to the extent feasible.
Construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained
mufflers and other State-required noise attenuation devices.
Stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
Haul routes shall be designed such that the routes do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings.
The proposed project would implement Rule 1113 control measures required by the SCAQMD which limits the volatile organic compound (VOC) contents of architectural coatings.
The proposed project would develop and implement an Erosion Control and Grading Plan, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for construction activities. BMPs associated with these plans may include, but would not be limited to, the following:
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 15
o Minimizing the extent of disturbed areas and duration of exposure;
o Stabilizing and protecting disturbed areas;
o Keeping runoff velocities low;
o Retaining sediment within the construction area;
o Use of silt fences or straw wattles;
o Temporary soil stabilization;
o Temporary drainage inlet protection;
o Temporary water diversion around the immediate work area; and
o Minimizing debris from construction vehicles on roads providing construction
access.
The proposed project would develop an emergency response plan and spill prevention plan so project personnel would have available adequate spill containment and cleanup
resources on-site at all times and be prepared to contain, control, clean up, and dispose of any potential fuel spill quickly and completely.
The proposed project would develop a Fire Protection Plan that includes measures
consistent with the unique problems resulting from the location, topography, geology, flammable vegetation, and climate of the proposed development site. The Fire Protection Plan must also address water supply, access, building ignition fire resistance, fire protection systems and equipment, defensible space, and vegetation management. Maintenance requirements for incinerators, outdoor fireplaces, permanent barbeques and grills, and firebreak fuel modification areas are imposed on new developments. The proposed project would have fire-suppression equipment available on-site for construction crews and staff to respond to the accidental ignition of a fire.
The proposed project would coordinate with emergency response agencies, including, but not limited, to the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) and the Fontana Police Department (FPD), regarding construction schedules and worksite traffic control plans to
coordinate emergency response routing and maintain emergency access.
The proposed project would incorporate source reduction techniques and recycling measures and maintain a recycling program to divert waste in accordance with 2019
CALGreen Code, which requires 65 percent of construction and demolition materials be diverted away from the landfill by either recycling or reusing materials.
The proposed project would comply with applicable CALGreen Code standards for
formaldehyde for all materials utilized in building construction. The standards include the California Green Building Code, 24 California Code of Regulations 4.504.4.5, which requires composite wood products to comply with the CARB Airborne Toxic Air Control
Measure to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and California's Proposition 65, which requires businesses to provide warnings for exposures to formaldehyde (and other listed carcinogens and reproductive toxins) unless the business can prove that the exposure poses no significant risk.
The proposed project would include LID improvements to store, infiltrate, evapotranspire, biofilter, or detain runoff where feasible and/or applicable to satisfy the County of San Bernardino LID requirements and to meet the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R8-2010-0036. These improvements may include, but are not
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 16
limited to drywells, infiltration trenches, underground stormwater storage/detention systems, and proprietary filtration and biofiltration systems.
VII. Required Permits and Approvals
Numerous approvals and/or permits would be required to implement the proposed project. The environmental documentation for the proposed project would be used to facilitate compliance with federal and state laws and the granting of permits by various state and local agencies having
jurisdiction over one or more aspects of the proposed project. These approvals and permits may include, but may not be limited to, the following:
City of Fontana
Grading Permit
Building Permit
Design Review Approval
Tree Removal Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Lot Line Adjustment
Adoption of this IS/MND in accordance with CEQA
State of California, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) San Bernardino County
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (Santa Ana Region)
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 17
SECTION C. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Fontana Planning Division 8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Salvador Quintanilla Associate Planner (909) 350-6656
4. Project Location: The project site is approximately 9.5 gross acres and is located at 14817 Foothill Boulevard at the southwestern corner of the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Live Oak Avenue in the
City of Fontana.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Mr. Joe Gambill CRP/WP Alta Fontana Venture, L.L.C. 11849 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 204, Los Angeles, California 90064
Joe.gambill@woodpartners.com 6. General Plan Designation: Multi-Family High Residential (R-MFH)
7. Zoning: Multi-Family High Density Residential (R5)
8. Description of Project:
The proposed project includes the construction of a mixed-use development of 340 multi-family residential units, 1,500 square feet of commercial space, and four live-work units on approximately 8.8 acres (9.5 gross acres with road improvements and sidewalks). The proposed project would also include indoor and outdoor amenity space, and would require modifications of Live Oak Avenue and of existing utilities.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North: The site is bordered to the north by Foothill Boulevard and commercial uses comprising self-storage facilities and a motel.
East: The site is bordered to the east by Live Oak Avenue and multi-family residences.
South: The site is bordered to the south by single-family residences.
West: The site is bordered to the west by a shopping plaza and multi-family residences.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 18
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
Fontana Building & Safety Division: Site Plan review and approval, grading permits, building permits.
Fontana Planning Commission: Design Review approval and Conditional Use Permit.
Fontana Engineering Division: Construction permits, sewer connection approval, storm drain connection approval, and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) approval.
Fire Protection District: Building Plan check and approval; review for compliance with 2019 California Fire Code, 2019 California Building Code, California Health & Safety Code, and Fontana Municipal Code; and plans for fire detection and alarm systems, and automatic
sprinklers.
Fontana Water Company: Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to provide water supply connection to new development.
Southern California Edison: Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to provide electrical supply connection to new development.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project 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.?3
Yes. The City of Fontana notified tribes and conducted consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 with tribes that elected to participate. A summary of the consultation and the resulting determination of potential impacts to tribal cultural resources and applicable mitigation measures are included in Section D. XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources.
3 NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 19
I. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ☐ Air Quality
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation/Traffic ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources
☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire ☐ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and
an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project. To each question, there are four possible responses:
No Impact. The project would not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would have the potential for impacting the
environment, although this impact would be below established thresholds that are considered to be significant.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project would have
the potential to generate impacts which may be considered a significant effect on the environment, although measures or changes to the development’s physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant.
Potentially Significant Impact. The project would have impacts which are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 20
II. Environmental Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ 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 project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ 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.
☐ 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.
Signature
DiTanyon Johnson Principal Planner
Date
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 21
SECTION D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I. Aesthetics
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, 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 point.) 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
a) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project have
a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is defined as a publicly accessible, prominent
vantage point that provides expansive views of highly valued landscapes or prominent visual elements composed of man-made or natural features. Fontana is located on the desert valley floor between the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Jurupa Hills to the south. Although the General Plan does not identify specific view corridors within the City, the Conservation, Open Space, Parks, and Trails Element (Chapter 7) of the City’s General Plan notes that panoramic scenic view corridors toward the mountains and views of the City from the mountains dominate the City’s visual landscape character. Additionally, there are two Open Space zoning districts within the City that help preserve views of the natural conditions within the Jurupa Hills and San Gabriel Mountains. The project site is located approximately 4.3 miles north of the Jurupa Hills and approximately 4.5 miles south of the San Gabriel Mountains.
The project site, like much of Fontana, offers distant views of the Jurupa Hills and the San Gabriel
Mountains; however, these views are extensively obstructed, and not expansive. The project site is surrounded by multi-story residential buildings, commercial buildings, and single-family homes. The proposed project would be at the maximum allowable building height of 55 feet permitted for
the project site’s R-MFH zoning designation. Additionally, accent towers and stairs would extend up to 62 feet at key locations as permitted by Section 30-420 of the Fontana Municipal Code. This
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 22
height is comparable to other structures in the vicinity of the project area and would not obstruct expansive views of the Jurupa Hills or San Gabriel Mountains. As such, the project site is not located within the viewshed of these scenic vistas, and the proposed project would not block views of or from these scenic vistas. Therefore, impacts associated with scenic vistas would be less than significant.
b) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project
substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Scenic Highways Program
(as contained in the California Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260 to 263) recognizes the visual resources and natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors. No designated scenic highways are present in or near the City of Fontana.4 The only officially
designated state scenic highway in San Bernardino County is a 16-mile portion of State Route 38 from South Fork Campground to State Lane, which is approximately 38 miles east of the project site in the San Bernardino Mountains. Based on this distance, the intervening natural topography,
and constructed structures, the development site is not located within the viewshed of this officially designated state scenic highway. Therefore, no impacts related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur.
c) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project, 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 point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area, surrounded by multi-story residential, single-family residential, and commercial uses. The proposed mixed use residential and
commercial development is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the project site. The total building density of the proposed project would be 39.1 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), which would be consistent with the maximum permitted density of 50 du/ac allowed
for the R-MFH zoning designation. Additionally, the proposed project would be within the maximum allowable building height of 55 feet for the R-MFH zoning designation. Accent towers and stairs would extend up to 62 feet at key locations as permitted by Section 30-420 of the
Fontana Municipal Code.
The proposed project would fulfill the following relevant policies consistent with the General Plan related to urban design, visual character, and scenic quality:
• Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high quality of life and economic prosperity.
o Policy: Locate multi-family development in mixed-use centers, preferably where there is nearby access to retail, services, and public transportation.
4 Caltrans, 2018, California State Scenic Highway System Map, available at: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed January 12, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 23
• Goal 4: Compact, walkable, mixed-use centers are located at key sites along major corridors to be served by public transit in the future and at intersections where neighborhood retail and diverse housing options can succeed.
o Policy: Promote a land use pattern that provides connections among land uses and a mixture of land uses.
• Goal 7: Public and private development meets high standards of design.
o Policy: Support high-quality development in design standards and in land use decisions.5
The proposed project would develop the currently vacant property in a manner that is consistent with the R-MFH zoning designation. It would enhance public views in the project area through the provision of sidewalks and landscaping. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
d) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project 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 the proposed project would create a new development on a currently vacant property, new light sources from residential use and building security would be
introduced into the area. Project construction would occur during daylight hours and, therefore, would not require nighttime lighting. Additionally, consistent with Section No. 30-471, Light and Glare in Residential Zoning Districts, of the Fontana Municipal Code, all lighting used on the
project site is required to be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting adjacent properties. Furthermore, no structures or features that create adverse glare effects are permitted. All exterior lighting for the proposed project would be shielded and/or hooded to prevent
light trespass onto nearby properties. Although new reflective improvements, such as windows, would be introduced via the proposed project, the project as a whole would not be considered a substantial source of glare in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project impacts associated
with a new source of substantial light or glare would be less than significant.
5 City of Fontana, 2018, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015–2035, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design (Chapter 15), available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26754/Chapter-15---Land-Use-Zoning-and-Urban-Design.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 24
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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) prepared by the California Dept. 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
a) Would the project 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. The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the “Important Farmland in California” map prepared by the California Resources Agency pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.6 The project site
6 California Department of Conservation, 2016, California Important Farmland Finder, available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed December 1, 2021.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 25
is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land and is currently a vacant and undeveloped lot that is not used for agricultural purposes. The closest area designated as Farmland (Unique Farmland) occurs approximately 1.1 miles northwest from the project site.7 Therefore, the proposed project would not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use, and no impact would occur.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. As mentioned previously in Section A.III, the project site is located on land that is zoned as Multi-Family High Density Residential (R5). This zoning designation does not allow for agricultural uses. Furthermore, neither the project site nor any portion of the City of Fontana is
under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur.
c) Would the project 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. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The project site does not contain any forestland or timberland, nor is it zoned for timberland production. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, and no impact would occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The project site is a vacant and undeveloped lot that does not contain any forest land. Furthermore, the project site is not zoned for forestland. Therefore, the proposed project would
not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.
e) Would the project 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 stated in Section D.II(a) above, no portion of the project site or surrounding area
is identified as farmland or used for agricultural purposes. Additionally, as stated in Section D.II(d), no portion of the project site or surrounding area is designated as forest land. Therefore, the proposed project would not change the existing environment in a way that would result in the
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest use, and no impact would occur.
7 Distances measured via Google Earth Pro.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 26
III. Air Quality
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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) 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The analysis and findings in this section are based on the Air Quality Technical Memorandum and Health Risk Assessment Technical Memorandum, provided as Appendices A and B of this IS/MND, respectively, and incorporated herein by reference.
Discussion
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City and project site are located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The SCAQMD has jurisdiction in the Basin, which has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are
exceeded at times. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of the air
pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment.
In order to reduce emissions, the SCAQMD adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant
emissions and achieving state and federal air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The 2016 AQMP pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 27
plans. The SCAQMD considers projects that are consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants, to also have less than significant cumulative impacts. While SCAG has recently adopted the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS), SCAQMD has not released an updated AQMP that utilizes information from the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The updated AQMP is planned to be released in 2022. As such, this consistency analysis is based off the 2016 AQMP
and 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.
Criteria for determining consistency with the 2016 AQMP are defined by the following indicators:
• Whether the proposed project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the
AQMP
• Whether the proposed project would exceed the forecasted growth incorporated into the AQMP.
Criterion 1:
With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for
a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of attainment.
a) Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality
violations?
Since the consistency criteria identified under the first criterion pertain to pollutant concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis of the proposed
project’s pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for evaluating project consistency. As discussed in Section D.III (b) and (c) below, the proposed project’s short-term construction emissions, long-term operational emissions, and localized concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would result in less than significant impacts during project construction and operation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. Because volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are not a criteria pollutant, there is no ambient standard or localized threshold for VOCs. Due to the role VOC plays in ozone (O3) formation, it is classified as a precursor pollutant and only a regional emissions threshold has been established. The proposed project’s VOC emissions would not exceed the regional
emissions threshold; refer to Section D.III (b), below. As such, the proposed project would not cause or contribute to localized air quality violations or delay the attainment of air quality standard or interim emissions reductions specified in the 2016 AQMP.
b) Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations?
As discussed below in Section D.III (b) and (c) below, the proposed project would result in emissions that would be below the SCAQMD’s thresholds for regional and localized
emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to cause or contribute to a new violation of the ambient air quality standards.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 28
c) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions
reductions specified in the AQMP?
As discussed below in Section D.III (b) and (c) below, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to localized concentrations during project construction and operation. As such, the proposed project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or 2016 AQMP emissions reductions.
Criterion 2:
With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and SCAG air quality policies, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the Basin focuses on
attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether or
not the proposed project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2016 AQMP. Determining whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2016 AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each of these criteria.
a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP?
A project is consistent with the 2016 AQMP in part if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in the development of the 2016
AQMP. In the case of the 2016 AQMP, three sources of data form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions: the City’s General Plan Update, SCAG’s regional growth forecast, and the SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS also
provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth.
The project proposes development of a mixed-use residential apartment complex with 344 units (including four live-work units) on an 8.8-acre site, which equates to 39.1 dwelling
units per acre. The project site is designated Multi-Family High Residential (R-MFH) with a minimum of 39.1 dwelling units per acre and maximum of 50 dwelling units per acre by the General Plan Update. Further, the project site is zoned Multi-Family High Density
Residential (R5). The R5 zone is the most intense multiple-family residential zoning district, and it provides space for high density residential transit-oriented development commonly found in an urban environment, especially along existing and/or anticipated future bus routes. Permitted uses include multi-story apartments and mixed-use developments. Thus, the proposed project is considered consistent with the General Plan Update and the City of Fontana Zoning and Development Code (Zoning Code), and is consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the project site vicinity.
The City’s population estimate as of January 1, 2021, is 213,944 persons.8 Based on the City’s average household size of 4.02,9 the proposed mixed-use development with 344
8 California Department of Finance, 2021, Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark, available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/, accessed January 25, 2022.
9 California Department of Finance, 2021, Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark, available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/, accessed January 25, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 29
residential units would potentially introduce approximately 1,383 additional residents within the City. As the proposed project would directly generate population growth through its provision of housing, the proposed project is considered growth-inducing. However, the proposed project’s potential growth-inducing impacts would be considered less than significant since the 1,383 additional residents represent only a 0.65 percent increase from the City’s population of 213,944 persons. Additionally, SCAG growth forecasts estimate
the City’s population to reach 280,900 persons by 2040, representing a total increase of 80,700 persons between 2012 and 2040.10 The proposed project’s anticipated residential population (1,383 persons) represents approximately 1.7 percent of the City’s anticipated
growth from 2012 to 2040, and approximately 0.49 percent of the City’s total projected 2040 population. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the buildout population forecast in the General Plan Update. Additionally, the proposed project would
be consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the site in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. As the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2016 AQMP, it can be concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with
the projections included in the 2016 AQMP.
b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures?
The proposed project would result in less than significant air quality impacts, as
demonstrated throughout this impact analysis, and therefore, mitigation is not required. Compliance with all feasible emission reduction rules and measures identified by the SCAQMD would be required as identified in Section D.III (b) and (c) below. As such, the proposed project meets this 2016 AQMP consistency criterion.
c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the
AQMP?
As discussed above under criterion 2a above, land use planning strategies set forth in the 2016 AQMP are primarily based on the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. The proposed project is an
infill, mixed-use development within an urban environment, which is consistent with the land use strategy set forth in the 2016 AQMP to “Plan for Growth around Livable Corridors.”11 Further, the proposed project would comply with the 2019 California Building
Energy Efficiency Standards (commonly referred to as “Title 24” standards) and reserve area on the roof for future solar panels, as well as install enhanced insulated walls, high efficiency (LED) lighting, energy efficient appliances, low-flow water fixtures, water-
efficient irrigation, and drought tolerant landscape, which is consistent with the land use strategy set forth in the 2016 AQMP to “Support Local Sustainability Planning.”12 The proposed project would also include approximately 53 spaces for future installation of
electric vehicle charging stations, and provide bicycle parking spaces on-site to promote alternative transportation options, which is consistent with the land use strategies set forth in the 2016 AQMP to “Provide More Options for Short Trips/Neighborhood Mobility Areas” and “support Zero Emission Vehicles & Expand Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.”13 Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the actions and strategies of the
10 Southern California Association of Governments, 2016, 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Final Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2016_2040rtpscs_finalgrowthforecastbyjurisdiction.pdf?1605576071, accessed January 25, 2022. 11 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March 2017. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 30
2016-2040 RTP/SCS. As discussed above under criterion 2a, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan Update land use designation and buildout forecast. Furthermore, project consistency with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and the 2016 AQMP would promote the City’s goal to improve air quality. As such, the proposed project meets this AQMP consistency criterion.
In conclusion, the determination of 2016 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long-
term impact of a project on air quality in the Basin. The proposed project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. Also, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the 2016 AQMP for control of
fugitive dust, as discussed below in Section D.III (b). The operation of the proposed project would also be consistent with the SCAQMD and SCAG’s goals and policies. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the 2016 AQMP and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project 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.
Criteria air pollutants are pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards—or criteria—for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. The
federal ambient concentration criteria are known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and the California ambient concentration criteria are referred to as the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The criteria air pollutants regulated at the federal jurisdiction include CO, O3, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), respirable particulate matter ten microns or less in diameter (PM10), fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). The Basin is designated as nonattainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS for O3, PM10, and PM2.5.
Construction
Construction activities for the proposed project would include demolition, excavation, grading, trenching, installation of utilities, building construction, architectural coating, paving activities, and installation of landscaping and hardscape elements. The proposed project would be constructed
over approximately 26 months. Approximately 45,360 cubic yards of material would be excavated as part of the proposed project. Approximately 22,870 cubic yards of material would be imported to the project site to be used as backfill, and 2,600 cubic yards of material would be exported.
Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the program defaults of the most recent version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0, which has been used to prepare the analysis of daily construction emissions.
Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or off-site. Refer to the Air Quality Technical Memorandum, provided as Appendix A, of this IS/MND. Table 2, Short-Term Construction Emissions, below presents the anticipated daily short-term construction emissions.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 31
Table 2: Short-Term Construction Emissions
Emissions Source Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)1
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction Related Emissions2
Year 1 5.66 49.74 49.26 0.14 10.42 4.61
Year 2 5.05 43.31 47.30 0.1375 10.10 4.32
Year 3 64.67 27.21 43.65 0.10 6.44 2.40
Maximum Daily Emissions 64.67 49.74 49.26 0.14 10.42 4.61
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes:
1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0. Winter emissions represent the worst-case scenario.
2. Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Source: Refer to Appendix A of the Air Quality Technical Memorandum for detailed model input/output data.
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living
and working in the project area. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut-and-fill, and truck travel on unpaved roadways. Fugitive dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and weather
conditions. Fugitive dust from demolition, grading, and construction would be short-term and would cease upon project completion. It should be noted that most fugitive dust material is inert silicates, and not complex organic particulates released from combustion sources, which are considered more harmful to health. Construction activities would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires that excessive fugitive dust emissions be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures. Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 greatly reduces PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. It should be noted that these reductions were applied in CalEEMod. As depicted in Table 2, total PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during
construction.
Exhaust emissions (e.g., NOX and CO) from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced on-
site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to/from the site. As presented in Table 2, short-term construction emissions, including from construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust, would be below the established SCAQMD thresholds.
In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings creates ROG emissions, which are O3 precursors. As required, all architectural coatings for the proposed project would comply with SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 – Architectural Coating.
Rule 1113 provides specifications on painting practices as well as regulates the ROG content of paint. As presented in Table 2, ROG emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during construction.
As indicated in Table 2, criteria pollutant emissions during construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, construction of the proposed
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 32
project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
Long-term air quality impacts would consist of mobile source emissions generated from proposed project-related traffic and emissions from stationary area and energy sources. Area source emissions would be from consumer products, architectural coating, and landscaping. Energy
source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity and natural gas (non-hearth) usage associated with the proposed project. The primary use of electricity and natural gas by the project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and
electronics. The proposed project would comply with the 2019 Title 24 standards. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local
concern. For example, ROG, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical smog], and wind currents readily transport SOX, PM10, and PM2.5). However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly
at the source.
The proposed project-generated vehicle emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. The proposed project is projected to generate a total of approximately 1,644 daily trips, including 131
trips during the a.m. peak hour and 140 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
Emissions associated with each of these sources are detailed in Table 3, Long-Term Operational Air Emissions. As shown in Table 3, total project emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant.
Table 3: Long-Term Operational Emissions
Emissions Source Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)1,2 ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Project Summer Emissions
Area 11.28 5.46 30.59 0.03 0.57 0.57
Energy 0.15 1.25 0.53 <0.01 0.10 0.10
Mobile 4.47 6.85 44.42 0.10 11.68 3.17
Total Emissions 15.90 13.57 75.54 0.15 12.36 3.85
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Project Winter Emissions
Area 11.28 5.46 30.59 0.03 0.57 0.57
Energy 0.15 1.25 0.53 <0.01 0.10 0.10
Mobile 5.14 6.45 49.60 0.11 11.68 3.17
Total Emissions 16.57 13.16 80.72 0.15 12.36 3.85
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: 1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0. 2. The numbers may be slightly off due to rounding. Source: Refer to Appendix A of the Air Quality Technical Memorandum for detailed model input/output data.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 33
Cumulative Impacts
With respect to the proposed project’s air quality emissions and cumulative Basin-wide conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions, which are outlined in the 2016 AQMP pursuant to Federal Clean Air Act mandates. The proposed project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements and the adopted 2016 AQMP emissions control measures. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant
impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., Rule 403 compliance, the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and compliance with adopted 2016 AQMP emissions control measures) would also be imposed on development projects throughout the
Basin, which would include related projects.
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, project-related emissions that fall below the established construction and operational thresholds should be considered less than
cumulatively significant unless there is pertinent information to the contrary. As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in short- or long-term air quality impacts, as emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD adopted construction or operational thresholds.
Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. As a result, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria
pollutant. Therefore, the proposed project’s incremental construction and operational impacts would not be considered cumulatively considerable and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups
of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.
The nearest sensitive receptors for the localized significance thresholds (LST) analysis are single-family residences adjacent to the south of the project site. Additionally, residential communities are located to the east and west of the project site. In order to identify impacts to sensitive
receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction and operations impacts (area sources only). The air quality health impacts analysis, following the LST analysis, addresses the impacts of criteria pollutants and summarizes the results of the Health Risk Assessment
conducted for the proposed project, included as Appendix B of this IS/MND. Lastly, the CO hotspot analysis addresses localized mobile source impacts.
Localized Significance Thresholds
Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards’ Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008])14 for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to
14 South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008 July, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 34
an exceedance of the most stringent applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD provides the LST screening lookup tables for one-, two-, and five-acre projects emitting CO, NOX, PM2.5, or PM10. The LST methodology and associated mass rates are not designed to evaluate localized impacts from mobile sources traveling over the roadways. The project site is located in Source Receptor
Area 34 (Central San Bernardino Valley).
Construction
The SCAQMD’s guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs specifies the number of acres a
particular piece of equipment would likely disturb per day. Based on default information provided by CalEEMod, the proposed project is anticipated to disturb up to 33 acres (an average of approximately one acre per day) during the grading phase, which would take approximately 33
days to complete. Therefore, the LST thresholds for one acre was utilized for the construction LST analysis per SCAQMD guidance. The nearest sensitive uses are single-family residences adjacent to the south of the project site. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive
receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. According to SCAQMD LST methodology, projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters. As the nearest sensitive receptors are adjacent to the project site,
the LST values for 25 meters were used.
Table 4, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, shows the localized construction-related emissions for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 compared to the LSTs for Source Receptor Area 34. It is noted that the localized emissions presented in Table 4 are less than those in Table 2 because localized emissions include only on-site emissions (e.g., from construction equipment and fugitive dust) and do not include off-site emissions (e.g., from hauling activities). As shown in Table 4, the proposed project’s localized construction emissions would not exceed the LST mass rate screening thresholds for Source Receptor Area 34. Therefore, impacts related to construction
LST would be less than significant.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 35
Table 4: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions
Maximum Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 1, 4 20.86 16.36 3.60 2.14
Year 2 2, 4 17.94 16.24 3.43 1.99
Year 3 3, 4 13.44 16.17 0.61 0.58 Maximum Daily Emissions 20.86 16.36 3.6 2.14
Localized Significance Threshold 3 118 667 4 3 Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No
Notes:
1. Maximum on-site daily emissions occur during grading phase for NOx, PM10, and PM2.5, and during building construction phase for CO in Year 1.
2. Maximum on-site daily emissions occur during grading phase for NOx, PM10, and PM2.5, and during building construction phase for CO in Year 2.
3. Maximum on-site daily emissions occur during building construction phase for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in Year 3.
4. Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
5. The Localized Significance Threshold Mass Rate Screening Criteria was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The Localized Significance Threshold Mass Rate Screening Threshold was based on the
anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (one acre), the distance to sensitive receptors (25 meters), and the source receptor area (Source Receptor Area 34).
Operation
According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend extended
periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed project does not include such uses. Thus, due to the lack of such emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is necessary. Therefore, impacts related to operational LST would
be less than significant.
Air Quality Health Impacts
Criteria Pollutants
Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individual [e.g., age, gender]). In particular, O3 precursors, VOCs and NOX, affect air quality on a regional scale. Health effects related to O3 are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations. As such, the SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify O3-related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as
projects with regional scope) due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. Thus, as the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational air emissions, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact for air quality health
impacts related to criteria pollutant emissions.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 36
Toxic Air Contaminants and Diesel Particulate Matter
A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was conducted for the proposed project to evaluate potential health risks associated with toxic air contaminants (TAC), including diesel particulate matter (DPM), during construction. The proposed project is a mixed-use residential development and would not generate excessive operational TAC emissions as TACs are typically associated with mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, buses), such as along heavily traveled roadways or corridors
with intense trucking traffic or rail activities, and stationary sources such as factories, refineries, and power plants.15,16 Therefore, the proposed project does not require an operational HRA. The HRA was prepared in accordance with the requirements of SCAQMD and guidance from the
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to determine if health risks are likely to occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project.
While the final determination of significance thresholds is within the purview of the lead agency
pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, the SCAQMD recommends that the following air pollution thresholds be used by lead agencies in determining whether a project would result in potentially significant impacts related to health risk. If the lead agency finds that the proposed project has
the potential to exceed the following air pollution thresholds, the project impacts should be considered significant:
• Cancer Risk: Emit carcinogenic or TACs that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million.
• Non‐Cancer Risk: Emit TACs that exceed the maximum hazard quotient of 1.
Cancer risk is expressed in terms of expected incremental incidence per million population. The SCAQMD has established an incidence rate of 10 persons per million as the maximum acceptable
incremental cancer risk due to DPM exposure. This threshold serves to determine whether or not a given project has a potentially significant development-specific and cumulative impact. The measurements consider the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) and the point of
maximum impact (PMI). The MEIR identifies the individual resident or sensitive receptor that would have the maximum risk of exposure associated with DPM emissions from the proposed project. The PMI is defined as the location where the risk of exposure associated with DPM
emissions from the proposed project is highest.
The 10 in one million standard is a very health-protective significance threshold. A risk level of 10 in one million implies a likelihood that up to 10 persons out of one million equally exposed people
would contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the levels of TACs over a specified duration of time. This risk would be an excess cancer that is in addition to any cancer risk borne by a person not exposed to these air toxics.
The SCAQMD has also established non-carcinogenic risk parameters for use in HRAs. Noncarcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a “hazard index” (HI), expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level (REL). An REL is a concentration at or below which health effects are not likely to occur. A hazard index
15 Environmental Protection Agency, 2020, Hazardous Air Pollutants: Sources and Exposure, available at: https://www.epa.gov/haps/hazardous-air-pollutants-sources-and-exposure, accessed April 29, 2022. 16 Environmental Protection Agency, 2014, Near Roadway Air Pollution and Health: Frequently Asked Questions, available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100NFFD.PDF?Dockey=P100NFFD.PDF, accessed May 10, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 37
less than one (1.0) means that adverse health effects are not expected. As such, non-carcinogenic exposures of less than 1.0 are considered less than significant.
Carcinogenic Risk
The potential carcinogenic risk was evaluated using the maximum annual average and hourly concentration for a two-year construction period based on the standardized equations contained in the EPA Human Health Evaluation Manual and the OEHHA Guidance Manual. The risk of
developing an excess cancer was calculated on a two-year exposure scenario, as DPM emissions would cease once construction of the project is complete (construction would occur over approximately 26 months). Construction activities for the proposed project would include
demolition, excavation, grading, trenching, installation of utilities, building construction, architectural coating, paving activities, and installation of landscaping and hardscape elements. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity,
length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or off-site. On-site exhaust PM10 emissions from all construction phases were
summed and averaged over the construction period of 528 days.
As discussed above, the PMI is defined as the location where the risk of exposure associated with DPM emissions from the proposed project is highest. The highest overall annual
concentration of diesel exhaust from construction of the proposed project would be 0.47 micrograms per cubic meter [μg/m3]. The PMI would result in a risk of 10.50 in one million over the two-year exposure period (i.e., construction period). However, actual average concentrations are dependent on many variables, particularly the number and type of equipment working at specific distances during time periods of adverse meteorology. Various activities would occur at different locations throughout the 8.8-acre project site and would not be concentrated or confined to the area directly adjacent to sensitive receptors. There are no sensitive receptors at the PMI at the northeastern corner of the project site. The nearest sensitive receptors are the residences
across Live Oak Avenue, approximately 50 feet to the east of the project site and PMI. The MEIR would occur to the residence located adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site over the two-year exposure period (i.e., construction period). At the MEIR, the carcinogenic risk would
be 9.15 in one million, which would not exceed the threshold of 10 in one million. Therefore, carcinogenic exposures from proposed project construction are calculated to be within acceptable limits and would not exceed SCAQMD threshold.
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard
The significance thresholds for TAC exposure also require an evaluation of non-cancer risk stated in terms of a hazard index. A chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant.
The highest maximum chronic hazard index associated with the emissions from the proposed project construction at sensitive receptors would be 0.0828 at the MEIR. Therefore, non-carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits and a less than significant impact would occur.
Based upon the results of the HRA analysis, the DPM emissions from the construction of the proposed project would be below the cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million at the MEIR during the two-year construction period. Additionally, the DPM emissions from the construction of the proposed project would not exceed the chronic hazard index threshold of 1.0. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not result in a significant health risk related impact.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 38
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (e.g., adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, the elderly, etc.).
The SCAQMD recommends a quantified assessment of CO hotspots when a project increases
the volume-to-capacity ratio (also called the intersection capacity utilization) by 0.02 (two percent) for any intersection with an existing level of service (LOS) D or worse. Because traffic congestion is highest at intersections where vehicles queue and are subject to reduced speeds, these hot
spots are typically produced at intersections.
A detailed CO analysis was conducted in the Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (CO Plan) for the SCAQMD’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, which is the most recent AQMP that
addresses CO concentrations. The locations selected for microscale modeling in the CO Plan are worst-case intersections in the Basin and would likely experience the highest CO concentrations. Thus, CO analysis within the CO Plan is utilized in a comparison to the proposed project, since it
represents a worst-case scenario with heavy traffic volumes within the Basin.
Of these locations, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection in Los Angeles County experienced the highest CO concentration (4.6 parts per million [ppm]), which is well below the 35-ppm one-hour CO Federal standard. The Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection is one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an average daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any intersections within the City of Fontana near the project site due
to the comparatively low volume of traffic (an increase of 1,644 daily trips, including 131 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 140 trips during the p.m. peak hour) that would occur as a result of proposed project implementation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely
affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. 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, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD
as being associated with odors.
Construction activities associated with the proposed residential project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However, construction-
related odors would be short term in nature and cease upon construction completion. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by requiring equipment to be shut off when not in use or limiting idling time to no more than five minutes. This would further reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The proposed project would also be required to comply with the SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 – Architectural Coating, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during architectural coating. Any odor impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short term. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 39
IV. Biological Resources
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 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 US 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
The impact analysis presented below is based on the Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum prepared for the proposed project, which is included as Appendix C of this IS/MND and incorporated herein by reference. An assessment was conducted to determine the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur on or within the general vicinity of the project site, which included a desktop review and habitat assessment/field survey conducted on December 15, 2021, to document existing biological resources that occur or have the potential to occur within and adjacent to the project site, and to evaluate the potential for special-status plant and wildlife
species to occur within the study area. The project site is relatively flat, gently sloping to the southwest, and is composed of disturbed habitat due to anthropogenic activities, such as routine weed abatement and pedestrian traffic. Non-native and ornamental plant species, including ripgut
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 40
brome (Bromus diandrus), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and shortpod mustard (Hirshfeldia incana), dominate the land.
Discussion
a) Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site consists of disturbed and developed land that is subject to routine weed abatement and pedestrian traffic,
resulting in heavily disturbed and compacted surface soils. Specifically, approximately 8.93 acres of disturbed habitat and 1.03 acres of developed area occur on the project site. As such, native vegetation communities do not occur within the project site; instead, it consists of disturbed and
developed land dominated by non-native and ornamental plant species.
A literature search identified 35 special-status plant species, 30 special-status wildlife species, and 5 special-status vegetation communities as occurring within the USGS Cucamonga Peak,
Devore, Fontana, and Guasti, California 7.5-minute quadrangles. Special-status plant and wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the project site based on habitat requirements, availability and quality of suitable habitat, and known distributions.
No special-status plant species were observed during the field survey. Additionally, based on the results of the field survey and a review of specific habitat preferences, distributions, and elevation ranges, it was determined that all of the special-status plant species identified by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CIRP), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation Project Planning Tool (IPaC) either have a low potential or are not expected to occur within the project site. Additionally, the 5 special-status vegetation communities identified by the CNDDB were not observed during the field survey, and no other
special-status vegetation communities were observed.
No special-status wildlife species identified by the CNDDB were observed within the project site during the field survey. Based on the results of the field survey and a review of specific habitat
preferences, occurrence records, known distributions, and elevation ranges, it was determined that the project site has a high potential to support Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii; a State Watch List [WL] species) and sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus; a State WL species).
However, it is important to note that neither Cooper’s hawk nor sharp-shinned hawk would nest on-site, as these two species are only expected to forage in the area. Additionally, although not observed or expected to occur within the project site, because the project site is an undeveloped
open space, bats may still forage over it if an insect prey base is present. All remaining special-status wildlife species identified by the CNDDB and IPaC either have a low potential or are not expected to occur within the project site.
The project site provides marginal foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of resident and migrant bird species that are adapted to a high degree of disturbance associated with the surrounding residential land uses. A total of fifteen (15) bird species have been detected during the field survey. Some of the more commonly detected bird species included American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata). Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). To maintain compliance
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 41
with the MBTA and CFGC, clearance surveys are typically required prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities to avoid direct or indirect impacts to active bird nests and/or nesting birds. Consequently, if an active bird nest is destroyed or if project activities result in indirect impacts (e.g., nest abandonment, loss of reproductive effort) to nesting birds, it is considered a “take” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. The project site provides limited nesting habitat for most year-round and seasonal avian residents other than
those that nest on the open ground (e.g., killdeer [Charadrius vociferus]). Despite the limited vegetation on the project site, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be implemented, which provides for the protection of migratory birds that could be present on the project site during nesting season
when construction activities occur.
The project site does not provide roosting habitat for bats (e.g., within hollow tree trunks/limbs, underneath tree foliage). Roosting habitat may be present in the surrounding area, particularly
where there are untrimmed Mexican fan palms (Washingtonia robusta) or other large trees with either broad leaves that bats can cling to, crevices or cavities that bats can roost in, and/or bark that can be pushed under to roost underneath. Western yellow bats (Lasiurus xanthinus; a State
Species of Special Concern) in particular are known to favor Mexican fan palms for roosting sites, where they can cling to the underside of untrimmed palm fronds. Because the project site is an undeveloped open space, bats may still forage over it if an insect prey base is present. Therefore,
despite the limited vegetation on the project site, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be implemented, which requires a bat roosting habitat suitability assessment to protect roosting bats that could be present within the project site prior to the initiation of project activities.
The potential for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; a State Species of Special Concern) to occur within the project site is considered low. The burrowing owl is a grassland specialist distributed throughout western North America, where it occupies open areas with short vegetation and bare ground within shrub, desert, and grassland environments. The on-site disturbed habitat of the project site provides ideal foraging habitat for this species. However, the project site is entirely
surrounded by residential and commercial development, with a high-traffic road immediately to the north of the project site (i.e., Foothill Boulevard) and evidence of domestic pet use on the site. In addition, there are several distribution poles going across the northern half of the project site,
as well as several tall trees, any of which could provide perching opportunities for predatory raptors. Finally, no California ground squirrels, or other suitable rodent burrows were found within the project site. As a result, although the project site may provide ideal foraging habitat for
burrowing owls, the on-site and surrounding conditions currently likely preclude this species from occurring on-site. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would be implemented, which would require a single pre-construction survey for burrowing owls be conducted within thirty (30) days
prior to the start of construction, to ensure that burrowing owls remain absent from the project site and that impacts to burrowing owls do not occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would ensure protection of burrowing owls, if any, on the project site.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, potential impacts to special-status species would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO-1: Nesting Bird Surveys: The project site provides marginal foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of resident and migrant bird species that are adapted to a high degree of disturbance associated with the surrounding residential land uses. Nesting birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. If project-related activities are to be initiated during the
nesting season (January 1 to August 31), a pre-construction nesting bird clearance
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 42
survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three (3) days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities. The qualified biologist shall survey all suitable nesting habitat within the project impact area, and areas within a biologically defensible buffer zone surrounding the project impact area. If no active bird nests are detected during the clearance survey, project activities may begin, and no additional avoidance and minimization measures shall
be required. If an active bird nest is found, the species shall be identified, and a “no-disturbance” buffer shall be established around the active nest. The size of the “no-disturbance” buffer shall be increased or decreased based on the judgment of
the qualified biologist and level of activity and sensitivity of the species. The qualified biologist shall periodically monitor any active bird nests to determine if project-related activities occurring outside the “no-disturbance” buffer disturb the
birds and if the buffer shall be increased. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, project activities within the “no-disturbance” buffer may occur following an additional
survey by the qualified biologist to search for any new bird nests in the restricted area.
BIO-2: Roosting Bat Surveys: No less than 60 days prior to initiating project activities, a
qualified bat biologist shall conduct a bat roosting habitat suitability assessment of any vegetation that may be removed, altered, or indirectly impacted by the project activities. Any locations identified as having potentially suitable bat roosting habitat by the qualified bat biologist shall be subject to additional nighttime surveys (bat surveys) during the summer months (i.e., June-August) to determine the numbers and bat species using the roost(s). The information collected during these additional bat surveys shall be used by the qualified bat biologist to develop species-specific measures to minimize impacts to roosting bats should bats be
detected using the site. The bat surveys shall be conducted by the qualified bat biologist using an appropriate combination of visual inspection, sampling, exit counts, and acoustic surveys. The results of the pre-construction bat surveys shall
be submitted to CDFW for review no less than 30 days prior to the initiation of project activities.
If the presence of bats within the project is confirmed, avoidance and minimization
measures, including the designation of buffers based upon the particular bat species found and phased removal of trees, shall be developed and submitted to CDFW for review and approval. If the site supports maternity roosts, the Applicant
shall avoid disturbing those areas during the breeding season.
If the site supports a maternity roost(s) or special-status species, the Applicant shall contact CDFW and conduct an impact assessment prior to commencing project activities to assist in the development of minimization and mitigation measures. Applicant shall compensate for impacts and losses to maternity roosts and/or special-status bat habitat through a mitigation strategy approved by CDFW.
BIO-3: Burrowing Owl Surveys: Although no burrowing owls were observed during the field survey, a pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that burrowing owls remain absent from the project site and that impacts to burrowing owls do not occur. The pre-construction clearance surveys shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to any vegetation
removal or ground disturbing activities and in accordance with CDFW’s Staff
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 43
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Documentation of surveys and findings shall be submitted to the City of Fontana for review and file. If no burrowing owls or occupied burrows are detected, construction may begin. If an occupied burrow is found within the development footprint during pre-construction clearance surveys, a burrowing owl exclusion and mitigation plan would need to be prepared and submitted to CDFW for approval prior to initiating project activities.
b) Would the project 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?
No Impact. Sensitive natural communities are those that are designated as rare in the region by the CNDDB, support special-status plant or wildlife species, or receive regulatory protection (i.e., Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Sections 1600 et seq. of the CFGC). The project site
is comprised of disturbed and developed habitat. No sensitive natural communities exist within the project site. Additionally, no riparian habitat was observed within the boundaries of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantially adverse effect on a riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the USFWS. No impact would occur.
c) Would the project 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?
No Impact. Jurisdictional waters include waters of the state and of the U.S. that fall under federal regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and/or under state jurisdiction of CDFW and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). No jurisdictional drainage or
wetland features were observed within the boundaries of the project site. Therefore, development of the project site would not result in impacts to USACE, the RWQCB, or CDFW jurisdictional areas and regulatory approvals would not be required. No impact would occur.
d) Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Wildlife corridors and linkages are key features for wildlife movement between habitat patches. Wildlife corridors are generally defined as those areas that provide opportunities for individuals or local populations to conduct seasonal migrations,
permanent dispersals, or daily commutes, while linkages generally refer to broader areas that provide movement opportunities for multiple keystone/focal species or allow for propagation of ecological processes, often between areas of conserved land.
There are no wildlife corridors or linkages within the project site, and the project site has no connectivity to natural communities, as the project site is surrounded by development on all sides. Additionally, the project site is not located within any wildlife corridors, wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, or areas of critical environmental concern identified in the San Bernardino County Countywide Plan.17 Wildlife movement into or out of the project site is likely reduced by the presence of surrounding high-traffic roadways (i.e., Foothill Boulevard) and existing residential
17 County of San Bernardino, 2020, Countywide Plan, Natural Resources Element, available at: https://countywideplan.com/policy-plan/natural-resources/, accessed February 3, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 44
and commercial developments, which have fragmented the connection between the project site and surrounding naturally occurring vegetation communities. The disturbed and developed landscape of the project site and absence of native vegetation for cover most likely precludes the movement of wildlife through the project site. Further, elevated noise levels, vehicle traffic, lighting, and human presence associated with the surrounding developments and roadways decrease the suitability of the project site to be used as a wildlife movement corridor or linkage.
Additionally, no hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) were observed in the project site. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Would the project 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 Fontana Public Services Department Tree Policy Manual addresses tree removal on City-owned property and within the public right-of-way,18 and
the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 28, Vegetation, addresses requirements for preservation and protection of heritage, significant and/or specimen trees within the City located on both private and public property. Implementation of the proposed project would require the removal of
approximately 26 trees, none of which are located on City-owned property or the public right-of-way. The single California sycamore located in the northwest corner of the project site qualifies as a significant tree, and several olive trees on-site qualify as heritage trees. The proposed project
would comply with the policies of the City’s Tree Policy Manual for trees within the public right-of-way and with Chapter 28 Article III of the Fontana Municipal Code, which requires a tree removal permit for removal of heritage, significant and specimen trees. As such, a tree removal permit would be obtained prior to the removal of heritage and significant trees on the project site. Additionally, the proposed project would install 243 trees, including 4 sycamore and 18 olive trees. Because the proposed project would adhere to the policies set forth in the Tree Policy Manual and the Fontana Municipal Code, it would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impacts would be less than significant.
f) Would the project 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 is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan area. The nearest such plan is the North Fontana Conservation Program Area,19 a City of Fontana conservation program, located approximately 3 miles north of
the project site. The nearest State-approved habitat conservation plan area is the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan,20 which is located approximately 4.3 miles south of the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.
18 City of Fontana, n.d., Public Services Department Tree Policy Manual, available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/836/tree_manual?bidId=, accessed February 3, 2022.
19 Michael Baker International, 2016, Action Plan for Implementing the North Fontana Conservation Program, accessed February 3, 2022. 20 Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, n.d., RCA MSHCP Information Map, available at: https://wrcrca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a73e69d2a64d41c29ebd3acd67467abd, accessed February 3, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 45
V. Cultural Resources
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The analysis and findings throughout this section are based on the Cultural Resources
Identification Report, provided as Appendix D of this IS/MND and incorporated herein by reference.
Discussion
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No Impact. Historic resources generally consist of buildings, structures, improvements, and
remnants associated with a significant historic event or person(s) and/or have a historically significant style, design, or achievement. Damage to or demolition of historic resources is typically considered to be a significant impact. Impacts to historic resources can occur through direct
impacts, such as destruction or removal, and indirect impacts, such as a change in the setting of a historic resource.
A cultural resources identification study was conducted for the proposed project, which included
a South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) records search; literature, historical map and aerial photo review; an archaeological buried site sensitivity analysis of the project site; a pedestrian survey; and an evaluation of identified archaeological sites to determine if they are eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR or California Register). The records search indicated that no cultural resources are located within the project site, and nine resources are located within half-mile of the project site.
The project site consists of flat, undeveloped land in the city of Fontana, which has been undeveloped since 2005. Two main and several ancillary buildings, previously used as
farmhouses, a bar, and a restaurant, that once stood on the project site have been demolished and no longer exist onsite. Only one partial concrete pad remains, which is recommended ineligible for inclusion in the California Register due to its lack of historical significance at the local,
state, or national level under the four eligibility criteria of the California Register; no other building elements, including foundations, were observed. All debris associated with the past buildings, with the exception of the sign support and one partial concrete pad, were previously removed
from the site.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 46
The City of Fontana General Plan Community and Neighborhoods Element (Chapter 4)21 includes a list of known cultural and historical resources, none of which are located on or near the project site. There are no buildings, structures, or other features that may be determined eligible for inclusion in the California Register, and therefore considered a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 within the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Archaeological resources are those that are listed in or eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the
CRHR. Additionally, resources in local registers of historical resources and resources that a lead agency determines as historically significant are also considered historical and archaeological resources (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15064.5). Archaeological sites
contain resources associated with former human activities, and may contain such resources as human skeletal remains, waste from tool manufacture, tool concentrations, and/or discolorations or accumulation of soil or food remains.
A pedestrian survey was conducted for the proposed project, during which the surface visibility within the surveyed area was approximately 95 percent. Two potential historical archaeological sites were identified, which consist of: (1) a sparse historic glass bottle scatter and the base of a
historic sign and (2) the remnants of a cement house pad. Evaluation of both sites and their resources determined they are not associated with any significant events or people in national, state, regional, or local history; do not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values; and do not indicate any further potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the community, state, or nation. Therefore, neither of the two resources appears to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register.
Sensitivity for buried archaeological resources at the project site is considered low. The project
site is within the ancestral territory of the Gabrielino, and was likely used by the Gabrielino and possibly other Native American groups. However, the project site is located far from any known Native American villages or any reliable sources of water. Moreover, the project site has been
subjected to considerable recent disturbance. The entire project site shows evidence of tilling and several mechanical push-piles were observed throughout the site. Tilling and harrowing the soil would be expected to bring to the surface shallowly buried remains. The lack of movable artifacts
observed at both archaeological sites, despite the excellent ground visibility, suggests that great efforts were made to remove all refuse and structural debris from the sites. This significantly reduces their archaeological potential.
However, no subsurface investigations were conducted as a part of this study. While the archaeological sensitivity assessment indicates that the project site has a low potential for buried archaeological resources, there is a potential for disturbing previously unknown archaeological resources because native soils are likely to be encountered beneath the plow zone. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to buried archaeological resources to less than significant.
21 City of Fontana, 2018, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015–2035, Community and Neighborhoods (Chapter 4).
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 47
Mitigation Measure:
CUL-1: If archaeological material is uncovered in the course of ground-disturbing activities, work shall be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) and the project proponent shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archaeology to evaluate the significance of the find and determine appropriate treatment for the resource in
accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(i) and the provisions of CEQA. The qualified archaeologist shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The following shall
apply:
• If the qualified archaeologist determines the find does not represent a cultural
resource, work may resume, and no agency notifications are required. A record of the archaeologist’s determination shall be made in writing to the City.
• If the qualified archaeologist determines that the find does represent a cultural resource and is considered potentially eligible for listing on the California Register, and avoidance is not feasible, then the City shall be notified and a
qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement appropriate treatment measures. The treatment measures may consist of data recovery excavation of a statistically significant part of those portions of the site that will be damaged
or destroyed by the project. Work cannot resume within the no-work radius until the lead agency (the City), through consultation as appropriate, determines that the find is either not eligible for the California Register, or that appropriate
treatment measures have been completed to the satisfaction of the City.
• Additionally, if the resource is prehistoric or historic-era and of Native American
origin, as determined by a qualified professional archaeologist, then those Native American tribes that have requested consultation on the project pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 shall be
notified of the find, and shall consult on the eligibility of the resource and the appropriate treatment measures.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Community and Neighborhoods Element (Chapter 4)22 does not identify any human burial sites on or near the project area, nor any areas suspected as such. Nonetheless, there is a possibility that land alteration activities associated with any proposed project to develop currently undeveloped land could uncover human remains, whether from prehistoric time periods or from more recent time periods. There is also the potential that Native American remains or the remains of someone who has been missing or known to be dead could be encountered.
In the unlikely event human remains or funerary objects are discovered, work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery (within a 100-foot buffer) would be suspended and the San Bernardino County Coroner contacted consistent with the requirements of California Code of Regulations
Section 15064.5(e). State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further
22 City of Fontana, 2018, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015–2035, Community and Neighborhoods (Chapter 4).
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 48
disturbance shall occur until the County coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are deemed Native American in origin, the County coroner would contact the Native American Heritage Commission and identify a Most Likely Descendant pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 and California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5. The City shall consult with the Most Likely Descendant as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to develop an
agreement for treatment and disposition of the remains. Work may be resumed at the landowner’s discretion but would only commence after consultation and treatment have been concluded. Work may continue on other parts of the proposed project while consultation and treatment are
conducted. Compliance with these existing regulations (i.e., California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e), State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98) would ensure that the impact to human remains would be less than significant.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 49
VI. Energy
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The analysis and findings throughout this section are based on the Energy Technical
Memorandum, provided as Appendix E of this IS/MND and incorporated herein by reference.
Discussion
a) Would the project 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.
CEQA Guidelines Appendix F is an advisory document that assists environmental document preparers in determining whether a project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The analysis under this threshold relies upon CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, which includes the following criteria to determine whether the proposed project would result in a significant impact:
• Criterion 1: The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount
and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation,
maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may
be discussed.
• Criterion 2: The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on
requirements for additional capacity.
• Criterion 3: The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity
and other forms of energy.
• Criterion 4: The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards.
• Criterion 5: The effects of the project on energy resources.
• Criterion 6: The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its
overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.
Quantification of the proposed project’s energy usage is presented and addresses Criterion 1.
The discussion on construction-related energy use focuses on Criteria 2, 4, and 5. The discussion on operational energy use is divided into transportation energy demand and building energy
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 50
demand. The transportation energy demand analysis discusses Criteria 2, 4, and 6, and the building energy demand analysis discusses Criteria 2, 3, 4, and 5.
The analysis below focuses on three sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed project: electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips and off-road equipment associated with project construction and operations. The project’s estimated energy consumption is summarized in Table 5, Project and Countywide Energy Consumption. As shown in Table 5, the
proposed project’s energy usage would constitute an approximate 0.0091 percent increase over the County’s typical annual electricity consumption and an approximate 0.0094 percent increase over the County’s typical annual natural gas consumption. The proposed project’s construction
and operational vehicle fuel consumption would increase the County’s consumption by 0.0817 percent and 0.0353 percent, respectively (Criterion 1).
Table 5: Project and Countywide Energy Consumption
Energy Type Project Annual Energy Consumption1
San Bernardino County Annual Energy Consumption2
Percentage Increase Countywide3
Electricity Consumption 1,455 MWh 15,968,516 MWh 0.0091%
Natural Gas Consumption 49,508 therms 527,236,428 therms 0.0094%
Fuel Consumption
Construction Fuel
Consumption3 177,196 gallons 219,824,796 gallons 0.0806%
Operational Automotive Fuel Consumption3 313,489 gallons 878,326,877 gallons 0.0357%
Notes: 1. As modeled in CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. 2. The project increases in electricity and natural gas consumption are compared to the total consumption in San Bernardino County in 2020. The project increases in automotive fuel consumption are compared with the projected Countywide diesel fuel consumption in 2022 (start of construction), and gasoline fuel consumption in 2025 (operational year). Countywide fuel consumption is projected from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC2017 model. San Bernardino County electricity consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms. energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, accessed December 29, 2021. San Bernardino County natural gas consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Gas
Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms.energy. ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx, accessed December 29, 2021. 3. Project fuel consumption calculated based on CalEEMod results. Countywide fuel consumption is projected from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC2017 model. Construction
Project construction would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and
glass.
Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coatings. Fuel energy consumed
during construction would be temporary and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. In addition, some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 51
through compliance with State requirements that heavy-duty diesel equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CARB engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful,
inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction (Criterion 4).
The project-related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber
and gas) would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. As indicated in Table 5, the proposed project’s fuel consumption from construction would be approximately 177,196 gallons, which would increase
fuel use in the County by 0.0806 percent. As such, construction would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies (Criterion 2). It is noted that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. There are no unusual
project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State (Criterion 5). Therefore, construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature. As such, the impact would be less than significant.
Operation
Transportation Energy Demand
Table 5 provides an estimate of the daily fuel consumed by vehicles traveling to and from the
project site. Based on the traffic assessment prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix K of this IS/MND), the proposed project would generate 1,644 daily trips. As indicated in Table 5, project operational daily trips are estimated to consume approximately 313,489 gallons of fuel per
year, which would increase the County’s automotive fuel consumption by 0.0357 percent. The proposed project does not propose any unusual features that would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption (Criterion 2).
The key drivers of transportation-related fuel consumption are job locations/commuting distance and many personal choices on when and where to drive for various purposes. Those factors are outside of the scope of the design of the proposed project. However, the proposed project would
provide electric vehicle charging stations and bicycle parking in compliance with the CALGreen Code, and the closest bus stop is within 100 feet of the project site. Inclusion of electrical vehicle charging stations would encourage and support the use of electric vehicles, and the availability of
other alternative transportation methods would reduce the petroleum fuel consumption associated with operation of the proposed project (Criterion 4 and Criterion 6).
Therefore, fuel consumption associated with project-related vehicle trips would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. The impact would be less than significant.
Building Energy Demand
The California Energy Commission (CEC) developed 2020 to 2035 forecasts for energy consumption and peak demand in support of the 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) for each of the major electricity and natural gas planning areas and the State based on the
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 52
economic and demographic growth projections.23 CEC forecasts that the statewide annual average growth rates of energy demand between 2021 and 2030 would be 1.3 percent to 2.3 percent for electricity and less than 0.1 percent to 0.8 percent for natural gas.24 As shown in Table 5, operational energy consumption of the proposed project would represent approximately 0.0091 percent increase in electricity consumption and 0.0094 percent increase in natural gas consumption over the current Countywide usage, which would be significantly below CEC’s
forecasts and the current Countywide usage. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the CEC’s energy consumption forecasts. As such, the proposed project would not require additional energy capacity or supplies (Criterion 2). Additionally, the proposed project would
consume energy during the same time periods as other mixed-use projects. As a result, the proposed project would not result in unique or more intensive peak or base period electricity demand (Criterion 3).
The proposed project would be required to comply with 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and
roofing, and lighting. Implementation of the 2019 Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage (53 percent compared to the 2016 Title 24 standards). The Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated every three years and become more stringent between each
update. The proposed project would also incorporate sustainable building design features, such as reserving area on the roof for future solar panels and installing energy efficient appliances (Criterion 4).
Furthermore, the electricity provider, Southern California Edison (SCE), is subject to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 60 percent of total procurement by 2030. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from
resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in reliance of such energy resources further ensures that new development projects will not result in the waste of the finite energy resources (Criterion
5).
Therefore, the proposed project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of building energy during project operation, or preempt future energy development
or future energy conservation. The impact would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City currently does not have a plan pertaining to renewable energy or energy efficiency. The proposed project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 and CALGreen standards pertaining to building energy efficiency. Compliance with 2019 Title 24 standards and the 2019 CALGreen Code, which require new buildings to employ water efficiency and conservation, increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and incorporate electric vehicles charging infrastructure, would ensure the proposed project incorporates energy-efficient windows, insulation, lighting, and ventilation systems, which
23 California Energy Commission, 2022 February, Final 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report Volume IV California Energy Demand Forecast. 24 Ibid.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 53
are consistent with the Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan strategies and the IEPR building energy efficiency recommendations. The proposed project would also install high efficiency lighting, energy efficient appliances, water-efficient fixtures, and provide electric vehicle charging stations and bicycle parking spaces. The proposed project would also comply with the City’s General Plan, refer to Table 6, General Plan Consistency Analysis. Additionally, per the RPS, the proposed project would utilize electricity provided by SCE that is composed of 43 percent renewable energy
as of 2020 and would achieve at least 60 percent renewable energy by 2030.25 Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant.
Table 6: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Chapter 10 Infrastructure and Green Systems
Goal 10.7: Fontana is an energy-efficient community.
• Policy 10.7.1: Promote renewable energy
and distributed energy systems in new
development and retrofits of existing
development to work towards the highest
levels of low-carbon energy-efficiency.
Consistent. The project would comply with the latest Title 24 and CALGreen Energy Efficiency standards. In addition, the project would be designed to accommodate rooftop solar panels. As such, the project would be consistent with General Plan Goal 10.7.
Chapter 12 Sustainability and Resilience
Goal 12.3: Renewable sources of energy, including solar and wind, and other energy-conservation strategies are available to city households and businesses.
• Policy 12.3.1: Promote renewable energy
programs for government, Fontana
businesses, and Fontana residences.
Consistent. As discussed above, the project would be designed to accommodate rooftop solar panels. As such, the project would be consistent with General Plan Goal 12.3.
Goal 12.5: Green building techniques are used in new development and retrofits.
• Policy 12.5.1: Promote green building
through guidelines, awards, and
nonfinancial incentives.
Consistent. The project would meet the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Additionally, the project would meet the applicable requirements of the CALGreen Code, incorporating energy-efficient windows, insulation, lighting, and ventilation systems. As such, the project would be consistent with General Plan Goal 12.5. Goal 12.6: Fontana is a leader [in] energy-efficient development and retrofits.
• Policy 12.6.1: Promote energy-efficient
development in Fontana.
• Policy 12.6.2: Meet or exceed state goals
for energy-efficient new construction.
Consistent. As discussed above, the project would meet the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and applicable requirements of the CALGreen Code. The project would also install high efficiency lighting, energy efficient appliances, water-efficient fixtures. As such, the project would be consistent with General Plan Goal 12.6. Sources: 1. City of Fontana, 2018, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015–2035, Chapter 10 Infrastructure and Green, available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26749/Chapter-10---Infrastructure-and-Green-Systems, accessed December 28, 2021. 2. City of Fontana, 2018, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015–2035, Chapter 12 Sustainability and
Resilience, available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26751/Chapter-12---Sustainability-and-Resilience, accessed December 28, 2021.
25 Southern California Edison, 2021 March, 2020 Edison International Sustainability Report.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 54
VII. Geology and Soils
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 Division of Mines and Geology 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), creating substantial direct or indirect 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The impact analysis presented below is based in part on the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared for the proposed project, which is included as Appendix F to this IS/MND and
incorporated herein by reference.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 55
Discussion
a)i) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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.
Less Than Significant Impact. Seismically induced ground rupture is defined as the physical displacement of surface deposits in response to an earthquake’s seismic waves. Ground rupture is most likely along active faults, and typically occurs during earthquakes of magnitude five or
higher. Ground rupture only affects the area immediately adjacent to a fault.
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The act’s main purpose is to prevent the
construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. If an active
fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (typically 50 feet).
The project site is not located on any active or potentially active fault zones, nor located within an
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.26 The closest active fault to the site is the Cucamonga Fault of the Sierra Madre Fault Zone, located approximately 3.7 miles to the north. The project site is located in a seismically active area, as is most of southern California. However, no active faults are known to cross the project site. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local codes relative to seismic criteria. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure proposed project implementation would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault and impacts related to fault rupture would be less than significant.
a)ii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Typical to any site in the Southern
California region, the project site would be subject to ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The geologic structure of the entire Southern California area is dominated by the northwestern-trending faults associated with the San Andreas Fault system. Faults such as the
San Jacinto and San Andreas are major faults in this system and are known to be active. The nearest fault to the project site is the Cucamonga section of the Sierra Madre Fault, located approximately 3.7 miles to the north. Though not identified to be within an active fault zone, the
proposed project would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the latest engineering codes. Additionally, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared for the proposed project. With adherence to all applicable building codes and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be reduced to less than significant.
26 State of California, 2019, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map, available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, accessed January 5, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 56
Mitigation Measure:
GEO-1: The proposed project shall be developed in adherence to the design and construction recommendations provided in Section 7 of the Geocon West, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Report for the Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development at 14817 Foothill Boulevard, Fontana, California. APNs: 023007103 & 023007104. Recommendations described in the Geotechnical Investigation
Report include general earthwork; soil and excavation characteristics; minimum resistivity, pH, and water-soluble sulfate; grading; shrinkage; foundation design; foundation settlement; miscellaneous foundations; lateral design; concrete slabs-
on-grade; preliminary pavement design; retaining wall design; retaining wall drainage; elevator design; temporary excavations; stormwater infiltration; surface drainage, and grading, shoring, and foundation plan review by a Geotechnical
Engineer.
a)iii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
No Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesion-less soils lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include
intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater.
According to the City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and San Bernardino Countywide Plan, the project site is not mapped within a zone of potentially liquefiable soils. 27, 28 Additionally, as noted in the Geotechnical Investigation Report, based on the historic high
groundwater levels in the project site vicinity, the lack of groundwater encountered during project site borings, and depth to groundwater recorded in nearby water wells in the vicinity, the potential for liquefaction of the soils underlying the project site is very low. Furthermore, the proposed
project would be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable codes relative to seismic criteria, as required by Fontana Municipal Code Section 5-61. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving
seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and no impact would occur.
a)iv) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
No Impact. A landslide is generally defined as the downward and outward movement of loosened rock or earth down a hillside or slope. Landslides can occur either very suddenly or slowly, and frequently accompany other natural hazards such as earthquakes, floods, or wildfires. Landslides
can also be induced by the undercutting of slopes during construction, improper artificial compaction, or saturation from sprinkler systems or broken water pipes.
The topography of the project site is generally level, and the topography of the project vicinity gently slopes to the southeast at a gradient of less than 5 percent. According to the City of Fontana
27 City of Fontana, 2018, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, available at: https://www.fontana.org/3196/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-LHMP, accessed January 5, 2022.
28 San Bernardino County, 2020, Countywide Plan, Policy Map HZ-2 Liquefaction and Landslides, available at: https://countywideplan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/68/2021/02/HZ-2-Liquefaction-Landslide-Hazards-Valley-Mountain-201027.pdf, accessed January 5, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 57
LHMP and San Bernardino Countywide Plan, the project site is not within an area identified as having a potential for slope instability.29, 30 There are no known landslides near the project site, nor is the project site in the path of any known or potential landslides. Therefore, the project site is not identified as a potential landslide hazard area, and the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from landslides. No impact to landslides would occur.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact. Soil erosion is defined as the detachment and movement of soil particles by the erosive forces of wind or water. The project site is located on land that is currently
undeveloped. The project site currently consists of vacant land, and grasses and weeds cover much of the project site. The proposed project would develop 340 multi-family residential units, 1,500 square feet of commercial space, four live-work units, and associated infrastructure and
improvements on approximately 8.8 gross acres (9.5 gross acres with road improvements and sidewalks). Grading and construction of the proposed project would expose large amounts of soil and could result in soil erosion if effective erosion control measures are not used. Best
management practices for erosion control are required under National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act. NPDES requirements for construction projects disturbing 1 acre or more in area are set forth in the
Construction General Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). The proposed project would develop and implement an Erosion Control and Grading Plan, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for construction activities. Furthermore, the proposed project’s land clearing, grading, and construction activities would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 regulating fugitive dust emissions. Once constructed, the project site would be developed with two four-story buildings, paved, and landscaped, and the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would not occur. Therefore, construction and
operational impacts related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
c) Would the project 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?
No Impact. As discussed above, the project site is not located in an area identified as being
susceptible to liquefaction or landslides. Therefore, no impact related to liquefaction or landslides would occur.
Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction-induced ground failure on mildly sloping ground.
However, the project site is located on relatively level ground, and implementation of the proposed project would not increase the risk of landslides. Therefore, no impact related to lateral spreading would occur.
Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence
29 City of Fontana, 2018, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, available at: https://www.fontana.org/3196/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-LHMP, accessed January 5, 2022.
30 San Bernardino County, 2020, Countywide Plan, Policy Map HZ-2 Liquefaction and Landslides, available at: https://countywideplan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/68/2021/02/HZ-2-Liquefaction-Landslide-Hazards-Valley-Mountain-201027.pdf, accessed January 5, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 58
include those with high silt or clay content. The project site is not located in an area of known ground subsidence. No extraction of groundwater, gas, oil, or geothermal energy is proposed for the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in on- or off-site subsidence, and no impact would occur.
Collapsible soils consist of unconsolidated, low-density materials that may collapse and compact under the addition of excessive water or loading. Collapsible soils are prevalent throughout the
southwestern United States, specifically in areas of young alluvial fans. Soil collapse occurs when the land surface is saturated at depths greater than those reached by typical rain events. The project area is underlain by Holocene-age alluvial deposits, characterized as medium to very
dense, which can support new development. Therefore, caving is not anticipated to occur with implementation of the proposed project. No impact would occur.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are clay-based soils that tend to increase in volume as they absorb water and shrink as water is drawn away. Expansive soils can result in
damage to structures, slabs, pavements, and retaining walls if wetting and drying of the soil does not occur uniformly across the entire area. As described in the Geotechnical Investigation Report, the project site is characterized by “non-expansive” soil with a “very low” risk of expansion during both construction and operation. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.
e) Would the project 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 project area is served by the City’s wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment systems through the City of Fontana, and no alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed as part of the proposed project. No impact would occur.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Geotechnical Investigation Report, the project
site is underlain by artificial fill material over Holocene age alluvial fan deposits consisting predominately of cobbles, gravel, sand, and silt. Holocene age alluvium has a low probability of encountering fossil remains and is considered to possess a low paleontological sensitivity.
Additionally, no paleontological resources were identified as a result of the literature review and pedestrian survey. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. Although not
expected to occur, in the event that previously uncovered paleontological resources are encountered during project construction, the construction manager would halt construction activities in the immediate area, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f). A qualified paleontologist would make an immediate evaluation of the significance and appropriate treatment of the resource in accordance with Society for Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines for identification, evaluation, disclosure, avoidance, recovery, and/or curation, as appropriate. Any fossils recovered during treatment shall be deposited to an accredited and permanent scientific institution. A qualified professional paleontologist is a professional with a graduate degree in paleontology, geology, or related field, with demonstrated experience in the vertebrate, invertebrate, or botanical paleontology of California, as well as at least one year of full-time
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 59
professional experience, or equivalent specialized training in paleontological research (i.e., the identification of fossil deposits, application of paleontological field and laboratory procedures and techniques, and curation of fossil specimens), and at least four months of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American paleontology. Construction activities may continue on other parts of the construction site while evaluation and treatment of paleontological resources take place, if necessary. Compliance with these existing policies would ensure that the impact to
paleontological resources would be less than significant.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 60
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The analysis and findings throughout this section are based on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum, provided as Appendix G of this IS/MND and incorporated herein by
reference.
Discussion
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions from non-industrial development projects. Similarly, neither the SCAQMD, CARB, nor any other state or regional agency has adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that is applicable to the proposed project The analysis below calculates the amount of GHG emissions that would be attributable to the proposed project using recommended air quality models, as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a), which calls for a good-faith effort to describe and calculate emissions. The
estimated emissions inventory is also used to determine if there would be a reduction in the proposed project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions as a result of compliance with regulations and requirements adopted to implement plans for the reduction or mitigation of GHG
emissions.
Regarding the impact assessment methodology and thresholds of significance, the CEQA Guidelines provide that a lead agency, “shall make a good faith effort, based to the extent possible
on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of [GHG] emissions resulting from a project,” and that a lead agency should consider, “whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project” (§
15064.4(a)-(b)). When adopting these thresholds, the amended Guidelines allow lead agencies to, “consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such
thresholds is supported by substantial evidence” (§ 15064.7(c)), and/or to develop their own significance threshold. The City as lead agency has determined that a threshold of significance of 3,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) for GHG emissions is appropriate for the proposed project. The City based its threshold on the GHG threshold for Mixed Use and non-
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 61
industrial projects recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency with primary authority over air pollutants including GHG in the project area.
In 2008, SCAQMD developed and recommended two types of GHG thresholds: (1) separate numerical thresholds for residential projects (3,500 MTCO2e), commercial projects (1,400 MTCO2e), and Mixed Use projects (3,000 MTCO2e); or (2) a singular numerical threshold for all non-industrial projects (3,000 MTCO2e). SCAQMD's GHG Working Group consensus “clearly
states that it is at the lead agency's discretion to apply the appropriate threshold to the project for CEQA review. In other words, SCAQMD's recommendation is that the lead agency will need to decide which threshold is most appropriate.” Because the proposed project is a mixed-use project,
the City has determined to utilize SCAQMD's recommended threshold for mixed-use projects (3,000 MTCO2e). These SCAQMD thresholds were developed using substantial evidence by the SCAQMD GHG Working Group—a group of various resource agencies, cities, counties, utilities,
and environmental groups—with the objective of capturing 90 percent of GHG emissions from larger projects above the screening threshold and allowing smaller projects to be implemented without further investigation of possible mitigative elements. Additionally, the long-term goal of
Executive Order S-3-05 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 formulated the basis of the SCAQMD recommendation, which is also consistent with analysis published by the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association in its 2008 White
Paper on CEQA and Climate Change.
Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
The proposed project would result in direct and indirect emissions of CO2, nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4), and would not result in other GHGs that would facilitate a meaningful analysis. Therefore, this analysis focuses on these three forms of GHG emissions. Direct project-
related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from energy consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. The most recent version of the California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0, was used to calculate direct and indirect project-related GHG emissions. Table 7, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presents the estimated CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions associated with the proposed project.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 62
Table 7: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source
CO2 CH4 N2O Total Metric Tons of CO2e2,3
Metric tons/year1 Metric tons/year1
Metric tons of CO2e1,3
Metric tons/year1
Metric tons of CO2e1,3
Direct Emissions
Construction (amortized over 30 years)4 67.30 <0.01 0.17 <0.01 0.91 68.38
Area Source 80.15 <0.01 0.18 <0.01 0.41 80.74 Mobile Source 1,813.67 0.10 2.51 0.09 26.58 1,842.76
Total Direct Emissions 1,961.12 0.11 2.85 0.09 27.90 1,991.87 Indirect Emissions Energy Consumption 522.17 0.03 0.67 <0.01 2.23 525.07 Solid Waste 16.24 0.96 24.0 0.00 0.00 40.24 Water Demand 79.15 0.59 14.84 0.01 4.35 98.34
Total Indirect Emissions 617.56 1.58 39.51 0.02 6.58 663.65 Total Project-Related Emissions3 2,655.52 MTCO2e/year
Threshold 3,000 MTCO2e/year
Exceeds Threshold? No
Notes: Carbon dioxide equivalent = CO2e; metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year = MTCO2e per year 1. Project emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0, as recommended by the SCAQMD. 2. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding. 3. Carbon dioxide equivalent values calculated using the EPA Website, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, available at: http://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator, accessed January 24, 2022. 4. Total project construction GHG emissions equate to 2,051.33 MTCO2e. Value shown is amortized over the lifetime of the project (assumed to be 30 years).
As shown in Table 7, the total amount of proposed project-related GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources combined would total 2,655.52 MTCO2e per year, which is less than the proposed SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the impact related to the generation
of GHG emissions of the proposed project would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The following discussion analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with CARB’s California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse
Gas Target (2017 Scoping Plan), SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and the City’s General Plan Update.
Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan
The 2017 Scoping Plan identifies GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the 2030 target. These measures build upon those identified in the first update to the Scoping Plan (2013).
Although a number of these measures are currently established as policies and measures, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or adopted. It is expected that these measures or similar actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted as required to achieve statewide GHG
emissions targets. Table 8: Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan, evaluates applicable
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 63
reduction actions/strategies by emissions source category, and demonstrates that the proposed project would be consistent with or exceed the reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2017 Scoping Plan.
Table 8: Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan
Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
Senate Bill (SB) 350
Achieve a 50 percent Renewables
Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2030, with a doubling of energy efficiency savings
by 2030.
Consistent. The proposed project project is not subject to
SB 350 since it would not be an electrical provider and would not delay the goals of SB 350. Furthermore, the
proposed project would utilize electricity from Southern California Edison, which is required to comply with SB 350.
As such, the proposed project would be in compliance with SB 350.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
Increase stringency of carbon fuel standards; reduce the carbon intensity of fuels by 18 percent by 2030, which is up from 10 percent in 2020.
Consistent. Motor vehicles (including trucks) driven within the project area and hauling trucks driven during project construction would use LCFS compliant fuels. The proposed project would be in compliance with LCFS.
Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario)
Maintain existing GHG standards of light and heavy-duty vehicles while adding an additional 4.2 million zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the road. Increase the number of ZEV buses, delivery trucks, or other trucks.
Consistent. The proposed project would include commercial use which may include occasional light- and heavy-duty truck uses. Trucks uses associated with the proposed project would be required to comply with all CARB regulations, including the LCFS, and newer model vehicles would be required to comply with newer engine standards. The proposed project would not conflict with the CARB’s goal of adding 4.2 million zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the road. Furthermore, the proposed project would have approximately 53 spaces for future installation of electric vehicle charging stations and include bike parking and storage in accordance with the 2019 Title 24 standards and CALGreen Code. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the goals of the Mobile Source Strategy. Sustainable Freight Action Plan Improve the freight system efficiency and maximize the use of near zero emission vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy. Deploy over 100,000 zero-emission trucks and equipment by 2030.
Consistent. As discussed above, truck uses associated with the project site would be required to comply with all CARB regulations, including the LCFS, and newer model vehicles would be required to comply with newer engine standards. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with all future applicable regulatory standard adopted by CARB and would not conflict with CARB’s goal to deploy over 100,000 zero-emission trucks and equipment by 2030.
Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy
Reduce the GHG emissions of methane and hydrofluorocarbons by 40 percent below the 2013 levels by 2030. Furthermore, reduce the emissions of black carbon by 50 percent below the 2013 levels by the year 2030.
Consistent. The proposed project would not emit a large amount of CH4 (methane) emissions; refer to Table 8. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with all CARB and SCAQMD hydrofluorocarbon regulations. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the SLCP reduction strategy. SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 64
Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
On September 3, 2020, the Regional Council of SCAG formally adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, which includes performance goals that were adopted to help focus future investments on the best-performing projects, as well as different strategies to preserve, maintain, and optimize the performance of the existing transportation system. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is forecasted to help California reach its GHG reduction goals by reducing GHG emissions from passenger cars by 8
percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035 in accordance with the most recent CARB targets, adopted in March 2018. Five key SCS strategies are included in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS to help the region meet its regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and GHG reduction
goals, as required by the State. Table 9, Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, shows the project’s consistency with these five strategies found within the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As shown, the proposed project would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained
in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.
Increase the stringency of the 2035 GHG emission per capita reduction target for metropolitan planning organizations (MPO).
Consistent. As shown in Table 10 below, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and would not conflict with the goals of SB 375.
Post-2020 Cap and Trade Programs
The Cap-and-Trade Program will reduce GHG emissions from major sources (covered entities) by setting a firm cap on statewide GHG emissions while employing market mechanisms to cost-effectively achieve the emission-reduction goals.
Not Applicable. As seen in Table 8, the proposed project would generate approximately 2,655.52 MTCO2e per year, which is below the 25,000 MTCO2e/yr. Cap-and-Trade screening level. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this goal.
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2017 November, 2017 Scoping Plan.
Table 9: Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
Reduction Strategy Project Consistency Analysis
Focus Growth Near Destinations and Mobility Options
• Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate multimodal access to work, educational and other destinations • Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance to reduce commute times and distances and
expand job opportunities near transit and along center-focused main streets • Plan for growth near transit investments and support implementation of first/last mile strategies • Promote the redevelopment of underperforming retail developments and other outmoded
nonresidential uses • Prioritize infill and redevelopment of underutilized
land to accommodate new growth, increase amenities and connectivity in existing
neighborhoods • Encourage design and transportation options that
reduce the reliance on and number of solo car
Consistent. The proposed project is an infill, mixed-use project located within an urbanized area and in close proximity to existing residential
and commercial development. The proposed project would be within walking and biking
distance of various commercial uses. There is an existing bus stop to the northeast of the project
site across Live Oak Avenue. The project site fronts existing sidewalks along Foothill Boulevard
to the north, and the project proposes a new sidewalk along Live Oak Avenue that would add
to the pedestrian accessibility of the area. The proposed project would provide bicycle parking
spaces and in accordance with 2019 Title 24 standards and CALGreen Code, would have
approximately 53 spaces for future installation of electric vehicle charging stations. Furthermore,
the proposed project would also include
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 65
trips (this could include mixed uses or locating and orienting close to existing destinations) • Identify ways to “right size” parking requirements and promote alternative parking strategies (e.g., shared parking or smart parking)
approximately 5,600-square-foot indoor amenity space, comprised of a 1,800-square-foot lobby/leasing office, a 1,375-square-foot fitness center, a 1,700-square-foot clubroom, and a 720-square-foot business center. As a mixed-use project with 340 multi-family units, 1,500 square feet of commercial space, and four live-work units, the proposed project would promote connectivity near destinations and mobility options and is consistent with this reduction strategy. Promote Diverse Housing Choices
• Preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing and prevent displacement • Identify funding opportunities for new workforce and affordable housing development • Create incentives and reduce regulatory barriers for building context sensitive accessory dwelling units to increase housing supply • Provide support to local jurisdictions to streamline and lessen barriers to housing development that supports reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
Consistent. As previously discussed, the proposed project is an infill, mixed-use project with 340 multi-family units, 1,500 square feet of commercial space, and four live-work units within an urbanized area. As such, the proposed project would support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions associated with regional VMT and is therefore consistent with this reduction strategy.
Leverage Technology Innovations
• Promote low emission technologies such as neighborhood electric vehicles, shared rides hailing, car sharing, bike sharing and scooters by providing supportive and safe infrastructure such as dedicated lanes, charging and parking/drop-off space • Improve access to services through technology—such as telework and telemedicine as well as other incentives such as a “mobility wallet,” an app-based system for storing transit and other multi-modal payments • Identify ways to incorporate “micro-power grids” in communities, for example solar energy, hydrogen fuel cell power storage and power generation.
Consistent. The proposed project would have approximately 53 spaces for future installation of electric vehicle charging stations. The proposed project would also include bike parking and storage in accordance with the 2019 Title 24 standards and CALGreen Code. Therefore, the proposed project would leverage technology innovations and help the City, County, and State meet its GHG reduction goals. The proposed project would be consistent with this reduction strategy.
Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies
• Pursue funding opportunities to support local sustainable development implementation projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions • Support statewide legislation that reduces barriers to new construction and that incentivizes development near transit corridors and stations • Support local jurisdictions in the establishment of Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs), Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs), or other tax increment or value capture tools to finance sustainable infrastructure and development projects, including parks and open space • Work with local jurisdictions/communities to identify opportunities and assess barriers to
Consistent. The proposed project would be a mixed-use project. As previously discussed, the proposed project would promote alternative modes of transportation as it would provide bicycle parking and be located within one mile of a transit stop. These features would potentially reduce fuel consumption and lower GHG emissions. Further, the proposed project would comply with sustainable practices such as installation of bike parking and storage, enhanced insulated walls, high efficiency (LED) lighting, energy efficient appliances, low-flow water fixtures, water-efficient irrigation, and drought tolerant landscape. The project would be designed to accommodate rooftop solar panels
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 66
Consistency with the City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035
As previously discussed, Chapter 10 and Chapter 12 of the General Plan Update outline the goals and policies for resource efficiency and planning for climate change within the City. The proposed
project’s consistency with these goals and policies is discussed in Table 10, Consistency with the City of Fontana General Plan Update.
As depicted in Table 10, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan Update. The proposed project would comply with 2019 Title 24 energy efficiency standards; it is noted that the proposed project would reserve area on the roof for future solar panels and include the installation of enhanced insulated walls, high efficiency (LED) lighting, energy efficient appliances, low-flow water fixtures, water-efficient irrigation, and drought tolerant landscape. Further, the proposed project would include bicycle racks and include approximately 53 spaces for future
installation of electric vehicle charging stations.
implement sustainability strategies • Enhance partnerships with other planning organizations to promote resources and best practices in the SCAG region • Continue to support long range planning efforts by local jurisdictions • Provide educational opportunities to local decisions makers and staff on new tools, best practices and policies related to implementing the Sustainable Communities Strategy
that would promote the use of renewable energy. Additionally, the project would emit GHGs less than 3,000 MTCO2e. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with this reduction strategy as it would support long range planning efforts by SCAQMD.
Promote a Green Region
• Support development of local climate adaptation and hazard mitigation plans, as well as project implementation that improves community resiliency to climate change and natural hazards • Support local policies for renewable energy production, reduction of urban heat islands and carbon sequestration • Integrate local food production into the regional landscape • Promote more resource efficient development focused on conservation, recycling and reclamation • Preserve, enhance and restore regional wildlife connectivity • Reduce consumption of resource areas, including agricultural land • Identify ways to improve access to public park space
Consistent. The proposed project consists of an infill development in an urbanized area and would therefore not interfere with regional wildlife connectivity or consume agricultural land. The proposed project would also incorporate various open space areas for the residents of the apartment complex, including a total of five landscaped courtyards. The proposed project would be required to comply with 2019 Title 24 standards and CALGreen Code, including incorporating source reduction techniques and recycling measures and maintaining a recycling program to divert waste, which would help reduce energy consumption and reduce GHG emissions. Thus, the proposed project would support efficient development that reduces energy consumption and GHG emissions. The proposed project would be consistent with this reduction strategy. Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2020 September 3, 2020-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy – Connect SoCal.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 67
Table 10: Consistency with the City of Fontana General Plan Update
Goals Project Consistency
Chapter 10, Infrastructure and Green Systems
Goal 7: Fontana is an energy-
efficient community. Consistent. The proposed project would incorporate sustainable
building design features, such as reserving area on the roof for future solar panels. The proposed project would also include the
installation of enhanced insulated walls, high efficiency (LED) lighting, and energy efficient appliances. As such, the proposed
project would be consistent with this goal. Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience Goal 3: Renewable sources of energy, including solar and wind,
and other energy-conservation strategies are available to city
households and businesses.
Consistent. As discussed above, the proposed project would incorporate sustainable building design features, such as
reserving area on the roof for future solar panels. Furthermore, the electricity provider, SCE, is subject to California’s Renewables
Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice
aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and
to 60 percent of total procurement by 2030. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with this goal.
Goal 5: Green building
techniques are used in new development and retrofits.
Consistent. The proposed project would comply with 2019 Title
24 standards, which were effective beginning January 1, 2020. Specifically, the proposed project would reserve area on the roof
for future solar panels and install enhanced insulated walls, high efficiency (LED) lighting, energy efficient appliances, low-flow
water fixtures, water-efficient irrigation, and drought tolerant landscape. The proposed project would also include
approximately 53 spaces for future installation of electric vehicle charging stations. As such, the proposed project would be
consistent with this goal. Goal 6: Fontana is a leader [in] energy-efficient development and
retrofits.
Consistent. The proposed project would incorporate sustainable building design features, such as reserving area on the roof for
future solar panels. The proposed project would also include the installation of enhanced insulated walls, high efficiency (LED)
lighting, and energy efficient appliances. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with this goal.
Source: City of Fontana, 2018, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015–2035.
In summary, the plan consistency analysis provided above demonstrates that the proposed
project complies with or exceeds the plans, policies, regulations and GHG reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2017 Scoping Plan, SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and City’s General Plan Update. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs. Thus, as the proposed project does not conflict with the 2017 Scoping Plan, 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, or the City’s General Plan Update, the project specific impacts with regard to climate change would
be less than significant.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 68
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
The impact analysis presented below is based in part on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the proposed project, which is included as Appendix H to this IS/MND and incorporated herein by reference.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 69
Discussion
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of 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. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and would involve
the limited transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Such hazardous materials could include on-site fueling/servicing of construction equipment, and the transport of fuels, lubricating fluids, and solvents. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all
storage, handling, and disposal of these materials are regulated by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD), and the San Bernardino County Department of Public
Health. The transport, use, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials would occur in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing such activities including federal OSHA, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and Title 40, Code
of Federal Regulations Part 312. Additionally, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the proposed project did not identify any hazardous wastes at the project site. Therefore, with adherence to existing regulations, the short-term construction impact would be
less than significant.
Operation of the proposed project may involve limited transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, such as oils, pesticides, or chemicals. Any chemicals or pesticides related to the maintenance of the buildings and landscaping throughout the amenity space and improvements would be stored in relatively small quantities in appropriate containers and handled in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment. As such, the operational impacts would be less than significant
b) Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
prepared for the proposed project, there is no evidence of recognized environmental conditions at the project site, and any known or suspected contaminated sites in the project area are not likely to negatively affect the project site. Additionally, the project site is not located on or near a
known oil field or gas wells, and thus, it is not likely that the presence of methane or other volatile gases would occur.31
Construction may involve the transport, storage, use or disposal of some hazardous materials,
such as on-site fueling/servicing of construction equipment. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous. All construction activities involving the transportation, usage, and disposal of hazardous materials would be subject to federal, state, and local health and safety requirements. Such transport, use, storage, and disposal would not create a significant hazard to workers or the community. Also, as discussed in the Project Best Management Practices listed in Section A.VI, prior to construction, the project contractor would develop an emergency response plan in coordination with the FFPD and Fontana Police Department (FPD) as part of the required Design
31 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), n.d., Well Finder, available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/, accessed January 3, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 70
Review. Additionally, a spill prevention plan would also be developed so project personnel would have available adequate spill containment and cleanup resources on-site at all times and be prepared to contain, control, clean up, and dispose of any potential fuel spill quickly and completely. During construction, project personnel would follow all applicable rules and regulations governing the storage, transportation, use, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials. Construction impacts related to the release of hazardous materials would be less than
significant.
As discussed previously, the long-term operation of the proposed project may involve the limited use of hazardous materials related to maintenance or landscaping. Any chemicals, oils, or
pesticides related to the maintenance of the buildings and landscaping throughout the amenity space and improvements would be stored in relatively small quantities in appropriate containers and handled in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions to protect the health and safety
of the public and the environment. Therefore, operational impacts related to the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. No existing or proposed schools occur within 0.25-mile of the project site. Redwood
Elementary School is the closest school in the area and is located 0.45 miles south of the project site. The use of substantial amounts of such substances is not anticipated and precludes the possibility of creating a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions. As such, there would be no impact associated with the emission of hazardous materials near an existing or proposed school.
d) Would the project 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?
No Impact. The project site is not included on any hazardous materials site lists including the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor database, which includes CORTESE sites, the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker site, the Environmental Protection
Agency’s database of regulated facilities, or other lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.32, 33, 34 As such, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and 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. The City of Fontana is one of several cities within close proximity to the Ontario International Airport (which is located in the City of Ontario) that participates in the
32 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2022, EnviroStor Database, Search by Map Location, available at: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/, accessed January 3, 2022. 33 California State Water Resources Control Board, 2022, GeoTracker Database, Search by Map Location, available
at: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/, accessed January 3, 2022. 34 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2022, Envirofacts Database, available at: https://enviro.epa.gov/, accessed January 3, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 71
Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.35 However, the project site is not within an Airport Influence Area, Safety Zone, Noise Impact Zone, Airspace Protection Zone, or Overflight Notification Zone.36 Additionally, the project site is located approximately 7.5 miles northeast of the Ontario International Airport. As such, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing and working in the project area. Impacts would be less than significant.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City adopted a LHMP in 2017 to prepare for emergency
evacuations and respond to all types of hazards.37 The City also adopted an Emergency
Operations Plan (EOP) in 2019.38 No revisions to the adopted EOP would be required as a result
of the proposed project. During construction activities, vehicles and equipment would access the
project site via Foothill Boulevard and Live Oak Avenue. Project activities would be confined to the project site with the exception of haul trucks, utility connections, lane modifications and restriping activities, which would require temporary lane closures of the eastbound right lane on
Foothill Boulevard fronting the project site and the southbound lane on Live Oak Avenue. Parking restrictions on the eastern side of Live Oak Avenue may be necessary to allow lanes to remain open during portions of construction. During construction, ingress and egress to the site and surrounding area, particularly for emergency response vehicles, would be maintained at all times. As discussed in Section A.VI, Project Best Management Practices, the proposed project would coordinate with emergency response agencies, including the FFPD and the FPD regarding construction schedules and worksite traffic control plans to coordinate emergency response routing and maintain emergency access. This emergency response plan would comply with the San Bernardino County Emergency Operations Plan and the City’s LHMP. As part of the required Design Review, the plan would require approval by the City’s Planning Director. Implementation of an emergency response plan would ensure that construction activities, including temporary
lane closures, would not interfere with the City’s own emergency response measures.
Operation of the proposed project would widen Live Oak Avenue by approximately 9 feet to its ultimate street width of 44 feet but would not alter any primary evacuation routes. Additionally,
adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles would be maintained during project operations as required by the City. The proposed project involves the construction of residential units and does not include any land uses or off-site improvements that would impair
implementation or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not interfere with implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The impact would be less than
significant.
35 City of Ontario, 2011, The Ontario Plan: A Framework for The Future – Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for LA/Ontario International Airport, available at: http://www.ontarioplan.org/alucp-for-ontario-international-airport/, accessed on January 3, 2022.
36 City of Ontario, 2011, The Ontario Plan: A Framework for The Future – Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for LA/Ontario International Airport, available at: http://www.ontarioplan.org/alucp-for-ontario-international-airport/, accessed on January 3, 2022. 37 City of Fontana, 2017, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan, accessed on January 3, 2022. 38 City of Fontana, n.d., Ready Fontana Guide, available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29672, accessed on February 14, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 72
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped; surrounding areas are completely developed and there are no wildlands adjacent to the project site. As it is located in an urbanized area, the project site does not contain lands designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ), as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire. No
impact related to wildland fires would occur.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 73
X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water 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 erosion or siltation on- or
off-site? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The analysis and findings throughout this section are based in part on the Geotechnical Investigation Report, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, and the Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the proposed project. These documents are provided as Appendix
F, Appendix H, and Appendix I of this IS/MND, respectively.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 74
Discussion
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Section 13000 et seq. of the California Water Code) and the federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 (also referred to as the Clean Water Act) require comprehensive water
quality control plans to be developed for all waters within the State of California. The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Impacts related to water quality would fall under two general categories: short-term
construction-related impacts and long-term operational impacts.
Construction activities have the potential to degrade water quality through the exposure of surface runoff to exposed soils, dust, and other debris, as well as from runoff from construction equipment.
The proposed project would be required to comply with the NPDES MS4 Permit from the Santa Ana RWQCB for stormwater control to minimize the discharge of pollutants. Best management practices for erosion control are required under NPDES regulations pursuant to the federal Clean
Water Act. NPDES requirements for construction projects disturbing 1 acre or more in area are set forth in the Construction General Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). As discussed in Section B.VI, the proposed
project would develop and implement an Erosion Control and Grading Plan, SWPPP, and WQMP for construction activities. With implementation of the Erosion Control and Grading Plan, SWPPP, and WQMP BMPs and compliance with the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit and the City’s Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, impacts related to water quality and discharge during construction would be less than significant.
The project site currently consists of vacant land, and grasses and weeds cover much of the project site. The proposed project would develop 340 multi-family residential units, 1,500 square feet of commercial space, four live-work units, and associated infrastructure and improvements
on approximately 8.8 acres (9.5 gross acres with road improvements and sidewalks). During operation, the residential development may expose surface runoff to pesticides/herbicides and chemicals associated with maintenance and landscaping and pathogens and trash/debris
associated with residential activities. Additionally, the development of the currently vacant property at the project site would increase impermeable surfaces, which could increase stormwater runoff. The proposed project would be required to implement the WQMP prepared for
the proposed project, pursuant to the requirements of the City of Fontana and the NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program. The WQMP identifies the major proposed site design and low-impact development (LID) BMPs and other anticipated water quality features that impact site
planning. The WQMP specifically identifies all BMPs that would be incorporated into the final site design and establishes targets for post-development hydrology based on performance criteria specified in the MS4 permit. These targets include runoff volume for water quality control (referred to as LID design capture volume) and runoff volume, time of concentration, and peak runoff for protection of any downstream water body segments with hydrologic conditions of concern. Stormwater would be collected from impervious areas and directed to the proposed underground storage system used to store and infiltrate runoff. Mandatory compliance with the WQMP BMPs would ensure that the proposed project does not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during long‐term operation. Therefore, water quality impacts associated
with long-term operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 75
b) Would the project 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. Water for the proposed project would be provided by Fontana Water Company (FWC). The FWC water facilities produce, treat, store, and deliver drinking water to a population of approximately 237,000 in the City of Fontana, portions of the Cities of Rialto
and Rancho Cucamonga, and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. According to FWC’s most recent Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), FWC’s water supply sources include local groundwater basins, local surface water, purchased Inland Empire Utilities Agency
and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District water, and recycled water.39 Therefore, a portion of the proposed project’s water supplies would include groundwater supplies.
Site testing conducted as part of the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared for the proposed
project did not encounter groundwater in the borings drilled to a maximum depth of 50.5 feet below ground surface. A review of groundwater monitoring well records located approximately 0.8 miles southwest of the project site indicated groundwater levels below 300 to 450 feet. During
construction, the proposed project would not require excavation to a depth that would encounter groundwater (i.e., maximum depth of excavation would be 12 feet below grade for the sewer trench), affect the rate of groundwater recharge, or involve the extraction of groundwater. The
proposed project’s construction-related activities are not anticipated to have a significant impact on groundwater supplies because these impacts are short term and do not consist of water-intensive activities that could, ultimately, draw down supplies of groundwater. As discussed in detail in Section D.XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, FWC would have sufficient water supply to meet existing and projected demands, which includes the proposed project’s operational water demand.40 Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on groundwater supply.
The project site is underlain by the Chino Basin, which is fully adjudicated and managed by the
Chino Basin Watermaster. Stormwater capture and infiltration occurs at 17 recharge basins in the Chino Basin.41 The proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge activities associated with these facilities such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table, as the proposed project is not located in one of the Chino Basin’s 17 groundwater recharge areas.42 Additionally, the proposed project does not involve any direct extraction of groundwater.
As discussed above, a WQMP was prepared for the proposed project to comply with the requirements of the City of Fontana and the NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program. The WQMP identifies the major proposed site design and LID BMPs and other anticipated water quality
features that impact site planning. The WQMP specifically identifies all BMPs that would be incorporated into the final site design and establishes targets for post-development hydrology
39 Fontana Water Company, 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, available at: https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf, accessed January 11, 2022. 40 Fontana Water Company, 2016, Urban Water Management Plan, Tables 6-1 and 6-2. 41 Chino Basin Watermaster, 2020, 2020 Optimum Basin Management Program Update Report, January 2020, available at: http://www.cbwm.org/docs/OBMP%20Update/20200124_Final%202020%20OBMP%20Update%20Report.pdf, accessed January 13, 2022.
42 Chino Basin Watermaster, 2020, Maximum Benefit Annual Report, Figure 2-5: Chino Basin Recharge Basins, available at: http://www.cbwm.org/docs/engdocs/maps/Figure%202-5%20-%20Chino%20Basin%20Recharge%20Basins%20-%202020.pdf, accessed January 13, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 76
based on performance criteria specified in the MS4 permit. These targets include runoff volume for water quality control (referred to as LID design capture volume) and runoff volume, time of concentration, and peak runoff for protection of any downstream water body segments with hydrologic conditions of concern. Stormwater would be collected from impervious areas and directed to the proposed underground storage system used to store and infiltrate runoff. Thus, the reduction in permeable surfaces which would occur as a result of proposed project
implementation would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped and is not formerly or currently a source for
groundwater extraction, and thus would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the proposed project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. As such, there would be no impacts to groundwater supply and recharge.
c)i) Would the project 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 result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no natural drainage courses located on-site, including streams or rivers, and the site is relatively flat. Construction activities have the potential to degrade
water quality through the exposure of surface runoff to exposed soils, dust, and other debris, as well as from runoff from construction equipment. As discussed in Section B.VI, the proposed project would develop and implement an Erosion Control and Grading Plan, SWPPP, and WQMP for construction activities. With implementation of the Erosion Control and Grading Plan, SWPPP, and WQMP BMPs, and compliance with the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit and the City’s Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, impacts related to erosion or siltation on- or off-site during construction would be less than significant.
The development of the currently vacant property at the project site with 340 multi-family
residential units, 1,500 square feet of commercial space, four live-work units, and associated infrastructure and improvements would increase impermeable surfaces which could increase stormwater runoff. However, the proposed project would include the development of a storm
drainage system that would implement LID improvements, as recommended by Fontana Municipal Code Section 28-111. Stormwater would be collected from impervious areas and directed to the proposed underground storage system used to store and infiltrate runoff and
ultimately convey stormwater runoff to the existing storm drain system. This would limit the release of stormwater from the project site, thereby minimizing the potential to result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c)ii) Would the project 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 substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above in Section D.X.(c)(i), there are no natural drainage courses located on-site, including streams or rivers, and the site is relatively flat. Construction activities have the potential to degrade water quality through the exposure of surface runoff to exposed soils, dust, and other debris, as well as from runoff from construction equipment. However, the proposed project would develop and implement of an Erosion Control and Grading Plan, SWPPP, and WQMP BMPs, and comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit and the
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 77
City’s Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Therefore, impacts related to substantially increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site during construction would be less than significant.
Similar to the discussion in Section D.X.(c)(i), the development of the proposed project would increase impermeable surfaces which could increase stormwater runoff. However, the proposed project would include the development of a storm drainage system that would implement LID
improvements, as recommended by Fontana Municipal Code Section 28-111. Stormwater would be collected from impervious areas and directed to the proposed underground storage system used to store and infiltrate runoff and ultimately convey stormwater runoff to the existing storm
drain system. This would limit the release of stormwater from the project site, thereby minimizing the potential to substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site during operation. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
c)iii) Would the project 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 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above in Section D.X.(c)(i), there are no natural drainage courses located on-site, including streams or rivers, and the site is relatively flat. Construction activities have the potential to degrade water quality through the exposure of surface runoff to exposed soils, dust, and other debris, as well as from runoff from construction equipment. However, the proposed project would develop and implement of an Erosion Control and Grading Plan, SWPPP, and WQMP BMPs, and comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit and the City’s Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Therefore, impacts related to exceeding the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
providing substantial additional sources of polluted runoff during construction would be less than significant.
Similar to the discussion in Section D.X.(c)(i), the development of the proposed project would
increase impermeable surfaces which could increase stormwater runoff. However, the proposed project would include the development of a storm drainage system that would implement LID improvements, as recommended by Fontana Municipal Code Section 28-111. Stormwater would
be collected from impervious areas and directed to the proposed underground storage system used to store and infiltrate runoff and ultimately convey storm water runoff to the existing storm drain system. This would limit the release of stormwater from the project site, thereby minimizing
the potential to exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff during operation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c)iv) Would the project 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 impede or redirect flood
flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above in Section D.X.(c)(i), there are no natural drainage courses located on-site, including streams or rivers, and the site is relatively flat. Additionally, the project site is not located within a flood hazard area as identified by the Federal
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 78
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).43 Construction activities have the potential to degrade water quality through the exposure of surface runoff to exposed soils, dust, and other debris, as well as from runoff from construction equipment. However, the proposed project would develop and implement of an Erosion Control and Grading Plan, SWPPP, and WQMP BMPs, and comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit and the City’s Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Therefore, impacts related to impeding or
redirecting flood flows during construction would be less than significant.
Similar to the discussion in Section D.X.(c)(i), the development of the proposed project would increase impermeable surfaces which could increase stormwater runoff. However, the proposed
project would include the development of a storm drainage system that would implement LID improvements, as recommended by Fontana Municipal Code Section 28-111. Stormwater would be collected from impervious areas and directed to the proposed underground storage system
used to store and infiltrate runoff and ultimately convey stormwater runoff to the existing storm drain system. This would limit the release of stormwater from the project site, thereby minimizing the potential for impediment or redirecting flood flows during operation. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant.
d) Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact. The project site is not located within a coastal area. Therefore, tsunamis are not considered a hazard at the site. Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. No major water-retaining structures are located immediately up gradient from the project site. Therefore, release of pollutants resulting from a seismically-induced seiche is considered unlikely. In addition, the project site is not located within a flood hazard area
as identified by FEMA.44 Therefore, no impacts associated with the risk of pollutant release due to inundation would occur.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control
plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB, which has adopted a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) to define water quality
standards and the required plans and permits to implement water quality control. In accordance with the Basin Plan, the proposed project would develop and implement an Erosion Control and Grading Plan, SWPPP, and WQMP to control runoff from the project site during construction and
operation. The proposed project would also be required to comply with the NPDES MS4 Permit from the Santa Ana RWQCB for stormwater control to minimize the discharge of pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.
Domestic water from FWC is supplied via the groundwater from multiple sources, including the Chino Groundwater Basin (primary groundwater source for FWC), the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin, the Lytle Groundwater Basin, and the No Man’s Land Groundwater Basin.45 These sources provide the City with most of its water needs, with room for expansion. Additionally, as discussed in Section D.X(b) above, the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge
43 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Map 06071C8651H, effective on 08/28/2008, available at https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home, accessed January 12, 2022.
44 Ibid. 45 Fontana Water Company, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, available at: https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf, accessed January 11, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 79
activities associated with the Chino Groundwater Basin facilities such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. No potable groundwater wells are proposed as part of the proposed project and the proposed project does not involve any direct extraction of groundwater. Thus, the proposed project’s demand for domestic water service would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan.
Although the proposed project would result in additional impervious surfaces on-site, the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge as stormwater would be collected from impervious areas and directed via curb and gutter to an underground storage system used
to store and infiltrate runoff. Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 80
XI. Land Use and Planning
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The physical division of an established community is typically associated with construction of a linear feature, such as a major highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local road or bridge, which would impair mobility within an existing community
or between a community and an outlying area.
The proposed project consists of the construction of mixed-use development of 340 multi-family residential units, 1,500 square feet of commercial space, four live-work units, and associated infrastructure and improvements, including parking, landscaping, modifications of Live Oak Avenue, utilities, and installation of a new driveway access point. The project site is surrounded by existing residences and commercial uses.
The proposed project does not propose construction of any roadway, flood control channel, or other structure that would physically divide any portion of the community. In addition, the proposed
project is consistent with the surrounding land uses and would not divide an established community. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the proposed project seeks to develop 340
multi-family residential units, 1,500 square feet of commercial space, four live-work units, and associated infrastructure and improvements on the project site. The proposed residential development is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the project site. In order to develop the site, the proposed project would require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission and a Lot Line Adjustment. Additionally, the project-level review of the proposed project includes a site design review for compliance with site-specific development standards, as outlined in the Fontana Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Fontana Zoning and Development Code and other applicable ordinances. The proposed project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation, nor would it result in negative environmental effects as a result as evidenced by policy reviews assessed throughout this IS/MND. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 81
XII. Mineral Resources
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
a) Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Mineral
Land Classification maps, the project site is classified as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) -2.46 Lands classified as MRZ-2 are areas that contain identified mineral resources.
However, historical uses of the project site have not included mineral extraction, nor does the project site currently support mineral extraction. In addition, the proposed project does not propose any mineral extraction activities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state, and the impact would be less than significant.
b) Would the project 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. The project site has not been identified as a locally important mineral resource
recovery site in the General Plan.47 Furthermore, there are no mineral resource recovery sites on or near the project area.48 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site, and the impact would be less than significant.
46 California Department of Conservation, 1995, Mineral Land Classification of a Part of Southwester San Bernardino County: The San Bernardino Valley Area, California (West), accessed December 3, 2021. 47 City of Fontana, 2018, General Plan Update, Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails (Chapter 7) and Land
Use, Zoning, and Urban Design (Chapter 15). 48 County of San Bernardino, 2019, County Wide Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Figures 5-11.3 and 5-11.5.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 82
XIII. Noise
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
The impact analysis presented below is based in part on the Noise Technical Memorandum
prepared for the proposed project, which is included as Appendix J to this IS/MND and incorporated herein by reference.
Discussion
a) Would the project result in 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The analysis below presents the construction and operational noise that would be generated with implementation of the proposed project. The City’s General Plan Noise and Safety Chapter and the Fontana Municipal Code establishes guidelines and regulations for controlling both construction and operational noise in the City.
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include
single-family residences located adjacent to the south; multi-family residences located approximately 50 feet to the east; and multi-family residences located approximately 46 feet to the west.
Construction
For construction noise standards, the City provides guidance that residential land uses and areas be protected from excessive noise from non-transportation sources including construction
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 83
equipment.49 Additionally, project construction activities that take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday are considered exempt per the City’s Municipal Code Section 18-63. However, if activity occurs outside of these hours, the City’s ambient noise level standards (i.e., exterior noise standard of 65 decibels [dB]) would apply. Temporary increases in ambient noise levels as a result of implementation of the project would predominantly be associated with construction activities.
Equipment
Daytime construction noise is a common occurrence within an urban area. As discussed, Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-63 exempts construction activities from the noise standard provided
that such activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, except for purposes of emergencies. These permitted hours of construction are required in recognition that construction activities undertaken during permitted
hours are a typical part of living in an urban environment. Construction activities for the proposed project would be conducted during allowable hours, per the Fontana Municipal Code. Additionally, construction would be temporary as the noise from the construction equipment would cease once
project construction is completed.
The City also provides guidance that residential land uses and areas should be protected from excessive noise from non-transportation sources including equipment. Typical construction
equipment including backhoes, loaders, compressors, rollers, and trucks would be used during project construction to clear the development site, construct the structures, and pave the parking lot. Although noise levels would fluctuate and depend on variables such as the type of equipment, horsepower of the equipment, and atmospheric conditions, the construction equipment would typically generate noise levels ranging from approximately 74 dBA50 to 90 dBA Leq51 at 50 feet,
with a decrease by 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. Ambient noise levels surrounding the project site range between 37.6 dBA Lmin and 86 dBA Lmax with a peak of 73.2 dBA.
Construction activities for the proposed project would be conducted during allowable hours, and thus exempt from the City’s noise standards. Accordingly, with compliance with the Fontana Municipal Code, construction noise impacts would be less than significant. Nonetheless, the
proposed project would implement the best management practices listed in Section B.VI to minimize noise generated during construction of the project to the furthest extent possible. These would include shutting off idling equipment, maximizing the distance between construction
equipment staging areas and occupied residential areas, use of electric air compressors and similar power tools, equipping construction equipment with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State-required noise attenuation devices, placing stationary construction
equipment such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers, and designing haul routes such that the routes do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings.
Worker and Haul Trips
Construction activities would also cause increased noise along access routes to and from the site due to movement of equipment and workers, as well as haul trips. It is anticipated that project construction would generate a maximum of 96 hauling trips per day, 460 worker trips per day,
49 City of Fontana. Chapter 11 Noise and Safety Element of the General Plan (Goal 10, Policy 1). November 2018.
50 dBA is measured using the A-weighted decibel scale. 51 Leq is known as the equivalent sound level, which is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the environment.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 84
and 90 vendor trips per day. As a result, mobile source noise would increase along access routes to and from the project site during construction. However, mobile traffic noise from construction trips would be temporary and would cease upon project completion.
Existing traffic in the project vicinity consists of 830 average daily trips along Live Oak Avenue (south of Foothill Boulevard), 29,500 average daily trips along Foothill Boulevard (between Cherry Avenue and Live Oak Avenue), and 27,100 average daily trips along Foothill Boulevard (between
Live Oak Avenue and Beech Avenue). Therefore, existing traffic in the project vicinity ranges from 830 to 29,500 average daily trips. The proposed project would result in a maximum of 646 total trips per day (i.e., hauling, worker, and vendor trips) due to the overlap in the grading and building
construction phases. According to the Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, a doubling of traffic volumes would result in a 3 dB increase in traffic noise levels, which is barely detectable by the human ear.52 The proposed project’s construction trips would
not double existing traffic volumes and any increase in traffic noise levels would thus be imperceptible. Therefore, short-term haul truck noise impacts from construction traffic would be less than significant.
As such, construction of the proposed project would not result in 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. Impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
For operational noise standards, the City identifies noise-sensitive land uses and noise sources with the intent of separating these uses. The Fontana Municipal Code Noise regulates noise based on the increment of noise that a source generates above the ambient background noise
level. The City’s ambient noise level standards for exterior noise is 65 dB. Additionally, the City relies on the 24-hour community noise equivalent level (CNEL) level to assess land use compatibility with transportation related noise sources.
In community noise assessments, a 3 dBA increase is considered “barely perceptible,” and increases over 5 dBA are generally considered “readily perceptible”.53 Thus, the project would cause a significant impact if a 3 dB increase over existing conditions occurs and the resulting
noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a sensitive use.
Off-Site Mobile Noise
The proposed project would result in additional traffic on adjacent roadways, thereby increasing
vehicular noise in the vicinity of existing and proposed land uses. The following analysis considers the project-generated average daily trips compared to existing, opening year, and cumulative conditions.
The most prominent source of mobile traffic noise in the project vicinity is along Foothill Boulevard. As the proposed project would develop a mixed-use building, it would result in some additional
52 U.S. Department of Transportation, 2017 August 24, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm, accessed on March 2, 2022.
53 Caltrans, 2013 September, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf, accessed February 15, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 85
traffic on adjacent roadways, thereby potentially increasing vehicular noise in the vicinity of existing and proposed land uses. The proposed project would generate 1,644 daily trips, including 131 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 140 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
According to Table 11, Existing Conditions and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, under the “Existing” scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the roadway centerline would range from approximately 48.0 dBA to 67.6 dBA, with the highest noise levels occurring along
Foothill Boulevard between Cherry Avenue and Live Oak Avenue. The “Existing Plus Project” scenario noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the roadway centerline would range from approximately 50.1 dBA to 67.8 dBA, with the highest noise occurring along the same roadway
segment. As shown in Table 11, the noise levels would result in a maximum increase of 2.1 dBA as a result of the proposed project. This increase in noise would occur along Live Oak Avenue. As this noise level increase is below 3 dBA, impacts would be less than significant.
The “Opening Year Without Project” and “Opening Year Plus Project” were compared for future noise conditions along roadway segments in the project vicinity. According to Table 12, Future Traffic Noise Levels, under the “Opening Year Without Project” scenario, noise levels at a
distance of 100 feet from the roadway centerline would range from approximately 48.0 dBA to 67.8 dBA, with the highest noise levels occurring along Foothill Boulevard between Cherry Avenue and Live Oak Avenue. Under the “Opening Year Plus Project” scenario, noise levels at a
distance of 100 feet from the roadway centerline would range from approximately 50.9 dBA to 68.0 dBA, with the highest noise occurring along the same roadway segment. Additionally, the highest noise level increase is 1.6 dBA along Live Oak Avenue, which would not exceed the 3 dBA threshold. Therefore, opening year noise conditions along roadway segments in the project vicinity would not exceed the 3 dBA increase threshold, and impacts would be less than significant.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 86
Table 11: Existing Conditions and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Existing Existing Plus Project Project Noise Level Increase (dBA)
Threshold Exceeded (greater than 3 dBA increase)?
dBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline
ADT1
Distance from Roadway Centerline to: (Feet) dBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline
ADT1
Distance from Roadway Centerline to: (Feet) 70 CNEL Noise Contour
65 CNEL Noise Contour
60 CNEL Noise Contour
70 CNEL Noise Contour
65 CNEL Noise Contour
60 CNEL Noise Contour
Live Oak Avenue
South of Foothill Blvd 48.0 830 - - - 50.1 1,322 - - - 2.1 No
Cherry Avenue
North of Foothill Blvd 65.0 20,380 - 99 214 65.0 20,626 - 100 216 0.0 No
South of Foothill Blvd 63.6 19,540 - 80 173 63.6 19,704 - 81 174 0.0 No
Foothill Blvd Between Cherry Avenue and Live Oak Avenue
67.6 29,500 70 150 323 67.8 30,404 71 153 330 0.2 No
Between Live Oak Avenue and Beech Avenue
67.0 27,100 63 136 292 67.1 27,922 64 138 298 0.1 No
Notes: ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level, - = Contour located within the roadway right of way.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 87
Table 12: Future Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Opening Year without Project Opening Year Plus Project Project Noise Level Increase (dBA)
Threshold Exceeded (greater than 3 dBA increase)?
dBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline
ADT1
Distance from Roadway Centerline to: (Feet) dBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline
ADT1
Distance from Roadway Centerline to: (Feet) 70 CNEL Noise Contour
65 CNEL Noise Contour
60 CNEL Noise Contour
70 CNEL Noise Contour
65 CNEL Noise Contour
60 CNEL Noise Contour
Live Oak Avenue
South of Foothill Blvd 49.3 1,100 - - - 50.9 1,592 - - - 1.6 No
Cherry Avenue
North of Foothill Blvd 65.1 20,900 - 101 218 65.1 21,146 - 102 219 0.0 No
South of Foothill Blvd 63.7 20,100 - 82 176 63.7 20,264 - 82 177 0.0 No
Foothill Blvd Between Cherry Avenue and Live Oak Avenue
67.8 30,900 72 155 333 68.0 31,801 73 158 340 0.2 No
Between Live Oak Avenue and Beech Avenue
67.2 28,390 65 140 301 67.3 29,212 66 143 307 0.1 No
Notes: ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level, - = Contour located within the roadway right of way.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 88
Cumulative Mobile Sources
Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon and reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only the proposed project and growth due to occur in the project site’s general vicinity would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. A project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase could be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. Although there may be a significant noise
increase due to the proposed project in combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the proposed project. Additionally, land
use compatibility standards can be used as a tool to evaluate the compatibility of new land uses relative to existing and future exterior noise exposure levels. Thus, a significant cumulative noise impact would only result if both of the following thresholds are exceeded: 1) combined and
incremental effects criteria, and 2) land use compatibility standards.
Table 13, Cumulative Traffic Noise Levels, provides traffic noise effects along roadway segments in the project vicinity for “Existing,” “Cumulative Without Project,” and “Cumulative With Project”
conditions, including combined and incremental cumulative impacts. As indicated in Table 13, noise levels would exceed the combined effects criterion of 3 dBA but not the incremental effects criterion of 1.5 dBA along Live Oak Avenue. Additionally, the noise levels under all scenarios
would not exceed OPR’s applicable normally acceptable land use compatibility standards.54 Therefore, no roadway segments would be subject to significant cumulative noise impacts, as they would not exceed both the combined and incremental effects criteria, and the land use compatibility standards simultaneously. Therefore, the proposed project , would result in less than significant cumulative impacts.
Table 13: Cumulative Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Existing Land Uses Located Along Roadway Segment
Existing Cumulative Without Project
Cumulative With Project Combined Effects Incremental Effects Normally Acceptable Land Use Compatibility Standard Thresholds (dBA)2
Cumulatively Significant Impact?
dBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline
dBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline
dBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline
Difference In dBA Between Existing and Cumulative With Project
Difference in dBA Between Cumulative Without Project and Cumulative With Project
Live Oak Avenue South of Foothill Blvd
Residential-single-family 48.0 51.4 52.5 4.5 1.1 60 No
Cherry Avenue North of Foothill Blvd Commercial 65.0 65.3 65.4 0.4 0.1 70 No
South of Foothill Blvd
Residential-single-family/ Commercial 63.6 64.0 64.1 0.5 0.1 60 No
54 Office of Planning and Research, 2017 October, State of California General Plan Guidelines, Appendix D.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 89
Roadway Segment
Existing Land Uses Located Along Roadway Segment
Existing Cumulative Without Project
Cumulative With Project Combined Effects Incremental Effects Normally Acceptable Land Use Compatibility Standard Thresholds (dBA)2
Cumulatively Significant Impact?
dBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline
dBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline
dBA @ 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline
Difference In dBA Between Existing and Cumulative With Project
Difference in dBA Between Cumulative Without Project and Cumulative With Project Foothill Avenue Between Cherry Avenue and Live Oak Avenue
Residential-multi-family/ Commercial 67.6 68.8 68.9 1.3 0.1 65 No
Between Live Oak Avenue and Beech Avenue
Residential-multi-family/ Commercial 67.0 68.1 68.2 1.2 0.1 65 No
Notes: ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level.
Stationary Noise
As stated above, the proposed project would develop a mixed-use building with residential and
commercial uses. Stationary noise sources associated with the project would include the operation of mechanical equipment, parking lot activities, and outdoor gathering area activities.
Mechanical Equipment
The HVAC units would be installed in enclosed utility rooms, and the mechanical exhaust vent would be located on the roof. Noise generated from HVAC units in the enclosed utility rooms would be inaudible at off-site uses as the structure would be completely enclosed. The nearest
sensitive receptors to the exhaust vent are the multi-family residences located to the east of the project site approximately 110 feet from the exhaust vent measured from the property line of the multi-family residences. Typically, exhaust fan noise is 55 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Generally, sound levels decrease by 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. The proposed buildings would be a maximum of 55 feet high. Therefore, the distance between the ground level property line of the closest sensitive receptors and the exhaust vent would be approximately 120 feet. At the distance of 120 feet, the noise level would be approximately 47 dBA. As such, the noise level from the exhaust vent would be 47 dBA at the property line of the nearest sensitive receptors to the east and would not exceed the City’s daytime and nighttime exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL. Thus, the proposed project would not result in noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from HVAC units and exhaust vent fan, and stationary noise
levels from the proposed HVAC units and exhaust vent fan would comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance. Impacts would be less than significant.
Parking
The proposed project would include 529 stalls of surface parking spaces. Parking activities can result in noise levels up to 61 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. It is noted that parking activity noises are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the CNEL scale, which are
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 90
averaged over time. As a result, actual noise levels over time resulting from parking activities would be far lower than 61 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The nearest surface parking lot on-site would be approximately 5 feet from the sensitive receptors to the south of the project site. At a distance of 5 feet the noise level would be approximately 81 dBA. However, as previously noted, this is a “peak” noise level and not representative of the noise averaged over a CNEL scale. While these existing sensitive receptors may be exposed to parking lot noise, it would be partially
masked by background noise from traffic along Live Oak Avenue and Ivy Avenue. Additionally, there is an existing 6-foot wall that would block the noise emanating from parking areas. Surface parking lots already exist in the project vicinity (i.e., at the apartment complex located directly
across Live Oak Avenue and the apartment complex located at the southwest corner of the project site); therefore, the proposed project’s parking activities would not result in substantially greater noise levels than existing conditions in the project vicinity. Thus, noise generated from parking
lots near the sensitive receptors would be intermittent and would not introduce a new noise source compared to existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant.
Outdoor Gathering Area
The proposed project would include an outdoor public plaza for the tenants and residents. The proposed plaza would be located near the northwest corner of the project site. The proposed plaza has the potential to be accessed by groups of people intermittently. The closest sensitive
receptors are multi-family residences located approximately 170 feet to the west of the proposed plaza measured from the property line of the receptors. At the distance of 170 feet, crowd noise would be reduced to approximately 28 dBA, which would not exceed the City’s daytime and nighttime exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL. As such, the proposed plaza area would not generate noise levels that would exceed the City’s noise standards at the closest sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
As such, operation of the proposed project would not result in 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. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.
Construction
Project construction would generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and
perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures. The City does not specify vibration level threshold limits for construction.
Table 16, Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment (Reference and Nearest Structures), shows the reference vibration levels for construction equipment at 25 feet and the vibration levels for construction equipment from the closest structures (i.e., residential uses). As indicated in Table 16, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during project construction range from 0.003 to 0.210 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the source of activity. The equipment with the greatest vibration level utilized
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 91
during project construction would be the vibratory roller which would generate a vibration level of 0.21 inches per second PPV at 25 feet.
Structures adjacent to the project site would typically be at least 40 feet from the construction activity, although residences to the south would be as close as 5 feet. As shown in Table 14, the vibration velocities for heavy construction equipment (i.e., large bulldozers, loaded trucks, jackhammers, and vibratory rollers) at a distance of 5 feet would range from 0.3913 to 2.3419
inches per second PPV, which would exceed the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) significance threshold of 0.2 inches per second PPV for building damage and human annoyance. However, groundborne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. Other structures near the
project site would be located at least 40 feet from the project boundary. Vibration velocities would not exceed the FTA significance threshold of 0.2 inches per second PPV at the distance of 40 feet.
Table 14: Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment (Reference and Nearest Structures)
Equipment Reference Approximate peak particle velocity at 25 feet (in/sec)1
Approximate peak particle velocity at 5 feet (in/sec)1,2
Approximate peak particle velocity at 40 feet (in/sec)1,3
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.9951 0.0440
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.8497 0.0376
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.0335 0.0015
Jackhammer 0.035 0.3913 0.0173
Vibratory Roller 0.21 2.3479 0.1038
FTA Criteria 0.2 0.2
Significant Impact? Yes No
Notes: 1. Calculated using the following formula: PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 where: PPV equip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV ref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver 2. The closest residential structure is located at a single-family residence 5 feet south of the project site property line. 3. Other structures adjacent to the project site are at least 40 feet from the project site property line (i.e., multi-family residential to the west). Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2018 September, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-4 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment.
For the single-family residences located to the south of the project site, the vibration damage
threshold of 0.2 inches per second PPV would be exceeded whenever a vibratory roller is operated within 26 feet of residential structures to the south; a large bulldozer is operate within 15 feet of residential structures to the south; a loaded truck is operated within 13 feet of residential
structures to the south; and a jackhammer is operated within 8 feet of residential structures to the south. Therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require buffer zone distances for heavy construction equipment, the use of construction vibration monitoring systems for heavy
equipment, and the use of light construction equipment or alternate strategies to ensure the vibration damage threshold is not exceeded. Additionally, the buffer zone shall be enforced around the existing residential structures during the project construction hours, which would only
occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 92
Saturday except for purposes of emergencies pursuant to Municipal Code Section 18-63. Thus, with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, impacts related to construction vibration would be less than significant.
Operation
Operation of the proposed project would not include or require equipment, facilities, or activities that would result in perceptible groundborne vibration. According to the FTA, it is unusual for
vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. As such, it can be reasonably inferred that proposed project operations would not create perceptible vibration impacts to the nearest sensitive receptors. Impacts would be less
than significant impact.
Mitigation Measure:
NOI-1: The following measures shall be incorporated on all grading and building plans
and specifications subject to approval of the City of Fontana City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit:
• The Project Applicant shall ensure the following construction equipment will not approach the construction buffer zone adjacent to the residential structures along the project’s southern project boundary. The buffer zone shall be tiered
based on distances established in the table below.
Table 15: Construction Equipment Buffer Zone Distances
Equipment Nearest Distance of Heavy-Duty Construction Equipment Activity to Southern Structures (feet)1
Vibratory Roller 26
Large bulldozer 15
Loaded trucks 13
Jackhammer 8
1 The construction equipment would not exceed the FTA’s 0.2 inches per second PPV threshold when operating at the distance listed from the single-family residences to the south.
As shown in the table, a vibratory roller shall not operate within 26 feet of
residential structures to the south; large bulldozers shall not operate within 15 feet of residential structures to the south; loaded trucks shall not operate within 13 feet of residential structures to the south; and jackhammers shall not
operate within 8 feet of residential structures to the south. The buffer zone shall be enforced around the existing residential structures during the project construction hours, which would only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday except for purposes of emergencies pursuant to Municipal Code Section 18-63. Temporary on‐site signage in the immediate proximity of the southern project
construction boundary shall be erected notifying construction personnel of the prohibition. The erection of appropriate signage shall be verified by an acoustical engineer on the first day of construction activities and pursuant to a weekly schedule thereafter. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building Official and Director of Planning.
• Within the buffer zone, the Project Applicant shall utilize a construction vibration monitoring system with the potential to measure low levels of vibration
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 93
(i.e., 0.2 inch-per-sec PPV) to ensure human annoyance and structural damage does not occur. If the 0.2 inch-per-second PPV criterion is exceeded, use of the heavy construction equipment causing the exceedance must cease and light construction equipment or alternate strategies shall be employed to ensure the vibration criterion is not exceeded. Sensitivity training shall be performed to inform construction personnel about the existing sensitive
receptors surrounding the project and about methods to reduce noise and vibration.
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. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and there are no public or private airports or airstrips within two miles of the project site. The nearest public use airport to the project site is the Ontario International Airport which is located approximately 6.2 miles to the
southwest of the project site. According to the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the project site is not located within the Ontario International Airport CNEL contours.55 The project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact related
to airport land use compatibility would occur.
55 City of Ontario, 2011, LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, available at:
https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/pdfs/ALUCP_FULL.pdf, accessed February 11, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 94
XIV. Population and Housing
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
a) Would the project 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)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located on land that is currently vacant and undeveloped. The current General Plan land use designation of the project site is Multi-Family High Residential (R-MFH) (39.1-50 dwelling units/acre [du/ac]), and the zoning designation is Multi-Family High Density Residential (R5), which is the most intense multiple-family residential zoning district.
The project proposes a density of 39.1 du/ac, which is consistent with Multi-Family High Density Residential (R5) zoning. The proposed project would develop 340 multi-family residential units,
1,500 square feet of commercial space, and four live-work units on a project site of 8.8 acres (9.5 gross acres with road improvements and sidewalks). The most recent data from the California Department of Finance estimates that there are 4.02 persons per household in the City of
Fontana.56 As the proposed project would introduce 344 new dwelling units, approximately 1,383 residents would be added to the City’s population. As of 2021, the City has a population of approximately 213,944 residents;57 the addition of the proposed project would increase the
population by approximately 0.65 percent. This calculation also assumes that all residents living in the proposed project would be new to the City and does not factor in the scenario where current residents relocate to housing within the proposed project once it is operating. Still, with the
maximum estimated increase well under 1 percent of the population, this addition would be less than significant to the population of Fontana.
The California State Housing Element routinely updates local housing needs in order to meet the
population’s needs and does so via the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation Plan. Under the RHNA, SCAG released its sixth cycle of this plan outlining that by 2029, Fontana
56 California Department of Finance, 2021, Populations and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/, accessed December 1, 2021. 57 Ibid.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 95
would require 17,519 new housing units.58 The proposed project would contribute 344 market-rate units towards this goal.
Properties surrounding the project site are characterized by urban development and include residential and commercial uses. The proposed project would not introduce any new roadways into the vicinity of the project site, and would widen the existing Live Oak Avenue by approximately 9 feet to its ultimate street width of 44 feet. The proposed project would also underground the
existing overhead powerlines within the project site; this component of the proposed project would be confined to the project site and would not impact surrounding powerlines.
The proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial unplanned population
growth, nor would it change the existing use of the project site. Impacts to substantial unplanned population growth would be less than significant.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project site exists on currently vacant land. The site does not have any housing, and no residents reside on the project site. The proposed project would not displace any existing
people or housing, and thus would not require replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
58 Southern California Association of Governments, 2021, 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocation Plan, Adopted 3/4/21 and Updated 7/1/21, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th-cycle-rhna-final-allocation-plan.pdf?1625161899, accessed December 1, 2021.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 96
XV. Public Services
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a) 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:
i) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
v) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
a)i) 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 fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection and emergency response services for the City of Fontana and project site are provided by the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD), which is
part of the San Bernardino County Fire Department. The FFPD currently operates seven fire stations. The nearest fire station to the project site is San Bernardino County Fire Station Number 73, located 1.2 driving miles southwest of the project site at 14360 Arrow Route. Fire Station 73
is one of two on-duty Hazardous Material Response Teams in the County, responding to hazardous materials calls throughout the County and assisting surrounding communities and departments as needed. Station 73 has one captain, one engineer, one firefighter medic, and one firefighter, and is equipped with one medical engine.59
Increased demands for fire protection and services result from increases in permanent population, but can also be related to the size, height, type of land uses, and location. As discussed in Section D.XIV(a), the proposed project would introduce approximately 1,383 new residents to the City’s population, which is an approximately 0.65 percent increase to the current population. The project
site is already zoned for Multi-Family High Density Residential (R5), the most intense multiple-
59 City of Fontana, n.d., Fire Protection District, Stations and Equipment – Fire Station 73, available at: https://www.fontana.org/639/Stations-Equipment, accessed December 30, 2021.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 97
family residential zoning, and is already within the service area of the FFPD. Additionally, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Resources Assessment Program, the project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).60 Based on the types of proposed uses for this project, location, and minor increase in the City’s population, it is anticipated that the proposed project would result in minimal increases for calls for service. It is not anticipated that the proposed project would require the addition of new
personnel or facilities. Additionally, the proposed project would be developed in accordance with applicable city, county, and state regulations, codes, and policies pertaining to fire hazard reduction and protection. Furthermore, the proposed project would prepare a Fire Protection Plan
that includes measures consistent with the unique problems resulting from the location, topography, geology, flammable vegetation, and climate of the proposed development site. The Fire Protection Plan would also address water supply, access, building ignition fire resistance, fire
protection systems and equipment, defensible space, vegetation management, and maintenance requirements of flammable objects.
Increased property tax from future new developments, including the proposed project, would
increase the Fire District’s General Funds in rough proportions, providing funding for any capital improvements necessary to maintain adequate fire protection facilities, equipment, and/or personnel. Additionally, the FFPD collects development mitigation fees for fire facilities which
would be available to fund additional fire protection facilities as needed. The facility fees associated with the proposed project would help the City provide fire services at the project site and finance new fire stations and equipment.
Therefore, the proposed project would not be considered a fire hazard and would not exceed the capacity of the FFPD to serve the site or other areas with existing fire protection services. The nearest local fire responders would be notified, as appropriate, of the construction schedule to coordinate emergency response routing during construction work. Impacts to fire services would be less than significant.
a)ii) 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 police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection for the City of Fontana and project site is
provided by the Fontana Police Department (FPD). The FPD operates out of its headquarters located at 17005 Upland Avenue, approximately 1.6 miles northeast of the project site.
The City has a target officer to population ratio of 1.4 sworn officers for every 1,000 residents.61
With the City’s population of approximately 213,944 residents,62 the City would require 299 sworn officers to meet its service goal. The City currently has 192 sworn officers and an additional 112
60 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, n.d., Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed December 1, 2021. 61 City of Fontana, 2018 June 8, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report, available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-
for-the-General-Plan-Update, accessed December 29, 2021. 62 California Department of Finance, 2021, Populations and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/, accessed December 1, 2021.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 98
civilian employees,63 and thus, is currently operating with 0.9 officers per 1,000 residents. The proposed project’s introduction of 344 new dwelling units, an addition of approximately 1,383 new residents, would incrementally increase demand for police protection services and reduce the ratio of sworn police officers to residents to 0.89 officers per 1,000 residents. During the application process, the City provided the application materials to the FPD for review and feedback. The FPD did not indicate that the development of the proposed project would require
new or expanded police facilities. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of police facilities. Further, the proposed project would be subject to a development impact fee for the provision of police protection services.
Consistent with the requirements of Fontana Municipal Code Section 21-122, the proposed project would pay the required development impact fee to the FPD to offset the incremental increase in demand for police services. Additionally, the local police station would be notified, as
appropriate, of the construction schedule to coordinate emergency response routing during construction work. Impacts to police services would be less than significant.
a)iii) 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 schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is served by the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD). Within the FUSD, student attendance for the project site is assigned to Redwood Elementary for grades K-6, Almeria Middle School for grades 6-8, and Summit High School for grades 9-12.64 Redwood Elementary is located at 8570 Redwood Avenue and is approximately
0.9 driving miles south from the project site. Almeria Middle School is located at 7723 Almeria Avenue and is approximately 1.7 driving miles northeast of the project site. Summit High School is located at 15551 Summit Avenue and is approximately 4.3 driving miles north of the project
site.
Table 16: Existing School Facilities Capacity and Student Enrollment shows the 2019-2020 school year capacities and enrollment for elementary, middle, and high school students in the FUSD. As
shown in Table 16, there is an existing shortage of capacity for elementary and middle school. With additional approved planned residential development, additional facilities will be needed. Table 17: Projected Enrollment from Project Operation shows the student generation rate per
household and the projected enrollment based on the proposed project’s addition of 340 new households to the community.65
63 Hillard Heintze LLC, 2020, Fontana Police Department – An Independent Assessment of Law Enforcement Operations, November 6, available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/34041/Hillard-Heintze-Report-for-the-Fontana-Police-Department-11-06-20?bidId=, accessed December 29, 2021. 64 Fontana Unified School District, 2019, New School Boundaries 2019-2022, available at:
https://fusd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=4faad1b570994ad09e39040551077c2e, accessed December 30, 2021. 65 Does not include the four live-work units.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 99
Table 16: Existing School Facilities Capacity and Student Enrollment1
School Level 2019-20
Facilities Capacity
2019-20
Student Enrollment
Surplus/(Shortage) of Permanent Capacity
Elementary School 16,095 16,682 (587)
Middle School 7,539 7,612 (73)
High School 13,007 11,816 1,191
1Table 2: Existing School Facilities Capacity and Student Enrollment from Draft Fontana Unified School District Developer Fee Justification Study Source: Special District Financing & Administration, 2020 April, Draft Fontana Unified School District Developer Fee Justification Study, available at: https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/4/DFJ.pdf.
Table 17: Projected Enrollment from Project Operation
School Student Generation Factor1 Projected Enrollment2
Redwood Elementary 0.34 115.6
Almeria Middle School 0.16 54.4
Summit High School 0.15 51
1 Multi-family Attached (MFA) Student Generation Factor (students per dwelling units) in Table 4 from the Draft
Fontana Unified School District Developer Fee Justification Study 2 Based on 340 units (not including the live-work units) Source: Special District Financing & Administration, 2020 April. Draft Fontana Unified School District Developer Fee Justification Study, available at: https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/4/DFJ.pdf
While the proposed project’s impact on student population would cumulatively increase demand from school services as the tables demonstrate, the proposed project would not have a significant
impact related to the provision of new or expanded school facilities upon the payment of school impact fees pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1) and Senate Bill 50.66 Per California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1), the governing board of any school district is
authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. The payment of school impact fees authorized by Senate Bill 50 is deemed to
provide full and complete mitigation of project impacts on school facilities pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code. Pursuant to Senate Bill 50, school districts can collect school impact fees as new development occurs to fund additional school resources. The project
would be required to pay school impact fees. As such, impacts to school services would be less than significant.
a)iv) 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
66 State of California, 1996, Education Code, Section 17620, Chapter 6: Development Fees, Charges, and
Dedications, available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EDC§ionNum=17620, accessed December 29, 2021.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 100
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in detail in Section D.XVI, Recreation, below, the proposed project’s potential for increasing the use of existing parks and facilities as a result of project-related growth in population would not result in any new significant impacts regarding recreation. The proposed project does not include the construction or expansion of public
recreational facilities, and would be developed on vacant land zoned for Multi-Family High Density Residential use. As such, the proposed project would not directly impact public parkland. The City has a goal of 5 acres of public parkland per 1,000 persons, and a total of 1,195 acres of protected
open space.67 As of 2021, the City has a population of approximately 213,944 residents and is currently meeting its park service goal. The proposed project would include the development of housing, which would introduce approximately 1,383 new residents to the City’s population, which
is an approximately 0.65 percent increase to the current population. While the proposed project may result in an indirect impact upon existing recreational facilities through the introduction of new residents, it would still allow the City to meet (and exceed) its park service goal. Additionally,
the proposed project would include private fitness/clubroom space, four courtyards and a pool courtyard, and other outdoor amenities as required by Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-451 for resident use, which would potentially decrease new residents’ use of existing public parkland.
Further, to maintain existing parks, fund new parks, and maintain the quality of life of the City’s populations, the City has established a park development fee, which requires new residential development to contribute to the cost of expanding the availability of community and recreation center assets in the City. The proposed project would be required to comply with the park development fee. Thus, impacts to parks would be less than significant.
a)v) 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 other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include 344 new dwelling units,
which would add an estimated 1,383 new residents to the community. While this addition to the population of the City of Fontana would increase demand of library services within the community, the impact would be nominal as the proposed project would only increase the current population
by approximately 0.65 percent and the City of Fontana’s local library, Fontana Lewis Library & Technology Center, is one of 32 branch libraries within the network of the San Bernardino County Library System.68 Further, the proposed project would be subject to a Library Impact Fee, which
would prevent new residential development from reducing the quality and availability of public services provided to residents of the City and require new residential development to contribute to the cost of expanding the availability of library and cultural center assets in the City. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
67 City of Fontana, 2018, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015–2035, Conservation, Open Space, Parks and
Trails (Chapter 7). 68 San Bernardino County Library, n.d., About Us, available at: http://www.sbclib.org/Information/AboutUs.aspx, accessed April 29, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 101
XVI. Recreation
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a) Would the project 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) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
a) Would the project 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. The City has 23 neighborhood parks, 12 community parks, and Martin-Tudor-Jurupa Hills Regional Park, which includes 780 acres of open space, for a total of 1,195 acres of protected open space. The closest existing park to the project site is Heritage
Playground E at 14190 W. Constitution Way, approximately 0.9 miles northwest of the project site. The proposed project would develop 344 new dwelling units, which would introduce approximately 1,383 residents to the City’s population, and the addition of the proposed project
would increase the population by approximately 0.65 percent. The City has a goal of 5 acres of public parkland per 1,000 persons, is currently meeting its park service goal, and would continue to meet its service goal with the implementation of the proposed project. However, with the
addition of 1,383 residents, there is potential that operation of the proposed project would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. To maintain existing parks, fund new parks, and maintain the quality of life of the City’s populations, the City has established a park development fee, which would require new residential development to contribute to the cost of expanding the availability of community and recreation center assets in the City. Additionally, the proposed project would include private fitness/clubroom space, four courtyards and a pool courtyard, and other outdoor amenities as required by Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-451 for resident use, which would potentially decrease new residents’ use of
existing public parkland. With the park development fee and inclusion of private outdoor amenity space for residents, impacts related to the proposed project increasing 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 would be less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not include the construction or expansion of public recreational facilities. The proposed project would include fitness/clubroom
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 102
space, four courtyards and a pool courtyard, and other outdoor amenities as required by Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-451, which would serve residents of the proposed project. Construction of these facilities would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment because they would be developed in accordance with site-specific development standards, as outlined in the Fontana Municipal Code and other applicable ordinances. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to the City’s park development fees which is imposed on new
development to offset any added burden to the City’s park system caused by the development. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 103
XVII. Transportation
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The analysis and findings throughout this section are based on the Transportation Impact Study, provided as Appendix K of this IS/MND and incorporated herein by reference.
Discussion
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Fontana Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines indicates that a significant impact would occur if the project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decreases the
performance or safety of such facilities.69 The project site and surrounding vicinity includes transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Foothill Boulevard currently has Class II bicycle facilities along the project site frontage and within the project vicinity. Similarly, a sidewalk is present on Foothill
Boulevard along the project frontage. The project site frontage along Live Oak Avenue is currently undeveloped and does not provide a sidewalk, although a sidewalk is provided on the opposite side of Live Oak Avenue from the project site. Omnitrans Route 66 runs along Foothill Boulevard,
with bus stops on both sides of Foothill Boulevard (100 feet for the eastbound route and 650 feet for the westbound route from the project site).
The City of Fontana General Plan, Community Mobility Circulation Element contains goals and
policies for expanding the options for transit and pedestrian and bicycle mobility within the City. One of the goals of the Community Mobility Circulation Element is for “Fontana’s commercial and mixed-use areas [to] include a multi-functional street network that ensures a safe, comfortable, and efficient movement of people, goods, and services to support a high quality of life and
69 City of Fontana, Department of Engineering, Traffic Engineering Division, 2020 October, Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment, available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/35928/TIA-Guidelines---VMT-Assessment, accessed March 8, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 104
economic vitality.”70 The proposed project would develop a 344-unit apartment complex, including 4 live-work units, with 1,500 square feet of commercial uses and an outdoor public plaza. The proposed project would activate the property’s frontage along Foothill Boulevard with landscaping, the commercial space, the outdoor plaza, and units that face the street. Additionally, the proposed project would include modifications along Live Oak Avenue, including installation of a public sidewalk where there is currently none. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s
goal for a multi-functional street network and furthers the City’s policy to “encourage mixed use and commercial developments that support walking, bicycling, and public transit use while balancing the needs of motorized traffic to serve such developments.”71
The City of Fontana Active Transportation Plan (ATP) guides development of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure for better connectivity within the City and surrounding regions and complements the Fontana General Plan’s principle to “Connect people and places. Provide safe
and efficient transportation choices, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit opportunities, along with well-maintained streets, to connect people to city destinations.”72 Objective 3.A of the ATP states: Incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities into private and public
development projects.”73 The proposed project would develop a 344-unit apartment complex on a currently vacant and undeveloped property. The proposed project would include modifications along Live Oak Avenue, including installation of a public sidewalk where there is currently none.
Further, Policy 3.A.1 states: “Support and encourage local efforts to require the construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities such as landscaping, wayfinding and seating areas, as a condition of approval of new development and major redevelopment projects.”74 The proposed project would install landscaping surrounding both buildings, which would contribute to a more pedestrian friendly environment. The proposed project would also include four live-work units in the northern building fronting Foothill Boulevard, adjacent to the commercial space in the northwestern corner of the building. The outdoor public plaza and many units of the northern building, including the live-work units, face the street and have direct access to Foothill Boulevard,
creating a pedestrian friendly environment.
The project would not conflict with existing pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities and would construct frontage improvements consistent with planned facilities and the City’s design
standards. The project is not expected to conflict with existing bus route operations. During construction activities, vehicles and equipment would access the project site via Foothill Boulevard and Live Oak Avenue. Project activities would be confined to the project site with the
exception of haul trucks, utility connections, lane modifications and restriping activities, which would require temporary lane closures of the eastbound right lane on Foothill Boulevard fronting the project site and the southbound lane on Live Oak Avenue. However, ingress and egress to
the site and surrounding area, particularly for emergency response vehicles, would be maintained at all times. Construction impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities on Foothill Boulevard would be intermittent and temporary.
The proposed project would not conflict with the City’s Community Mobility Circulation Element or ATP, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities. Additionally, since Senate Bill 743 went into effect, consistency with LOS is not part of the CEQA
70 City of Fontana, 2018, General Plan Update, Community Mobility Circulation (Chapter 9).
71 Ibid. 72 City of Fontana, 2017, Active Transportation Plan, available at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/27009/ATP-Final-Report, accessed March 9, 2022. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 105
impact assessment. However, the City of Fontana requires a separate LOS-based traffic analysis to demonstrate that the traffic added by the project would maintain mobility performance goals outlined in the City's General Plan. As such, the LOS-based traffic study was submitted to the City under separate cover for review and approval. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 establishes vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), VMT exceeding an applicable threshold of significance for land use
projects may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects located within 0.5 miles of an existing high‐quality transit corridor should be considered to have a less than significant impact. Projects that reduce VMT in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant impact. Subdivision (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.3, acknowledges that lead agencies may not be able to quantitatively estimate VMT for every project type; in these cases, a qualitative analysis may be used. The regulation goes on to state that lead agencies have the discretion to formulate a methodology that would appropriately analyze a project’s VMT (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4)).
Per the recently adopted City of Fontana Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, VMT should
be assessed on all projects. However, the guidelines include three screening criteria to determine whether a VMT analysis is needed. A VMT analysis would be required for the proposed project if the project does not meet any of the following criteria:
• The project is located in a Transit Priority Area;
• The project is in a low VMT-generating area; or
• The project type is not presumed to have a less than a significant impact.
The proposed project is located within a low VMT-generating zone, which is defined in Fontana as a Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) that generates 15 percent less VMT than the County of San Bernardino average. TAZs are geographic areas containing socioeconomic data used in the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model to evaluate regional travel patterns. As specified in the City’s guidelines, projects located in a low VMT-generating zone should have land uses that are a similar type, density and character of land uses coded in the TAZ in the base year of
the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model. To confirm this, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority VMT Calculator tool was reviewed, and 159 multifamily units and 51 retail employees are currently coded into TAZ 53714102, where the project is located. As these
uses are similar to the proposed project, the proposed project is projected to generate VMT at a similar rate to the TAZ, which would be 15 percent below the County average.
As such, this proposed project meets all the requirements of screening under a low VMT-
generating area as adopted by the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, and no further VMT analysis is required. Therefore, impacts related to VMTs would be less than significant.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 106
c) Would the project 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. The proposed project would be developed within the vacant and undeveloped property except for roadway modifications, sidewalk improvements, and a new public sidewalk on Live Oak Avenue. Along Foothill Boulevard, partial removal and replacement
of some of the existing curb/gutter, as well as sidewalk improvements, would be required to install a new driveway access point at the northwest corner of the project site. Additionally, the proposed project would widen Live Oak Avenue by approximately 9 feet to its ultimate street width of 44
feet, and install new curb and gutter along the entire eastern frontage of the project site along Live Oak Avenue. Modifications along Live Oak Avenue would also include three driveway approaches (i.e., one for residential access and two for emergency access) and installation of a
public sidewalk. The design of the proposed project, including ingress, egress, and streetscape changes would be subject to review by the City’s Department of Engineering and would require adherence to all applicable design and safety standards. Additionally, the proposed project does
not introduce any incompatible uses to the project site or vicinity. Therefore, impacts related to increased hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible land uses would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. During construction activities, which would take place for approximately 26 months, vehicles and equipment would access the project site via Foothill Boulevard and Live Oak Avenue. Temporary lane closures are anticipated during construction of the proposed project. Project activities would be confined to the project site with the exception of haul trucks, utilities connections, and lane modifications and restriping activities which would require temporary lane closures of the eastbound right lane on Foothill Boulevard fronting the project site and the southbound lane on Live Oak Avenue. Parking restrictions on the eastern side
of Live Oak Avenue may be necessary to allow lanes to remain open during portions of construction. During construction, ingress and egress to the project site and surrounding area, particularly for emergency response vehicles, would be maintained at all times. As discussed in
Section A.VI, Project Best Management Practices, the proposed project would coordinate with emergency response agencies, including, but not limited, to the FFPD and the FPD, regarding construction schedules and worksite traffic control plans to coordinate emergency response
routing and maintain emergency access. The worksite traffic control plans would comply with all applicable City, FFPD, and FPD standards for appropriate emergency access. Additionally, through the City’s design review process, the proposed project is designed to address aspects of
ingress to and egress from the project site and the on‐site circulation system, including the width
of all project driveways and on‐site roadways to ensure that the minimum acceptable turning radius required to accommodate emergency response vehicles is provided. The proposed project would also include two driveways on Live Oak Avenue for emergency vehicle access only. As
such, construction and operation of the proposed project would not interfere with implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 107
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
a) 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:
i) 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), or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) 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.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The information, analysis, and findings in this section are the result of government-to-government consultation pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(b). The
AB 52 notification letters and tribal correspondence are included in Appendix L. As requested by the Kizh Nation, their AB 52 consultation correspondence is being included and kept in a confidential appendix and will not be released for public review due to the sensitive nature of the
tribal cultural resources.
Discussion
a)i) 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 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. Tribal cultural resources include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to California Native American tribes. The project site is within the ancestral territory of the Gabrielino, and was likely used by the Gabrielino and possibly other Native American groups. However, the project site is located far from any known Native American villages or any reliable sources of water. A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 108
requested to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on December 6, 2021. The NAHC responded on February 2, 2022, and stated, “A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative.” Additionally, as discussed in Section D.V(a) and (b) above, a cultural resources identification study was conducted for the proposed project, which included a SCCIC records search; literature, historical
map and aerial photo review; an archaeological buried site sensitivity analysis of the project site; a pedestrian survey; and an evaluation of identified archaeological sites to determine if they are eligible for listing in the California Register. The records search indicated that no cultural
resources are located within the project site, although nine resources are located within half-mile of the project site. The pedestrian survey conducted for the proposed project identified two potential historical archaeological sites; however, neither of the two resources appear to be
eligible for inclusion in the California Register due to their lack of historical significance, or appear to be of Native American origin. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources that is listed or eligible for listing
in a state or local register of historical resources, and no impact would occur.
a)ii) 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 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. In February 2022, the City initiated tribal consultation with interested California Native American tribes consistent with AB 52. The City sent letters consistent with AB 52 and requested consultation from the following
tribes: the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.
To date, the City has received responses from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation requested consultation with the City via email on February 28, 2022, and consultation
occurred on April 26, 2022. Following consultation, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation provided additional details via email on May 4, 2022 (confidential appendix). The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians responded via email on March 7, 2022, that they did not have any concerns with implementation of the proposed project due to the nature and location of the proposed project and provided the tribe’s preferred mitigation measures for treatment of cultural and tribal cultural resources in the event of an unanticipated discovery. The City prepared the mitigation measures set forth below taking into consideration input provided by the tribes.
As discussed in Section D.XVIII(a), the project site is located far from any known Native American villages or any reliable sources of water, and thus, the potential for tribal cultural resources at the project site is low. Nonetheless, during the construction of the proposed project, unknown tribal cultural resources could potentially be encountered, particularly during ground-disturbing
activities. As discussed in Section D.V, Cultural Resources, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 would
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 109
be implemented if archaeological materials are uncovered in the course of ground-disturbing activities. In order to minimize impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would be implemented. Further, if resources are encountered that are prehistoric or otherwise likely of Native American origin, Mitigation Measure TCR-2 would be implemented. With implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2, impacts related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources with significance to a California
Native American tribe would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
TCR-1: The Project Applicant shall retain a tribal monitor. The monitor shall be retained
prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description), and the project proponent shall provide the City evidence of the
executed monitoring agreement prior to ground disturbance or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The tribal monitor shall be selected from or approved by one of the consulting tribes. The tribal
monitor will be present on-site during ground-disturbing activities during project construction. “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation,
drilling, and trenching. The tribal monitor shall 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, culturally related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the tribe. Monitoring logs will identify and describe any discovered resources of significance to the tribe, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, archaeological features, places of significance, etc., as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human
remains and burial goods, all of which have the potential to be considered tribal cultural resources. These logs will be provided to the City and upon request will be made available by for inspection by all consulting tribes.
TCR-2: Upon discovery of any archaeological resources, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find (i.e., not less than the surrounding 60 feet) shall cease until the find can be assessed. All tribal and archaeological resources unearthed
by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist with a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern California and the on-site tribal
monitor. If the resources are Native American in origin, the consulting tribes will be notified and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, and interested tribes shall coordinate with the City and the landowner regarding significance, treatment, and final disposition of these resources. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation takes place.
Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to the consulting tribes for comment. All subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. Treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to remove the
resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. The
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 110
consulting tribes will be consulted as to the final disposition of artifacts of Native American origin recovered during monitoring or mitigation excavations, which may include curation or reburial. The final disposition of significant resources obtained during data recovery excavations will similarly be determined in consultation with the Native American tribes and will be specified in the data recovery plan. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be
curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the consulting tribes or a local
school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied
to the City for dissemination to consulting tribes.
If human remains are encountered, work within 60 feet of the discovery will be suspended and the City will be contacted immediately. The City will in turn contact
the Los Angeles County coroner. If the remains are deemed Native American in origin, the coroner will contact the NAHC, which will identify a most likely descendant in compliance with PRC Section 5097.98 and CCR Section 15064.5.
In accordance with state law, the most likely descendant will have up to 48 hours to visit the site and make recommendations as to the treatment and final deposition of the remains. Work may be resumed at the landowner’s discretion but will only commence after consultation and treatment have been concluded to the satisfaction of the lead agency in consultation with consulting tribes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while consultation and treatment are conducted.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 111
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have sufficient 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 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact. Utilities that are available to the project site include:
Water – Fontana Water Company
Sewer – City of Fontana/Inland Empire Utility Agency (IEUA)
Stormwater – City of Fontana
Electricity – Southern California Edison (SCE)
Natural Gas – Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas)
Telephone/Cable/Internet – Several service providers available in the area.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 112
Water
Construction activities are anticipated to occur over an approximate 26-month period, during which a standard water truck would be required for dust control during demolition, excavation, site cleaning, and grading activities. However, these activities are limited and temporary, and would not consume large amounts of water. During operation, the proposed project would require water for residents and the irrigation of landscaped areas. Water for the proposed project would
be provided by the FWC and would connect to either the existing 16-inch water main line on Foothill Boulevard, 2-inch main line on Live Oak Avenue, or 12-inch main line at the northern portion of Live Oak Avenue. If any upgrades are required to provide the needed fire flow, the main
lines may be upsized. However, an expansion of off-site water facilities would not be required to serve the proposed project and the impact would be less than significant.
Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater treatment service is provided by the IEUA, in partnership with the City of Fontana. The IEUA currently operates four regional wastewater treatment facilities: Regional Plant (RP)-1, RP-4, RP-5, and Carbon Canyon Wastewater Reclamation Facility. The City is located within the
RP-4 service area. According to the IEUA’s most recent UWMP, RP-4 has a rated permitted treatment capacity of 14 million gallons per day (gpd) and is treats an average of 10 million gpd,
which is only 71 percent of its capacity.75 Additionally, the City of Fontana owns and maintains
pump stations and 437 miles of sewer lines.
The proposed project would operate a new mixed-use development of 340 multi-family residential units, 1,500 square feet of commercial space, and four live-work units. The proposed project is estimated to generate a combined total of 53,814 gallons of wastewater per day, based on a wastewater generation rate of 156 gpd per household and 100 gpd per 1,000 square feet of commercial use.76 This wastewater generation amounts to approximately 0.4 percent of RP-4’s 14 million gpd capacity, representing a nominal increase in the amount of wastewater treated daily by the wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, impacts associated with wastewater treatment
requirements and capacity would be less than significant.
Stormwater Drainage
As discussed above in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, there are no natural drainage
courses located on-site, including streams or rivers, and the site is relatively flat. As discussed in Section B.VI, the proposed project would develop and implement an Erosion Control and Grading Plan and WQMP for construction activities, which would maintain existing hydrology for discharge
of stormwater to the southwest corner of the project site, which connects to an existing surface drainage channel. Therefore, impacts related to storm water drainage during construction would be similar to existing conditions, and would be less than significant. Operation of the proposed
project would increase impermeable surfaces which could increase stormwater runoff. However, the proposed project would include the development of a storm drainage system that would implement LID improvements, as recommended by Fontana Municipal Code Section 28-111.
Stormwater would be collected from impervious areas and directed to the proposed underground storage system used to store and infiltrate runoff and ultimately convey stormwater runoff to the
75 Inland Empire Utilities Agency, 2016, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, accessed January 11, 2022. 76 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, n.d., Table 1: Loadings for Each Class of Land Use, available at: https://www.lacsd.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3644/637644575489800000, accessed January 12, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 113
existing storm drain system. This would limit the release of stormwater from the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
The project site is surrounded by residential development. These areas require access to electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. Due to the close proximity of the project site to existing electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities, substantial
expansion of such utilities would not be required to serve the proposed project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities are anticipated to occur over an
approximate 26-month period, during which a standard water truck would be required for dust control during demolition, excavation, site cleaning, and grading activities. However, these activities are limited and temporary, and would not consume large amounts of water.
Water to the project site would be supplied by the FWC. The FWC water facilities produce, treat, store, and deliver drinking water to a population of approximately 237,000 in the City of Fontana, portions of the Cities of Rialto and Rancho Cucamonga, and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. Supplied by local groundwater basins, local surface water, purchased Inland Empire Utilities Agency and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District water, and recycled water, the FWC estimates that for 2035 approximately 13,627 million gallons (MG) of water (48,665 acre-foot) is available for use during a normal year, dry year, and multiple dry years, of which 560 MG (2,000 acre-foot) of water is excess capacity.77
The proposed project would operate a new mixed-use development of 340 multi-family residential units, 1,500 square feet of commercial space, and four live-work units with parking and outdoor amenities including landscaping, on a currently vacant and undeveloped property. Water would
be used for typical residential use, as well as for irrigation of the landscaped areas and other outdoor open space. The proposed project would comply with all applicable water conservation policies and regulations to minimize water demand at the project site. Based on estimated water
use for new development data from the California Department of Water Resources Indoor Residential Water Use Study, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 67,676 gpd for residential uses78 and 1,296 gpd for commercial uses,79 totaling 68,972 gpd. Therefore,
sufficient water supplies would be available to accommodate the projected water demand
77 Fontana Water Company, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, available at: https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf, accessed January 11, 2022. 78 Based on a mean estimate for multi-family indoor residential water use of 49 gallons per capita day (at 344 units and 1,383 persons) from the California Department of Water Resources, 2021 November 31, Public Review Draft Report to the Legislature on Results of the Indoor Residential Water Use Study, available at: https://water.ca.gov/SearchResults?sort=relevance&search=water+use+study&tab=documents, accessed January 26, 2022.
79 Based on a conservative assumption of “Coffee House” uses, which results in a sewerage generation factor of 720 gpd day/1,000 square feet (for a total 1,080 gpd for 1,500 square feet of commercial space). It is assumed that water usage would have a factor of 1.2 times the sewerage generation rate, resulting in water demand of 1,296 gpd for 1,500 square feet of commercial space. Sewerage facilities rates are from City of Los Angeles LA Sanitation & Environment, 2012, Sewerage Facilities Charge Sewage Generation Factor For Residential and Commercial Categories.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 114
resulting from operation of the proposed project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts to water supply would be less than significant.
c) Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Wastewater from the project site would be conveyed by the City
of Fontana’s collection system, then treated by the IEUA. Wastewater that is generated by project site would be transported through the existing collection system and sent to IEUA’s wastewater treatment facilities where it is processed into recycled water. As discussed above, the City is
located within the RP-4 service area, and RP-4 has a rated permitted treatment capacity of 14 million gpd and is treats an average of 10 million gpd.
The proposed project would operate a new mixed-use development of 340 multi-family residential
units, 1,500 square feet of commercial space, and four live-work units on a currently vacant and undeveloped property. Wastewater would be generated for typical residential use. The proposed project is estimated to generate a combined total of 53,814 gallons of wastewater per day. This
wastewater generation amounts to approximately 0.4 percent of RP-4’s 14 million gpd capacity, representing a nominal increase in the amount of wastewater treated daily by the wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, the IEUA would have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project
in addition to its existing commitments. Impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant.
d) Would the project 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. The City contracts with Burrtec for providing refuse and recycling services for residential, commercial, and industrial customers.80 Burrtec would dispose of solid waste at the Salton City Landfill located at 935 West Highway 86.81 The proposed project would
excavate approximately 45,360 cubic yards of soils; however, most of the soils would be used as backfill, and as such, the proposed project would haul away approximately 2,600 cubic yards of material. The Salton City Landfill can receive a maximum of 12,100 tons per day and has a
remaining capacity of 1,264,170 cubic yards.82 The proposed project would incorporate source reduction techniques and recycling measures and maintain a recycling program to divert waste in accordance with the City’s Construction and Demolition Recycling Program. Additionally, the City
requires all general contractors to provide a Construction Waste Management Plan (CWMP). The plan outlines how recoverable material will be diverted from the landfill. Weight slips documenting the actual disposed and diverted amounts must be provided. The final CWMP must be completed
at the conclusion of the project and submitted to the Building & Safety Division prior to final inspection. With implementation of these waste reduction measures, solid waste generated by the proposed project would not cause the capacity of the Salton City Landfill to be exceeded. The proposed project would be required to comply with the state building code regarding construction and demolition, and to submit and adhere to a project-specific CWMP. The Salton City Landfill
80 City of Fontana, Public Works, n.d., Trash and Recycling Services, available at: https://www.fontana.org/541/Trash-and-Recycling-Services, accessed January 6, 2022.
81 Burrtec, Recycling Resources, available at: https://www.burrtec.com/our-facilities/, accessed January 6, 2022. 82 CalRecycle, 2019, SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details for Salton City Solid Waste Site (13-AA-0011), available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4186?siteID=598, accessed January 6, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 115
would adequately accommodate the anticipated amount of solid waste generated for the proposed project. Construction impacts related to landfill capacity would be less than significant.
The implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to result in an increase in residents to the City. The proposed project would introduce 344 new dwelling units, or approximately 1,383 future residents, and 1,500 square feet of commercial space. Thus, it is anticipated that operational activities would generate approximately 2.1 tons per day of solid waste for residential
uses and 69 pounds per day for commercial uses during proposed project operation.83 As such, the operation of the proposed project would result in an increase in solid waste generation over existing conditions. However, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of
state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, and as stated above, the Salton City Landfill can receive a maximum of 12,100 tons per day. Moreover, the proposed project would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Operational impacts related
to landfill capacity would be less than significant.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate waste during the construction phase, as well as the operational phase. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires jurisdictions to refocus their solid waste
management by diverting waste from landfills (e.g., source reduction, recycling, and composting) to reduce dependence on landfills for solid waste disposal. AB 939 established mandatory diversion goals of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000. AB 341 (2011) amended the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to include a provision declaring that it is the policy goal of the State that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source‐reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020 and annually
thereafter. In addition, AB 341 required the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop strategies to achieve the State’s policy goal. In 2020, California’s recycling rate was 42 percent, up from 37 percent in 2019. Despite the increase
in the recycling rate, California did not meet the 75 percent recycling goal by 2020 as set out in AB 341. However, CalRecycle will continue to monitor the state’s progress, through a robust mix of research and reporting.
The City of Fontana is required by state law to reduce the amount of material that is hauled to landfills. In order to comply with the State mandate, the City requires all general contractors to provide a CWMP. The plan outlines how recoverable material will be diverted from the landfill. Weight slips documenting the actual disposed and diverted amounts must be provided. The final CWMP must be completed at the conclusion of the project and submitted to the Building & Safety Division prior to final inspection.
As described in Section D.XIX(d) above, the construction and operational waste generated by the proposed project would be properly disposed of in existing solid waste facilities. Construction materials and excavated soils would be disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations described above. The proposed project would be designed, constructed, and operated following all applicable laws, regulations, ordinances,
83 Residential Sector Generation Rate of 12.23 lbs/household/day and 0.046 lb/sqft/day commercial retail
generation rate (City of Los Angeles 2006 CEQA Thresholds Guide) from CalRecycle, 2019, Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, accessed January 6, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 116
and formally adopted City standards regarding solid waste disposal, including the City’s Construction and Demolition Recycling Program. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 117
XX. Wildfire
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
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 or maintenance 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA).84 The nearest SRA to the project site is located 5.1 miles south. In addition, as it is
located in an urbanized area, the project site does not contain lands designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Project development would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, 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?
No Impact. As stated in above in Section D.XX(a), the project site is not located in or near an SRA and does not contain lands designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The
84 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed December 1, 2021.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 118
proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance 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?
No Impact. As stated in above in Section D.XX(a), the project site is not located in or near an SRA and does not contain lands designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not increase the risk of fire. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project 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?
No Impact. As stated in above in Section D.XX(a), the project site is not located in or near an SRA and does not contain lands designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 119
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
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 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?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section D.IV above, the project consists of disturbed and developed land that is subject to routine weed
abatement and pedestrian traffic, and is surrounded by residential and commercial development. The project site does not provide suitable habitat for any special-status plant species; therefore, none are expected to occur within the project site. Additionally, no special-status vegetation
communities, sensitive natural communities, or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) occur within the project site.
Similarly, the project site generally does not provide suitable habitat for special-status wildlife species; however, marginal foraging and nesting habitat associated with the surrounding residential land uses exists for a variety of resident and migrant bird species that are adapted to a high degree of disturbance. Therefore, despite the limited vegetation on the project site, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be implemented prior to construction activities, which provides for the protection of migratory birds that could be present on the project site during nesting season.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 120
Additionally, the project site does not provide roosting habitat for bats (e.g., within hollow tree trunks/limbs, underneath tree foliage) for bats. However, because the project site is an undeveloped open space, bats may still forage over it if an insect prey base is present. Therefore, despite the limited vegetation on the project site, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be implemented, which requires a bat roosting habitat suitability assessment to protect roosting bats that could be present within the project site prior to the initiation of project activities.
Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 which requires pre-construction surveys and burrowing owl habitat avoidance buffers, would ensure appropriate steps are taken to prevent any potential impacts of construction on burrowing owls and their associated habitat. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would ensure that potential impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.
As discussed in Section D.V and Section D.XVIII, based on the results of the archival research
and field survey, no known cultural resources are located within the project site, and the potential that archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources, would be encountered during ground-disturbing activities for the proposed project is low. However, Mitigation Measures CUL-1, TCR-1 and TCR-2 would be implemented in order to reduce impacts related to important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory that may be encountered during such activities to a less than significant level.
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 Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section D.III(b) above, implementation of the proposed project would not result in short- or long-term air quality impacts, as emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD adopted construction or operational thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant.
GHG emissions contribute to the global condition known as the greenhouse effect, which is by its very nature, cumulative. As discussed in Sections D.VIII(a) and D.VIII(b) above, GHG emissions
that would be generated during construction activities are amortized over a 30-year operational lifetime. The total amount of proposed project-related GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources combined would total 2,655.52 MTCO2e per year, which is less than the threshold of
3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
As discussed in Sections D.XIII, operation of the proposed project would not result in a perceptible increase in noise levels over existing conditions or exceed the City’s residential exterior
standards. Additionally, no roadway segments would be subject to significant cumulative noise impacts from the proposed project, as none would exceed both the combined and incremental effects criteria and the land use compatibility standards. However, construction activities could result in temporary increases in noise and vibration levels at the Project site. Though construction noise and vibration impacts would be temporary in nature, the proposed project would comply with the City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-63 for construction activities, implement best management practices, and implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1 to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. As such, there would be no perceptible permanent increase in ambient noise levels, and the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable noise and vibration impacts.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 121
As discussed in Section D.IV above, the proposed project is located in an urban area and does not support native vegetation communities, resulting in a low potential for special-status wildlife to occur. The project site is not located within any wildlife corridors, wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, or areas of critical environmental concern identified in the San Bernardino County Countywide Plan. However, the project site provides marginal foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of resident and migrant bird species that are adapted to a high degree of disturbance
associated with the surrounding residential land uses. Additionally, although not observed or expected to occur within the project site, because the project site is an undeveloped open space, bats may still forage over it if an insect prey base is present. Although it is not expected to occur
on-site, the potential for burrowing owl to occur within the project site is considered low. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds, roosting bats, and burrowing owls, respectively, that may occur on the project site.
As such, the proposed project would not have a potentially significant impact on biological resources, and cumulatively considerable impacts to wildlife would be less than significant.
The proposed project would construct a 344-unit apartment complex in two four-story buildings in
an urban area surrounding by residential and commercial uses. As previously discussed, impacts related to the proposed project are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed project’s contribution to any
significant cumulative impacts, as mitigated, would be less than cumulatively considerable.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Numerous factors discussed above in the CEQA Initial Study Checklist pertain to the quality of the human environment and direct or indirect effects on human beings. These potentially include Aesthetics, Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services,
Recreation, Transportation, and Wildfire. Based on the analysis contained above, the environmental impacts created by the proposed project in relation to most of these factors would be less than significant without mitigation. With the incorporation of appropriate mitigation
measures, as described above, significant impacts related to cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not create environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The impact is less than significant with implementation of the identified mitigation measures.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 122
SECTION E. REFERENCES
Burrtec, Recycling Resources, available at: https://www.burrtec.com/our-facilities/, accessed
January 6, 2022.
California Air Resources Board, 2017 November, 2017 Scoping Plan.
California Department of Conservation, 2016, California Important Farmland Finder, available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed December 1, 2021.
_____, 1995, Mineral Land Classification of a Part of Southwester San Bernardino County: The San Bernardino Valley Area, California (West), accessed December 3, 2021.
_____, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), n.d., Well Finder, available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/, accessed January 3, 2022.
California Department of Finance, 2021, Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark, available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/, accessed January 25, 2022.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, n.d., Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/,
accessed December 1, 2021.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2022, EnviroStor Database, Search by Map Location, available at: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/, accessed January 3,
2022.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2018, California State Scenic Highway System Map, available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed January 12, 2022.
_____, 2013 September, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol,
available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf, accessed February 15, 2022.
California Department of Water Resources, 2021 November 31, Public Review Draft Report to the Legislature on Results of the Indoor Residential Water Use Study, available at: https://water.ca.gov/SearchResults?sort=relevance&search=water+use+study&tab=documents, accessed January 26, 2022. California Energy Commission, 2022 February, Final 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report
Volume IV California Energy Demand Forecast. _____, Electricity Consumption by County, available at: http://www.ecdms.
energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, accessed December 29, 2021.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 123
_____, Gas Consumption by County, available at: http://www.ecdms.energy. ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx, accessed December 29, 2021.
California State Water Resources Control Board, 2022, GeoTracker Database, Search by Map Location, available at: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/, accessed January 3, 2022.
CalRecycle, 2019, Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, accessed January 6, 2022.
_____, 2019, SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details for Salton City Solid Waste Site (13-AA-0011),
available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4186?siteID=598, accessed January 6, 2022.
Chino Basin Watermaster, 2020, 2020 Optimum Basin Management Program Update Report, January 2020, available at: http://www.cbwm.org/docs/OBMP%20Update/20200124_Final%202020%20OBMP%20
Update%20Report.pdf, accessed January 13, 2022.
_____, 2020, Maximum Benefit Annual Report, Figure 2-5: Chino Basin Recharge Basins, available at: http://www.cbwm.org/docs/engdocs/maps/Figure%202-5%20-
%20Chino%20Basin%20Recharge%20Basins%20-%202020.pdf, accessed January 13, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2021, City of Fontana General Plan Land Use Map, available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General-Plan-Land-Use-Map-3-2-2021?bidId=.
_____, 2021, City of Fontana Zoning District Map, available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/30623/Zoning-District-Map-3-2-21?bidId=.
_____, 2018, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015–2035, available at: https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035.
_____, 2018 June 8, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental
Impact Report, available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update, accessed December 29, 2021.
_____, 2018, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, available at: https://www.fontana.org/3196/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-LHMP, accessed January 5, 2022.
_____, 2017, Active Transportation Plan, available at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/27009/ATP-Final-Report, accessed March 9, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 124
_____, n.d., Fire Protection District, Stations and Equipment – Fire Station 73, available at: https://www.fontana.org/639/Stations-Equipment, accessed December 30, 2021.
_____, n.d., Public Services Department Tree Policy Manual, available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/836/tree_manual?bidId=, accessed February 3, 2022.
_____, n.d., Ready Fontana Guide, available at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29672, accessed on February 14, 2022.
_____, Department of Engineering, Traffic Engineering Division, 2020 October, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service
Assessment, available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/35928/TIA-Guidelines---VMT-Assessment, accessed March 8, 2022.
_____, n.d., Public Works, Trash and Recycling Services, available at:
https://www.fontana.org/541/Trash-and-Recycling-Services, accessed January 6, 2022
City of Los Angeles LA Sanitation & Environment, 2012, Sewerage Facilities Charge Sewage Generation Factor For Residential and Commercial Categories.
City of Ontario, 2011, The Ontario Plan: A Framework for The Future – Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for LA/Ontario International Airport, available at: http://www.ontarioplan.org/alucp-for-ontario-international-airport/, accessed on January 3,
2022.
County of San Bernardino, 2020, Countywide Plan, available at: https://countywideplan.com/policy-plan/.
_____, 2019, County Wide Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Figures 5-11.3 and 5-11.5
Environmental Protection Agency, 2020, Hazardous Air Pollutants: Sources and Exposure,
available at: https://www.epa.gov/haps/hazardous-air-pollutants-sources-and-exposure, accessed April 29, 2022.
_____, 2014, Near Roadway Air Pollution and Health: Frequently Asked Questions,
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100NFFD.PDF?Dockey=P100NFFD.PDF, accessed May 10, 2022.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Map 06071C8651H, effective on 08/28/2008,
available at https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home, accessed January 12, 2022.
Federal Highway Administration, 2006 January, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054).
Federal Transit Administration, 2018 September, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Manual, Table 7-4 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 125
Fontana Unified School District, 2019, New School Boundaries 2019-2022, available at: https://fusd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=4faad1b570994ad09e39040551077c2e, accessed December 30, 2021.
Fontana Water Company, 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, available at: https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf, accessed January 11, 2022.
_____, 2016, Urban Water Management Plan, Tables 6-1 and 6-2.
Hillard Heintze LLC, 2020, Fontana Police Department – An Independent Assessment of Law Enforcement Operations, November 6, available at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/34041/Hillard-Heintze-Report-for-the-Fontana-Police-Department-11-06-20?bidId=, accessed December 29, 2021.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency, 2016, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, accessed January
11, 2022.
Michael Baker International, 2016, Action Plan for Implementing the North Fontana Conservation Program, accessed February 3, 2022.
Office of Planning and Research, 2017 October, State of California General Plan Guidelines,
Appendix D.
San Bernardino County Library, n.d., About Us, available at: http://www.sbclib.org/Information/AboutUs.aspx, accessed April 29, 2022.
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, n.d., Table 1: Loadings for Each Class of Land Use, available at: https://www.lacsd.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3644/637644575489800000, accessed January 12, 2022.
Southern California Association of Governments, 2021, 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocation Plan, Adopted 3/4/21 and Updated 7/1/21, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th-cycle-rhna-final-allocation-
plan.pdf?1625161899, accessed December 1, 2021.
_____, 2020 September 3, 2020-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy – Connect SoCal.
_____, 2016, 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Final Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2016_2040rtpscs_finalgrowthforecastbyjurisdiction.pdf?1605576071,
accessed January 25, 2022.
Southern California Edison, 2021 March, 2020 Edison International Sustainability Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2017 March, Final 2016 Air Quality Management
Plan.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 126
_____, 2008 October, Draft Guidance Document—Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Significance Threshold.
_____, 2008 July, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.
Special District Financing & Administration, 2020 April, Draft Fontana Unified School District Developer Fee Justification Study, available at: https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/4/DFJ.pdf.
State of California, 2019, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map, available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, accessed January 5, 2022.
_____, 1996, Education Code, Section 17620, Chapter 6: Development Fees, Charges, and Dedications, available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EDC§i
onNum=17620, accessed December 29, 2021.
U.S. Department of Transportation, 2017 August 24, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm, accessed on March 2, 2022.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2022, Envirofacts Database, available at: https://enviro.epa.gov/, accessed January 3, 2022.
_____, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, available at: http://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator, accessed January 24, 2022.
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, n.d., RCA MSHCP Information Map,
available at: https://wrcrca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a73e69d2a64d41c29ebd3acd67467abd, accessed February 3, 2022.
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 127
SECTION F. LIST OF PREPARERS
City of Fontana (Lead Agency)
Planning Division 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335
Salvador Quintanilla, Associate Planner
Michael Baker International (Environmental Analysis)
801 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 250 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Fareeha Kibriya, Project Director Kathalyn Tung, Project Manager Vicky Rosen, Environmental Analyst Cristina Lowery, Senior Environmental Analyst Madonna Marcelo, Senior Environmental Analyst
Zhe Chen, Senior Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Noise Specialist Danielle Regimbal, Noise Specialist Yiting Yuan, Noise Specialist
Eddie Torres, INCE, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Noise Specialist Ryan Winkleman, Senior Biologist Tom Millington, Biologist
Lauren Mapes, Biologist Marc Beherec, Ph.D, RPA, Principal Archaeologist Marcel Young, Archaeologist
Kaylene Kelly, Archaeologist Margo Nayyar, Senior Cultural Resources Manager Kevin Oliver, GIS Specialist
Fehr and Peers (Transportation)
101 Pacifica, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92618 Delia Votsch, Senior Transportation Engineer Jason D. Pack, P.E., Principal Geocon West, Inc. (Geotechnical Investigation Report)
3303 N. San Fernando Boulevard Burbank, CA 91504-2531
Joseph Hicks, Project Engineer Neal Berliner, GE 2576
Susan Kirkgard, CEG 1754
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 128
SCS Engineers (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment)
3900 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 100 Long Beach, CA 90806 Tyler Overton, Staff Professional III Julio A. Nuno, R.E.P.A., Project Director
Urban Resource Corporation (Water Quality Management Plan)
2923 Saturn Street, Unit H
Brea, CA 92821 Terry Au, P.E., Principal