HomeMy WebLinkAboutInitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
CITY OF FONTANA
CITRUS EAST PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
June 2022
Prepared By:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3880 Lemon Street, Suite 420
Riverside, CA 92501
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page i
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Overview........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.............................. 1
1.3 Summary of Findings .................................................................................................. 1
1.4 Mitigation Measures................................................................................................... 1
1.5 Environmental Resource Topics .................................................................................... 2
1.6 Report Organization ................................................................................................... 3
1.7 Initial Study Public Review Process................................................................................ 3
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................. 5
2.1 Location, Setting, Proposed Project............................................................................... 5
2.2 Project Overview........................................................................................................ 6
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................35
Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................35
Agriculture and Forestry REsources .....................................................................................39
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................42
Biological Resources .........................................................................................................56
Cultural Resources............................................................................................................74
Energy ............................................................................................................................82
Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................88
Greenhouse gas Emissions.................................................................................................94
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................... 107
Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 111
Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................... 117
Mineral Resources.......................................................................................................... 118
Noise............................................................................................................................ 119
Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 141
Public Services ............................................................................................................... 143
Recreation .................................................................................................................... 146
Transportation ............................................................................................................... 147
Tribal Cultural REsources ................................................................................................. 153
Utilities And Service Systems............................................................................................ 159
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page ii
Wildfire ........................................................................................................................ 163
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ......................................................................... 166
4.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 169
Tables
Table 1: Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts ....................................................................... 5
Table 2: Project Summary ........................................................................................................... 8
Table 3: Parking Requirements ...................................................................................................11
Table 4: Construction-Related Emissions ......................................................................................47
Table 5: Operational Emissions ...................................................................................................48
Table 6: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates ...................................................................................51
Table 7: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions ...............................................................51
Table 8: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions.................................................................52
Table 9: Habitat Qualities and Mitigation Fees ..............................................................................69
Table 10: Cultural Resources and Reports Located within 0.5 Miles of the Project Site ........................76
Table 11: Project Consistency with the Infrastructure and Green Systems Element.............................86
Table 12: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................98
Table 13: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................99
Table 14: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency.................... 100
Table 15: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures.................................... 102
Table 16: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations
.................................................................................................................................... 124
Table 17: Existing Noise Measurements ..................................................................................... 128
Table 18: Typical Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................ 133
Table 19: Project Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................ 134
Table 20: Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels ....................................................................... 136
Table 21: Horizon Year and Horizon Year Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels ....................................... 137
Table 22: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ........................................................... 138
Table 23: Summary of Project Trip Generation Citrus West Residential Project ................................ 147
Table 24: VMT Thresholds ........................................................................................................ 151
Table 25: VMT Impact Evaluation .............................................................................................. 151
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page iii
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Map .............................................................................................................13
Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map ...............................................................................................................15
Exhibit 3: Project Conceptual Site Plan .........................................................................................17
Exhibit 4a: Elevations (Plan 1) .....................................................................................................19
Exhibit 4b: Elevations (Plan 2) .....................................................................................................21
Exhibit 4c: Elevations (Plan 3) .....................................................................................................23
Exhibit 5: Floor Plans .................................................................................................................25
Exhibit 6: Conceptual Landscape Plan ..........................................................................................27
Exhibit 7: Conceptual Grading Plan ..............................................................................................29
Exhibit 8: Noise Measurement Location ..................................................................................... 129
Appendices
Appendix A: Air Quality Assessment
Appendix B: Habitat Assessment
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D: Acoustical Assessment
Appendix E: Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memorandum
Appendix F: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
Appendix G: Energy Reports
Appendix H: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix I: WQMP
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page iv
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Overview
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared by Kimley-Horn and
Associates (Kimley-Horn) for the City of Fontana (City) for the Citrus East Project (Project or
proposed Project), located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Citrus Avenue and
Summit Avenue, in the northern portion of the City of Fontana, within the San Bernardino County
(County). This IS/MND was prepared pursuant with the requirements set forth in the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine significant impacts on specific environmental
areas. Where a potentially significant impact may occur, appropriate mitigation measures(s) have
been identified to avoid or mitigation the potential impact to a less than significant level.
1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC]
Section 21000 et seq.) and its Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14,
Section 15000 et seq.), to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with the
construction and operation of the Citrus East Project. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the City of Fontana is the lead agency for the Project. The lead agency is the
public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.
As set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, an MND can be prepared when the Initial
Study has identified potentially significant environmental impacts, but revisions have been made
to a project, prior to public review of the Initial Study, that would avoid or mitigate the impacts
to a level considered less than significant; and there is no substantial evidence in light of the
whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect
on the environment.
1.3 Summary of Findings
Section 3.0 of this document contains the Environmental Checklist that was prepared for the
Project pursuant to CEQA requirements. The Environmental Checklist indicates whether the
Project would result in significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures, as
identified throughout this document.
1.4 Mitigation Measures
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15041, Authority to Mitigate, gives the lead agency for a project
the authority to require feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to
substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable
constitutional requirements such as the “nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards. CEQA
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 2
Guidelines Section 15364 defines “feasible” as capable of being accomplished in a successful
manner within a reasonable period of time, considering economic, environmental, legal, social,
and technological factors.
Several forms of mitigation under CEQA Section 15370 are summarized as follow:
• Avoiding the impact by not taking a certain action(s);
• Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation;
• Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impact environment;
• Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action; and
• Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environment.
Avoiding impacts is the preferred form of mitigation, followed by minimizing or rectifying the
impact to less than significant levels. Compensating for impacts would be pursued if no other
form of mitigation is feasible.
1.5 Environmental Resource Topics
This IS/MND evaluates the proposed Project’s impacts on the following resource topics:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
• Mandatory Findings of Significance
Lennar Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 3
1.6 Report Organization
This document has been organized into the following sections:
Section 1.0 – Introduction & Purpose of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. This
section provides an introduction and overview describing the conclusions of the Initial Study.
Section 2.0 – Description of Proposed Project. This section identifies key project characteristics
and includes a list of anticipated discretionary actions.
Section 3.0 – Initial Study Checklist. The Environmental Checklist Form provides an overview of
the potential impacts that may or may not result from Project implementation.
Section 4.0 – Environmental Analysis. This section contains an analysis of environmental impacts
identified in the Environmental Checklist Form.
Section 5.0 – References. The section identifies resources used to prepare the Initial Study.
1.7 Initial Study Public Review Process
The Initial Study and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt this MND will be distributed to responsible
and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and other parties for a 30-day public review
period.
Written comments regarding this MND should be addressed to:
Salvador Quintanilla
Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 4
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 5
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 Location, Setting, Proposed Project
Project Location
The Project site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Citrus Avenue and
Summit Avenue in the northern portion of the City, within San Bernardino County (County). The
Project site is located approximately 0.9 miles north of State Route 210 (SR-210), approximately
1.9 miles east of the Interstate 15 (I-15), 5.7 miles north of the Interstate 10 (I-10), and
approximately 7.5 miles west of Interstate 215 (I-215); refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Map.
Project Settings
The Project site is comprised of one parcel of approximately 8.65 acres in size and is currently
vacant and undeveloped (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APN]: 118-021-04). The site is surrounded
by single-family residential developments to the north and east, Citrus Avenue to the west, and
Summit Avenue and Sierra Lakes Element School to the south; refer to Exhibit 2, Vicinity Map.
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District
Currently, the site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Community Commercial (C-C) and
is within the Community Commercial (C-1) Zoning District. The existing C-C land use designation
in the 2017 Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 (Fontana GP) allows for commercial
uses such as retail and offices. The existing C-1 zoning provides development standards and
regulations for permitted community commercial uses as listed in Table No. 30-489 of the
Municipal Code Chapter 30 – Zoning and Development Code (Fontana ZDC).1 A General Plan
Amendment (GPA) to the Fontana GP and Zone Change (ZC) are required for the Project as
described below. Surrounding land uses and zones are listed in Table 1, Land Use Designations
and Zoning Districts.
Table 1: Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts
Location General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning District
Project Site (C-C) Community Commercial (C-1) Community Commercial
North (R-M) Medium Density Residential (R-2) Medium Density
South (P-PF) Public Facilities (SP) Sierra Lakes Specific Plan
East (R-PC) Residential Planned Community (R-PC) Residential Planned Community
West (R-PC) Citrus Heights North Residential Planned Community (SP) Citrus Heights North Specific Plan
Sources:
City of Fontana, State of California General Plan Land Use Map (Updated March 2, 2021). Available at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General-Plan-Land-Use-Map-3-2-2021?bidId=. Accessed on September 8, 2021.
City of Fontana. (2021). Zoning District Map. Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/30623/Zoning-District-Map-3-2-
21?bidId=. Accessed on September 8, 2021.
1 City of Fontana. Municipal Code Chapter 30 – Zoning and Development Code. Available at
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=CH30ZODECO_ARTVICOMIEZODI. Accessed on
October 22, 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 6
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District
The Project proposes a residential development of 76 “cluster” single-family units, which would
require a (GPA) and ZC. Both are proposed to amend the Fontana GP land use designation from
C-C to Medium Density Residential (R-M) and to amend the underlying zoning from C-1 to the
Medium Density (R-2) Zoning District. The Project will further require a conditional use permit
for Planned Unit Development (PUD).
2.2 Project Overview
The Applicant proposes a series of entitlements including a GPA, a ZC to modify the Fontana GP
and Fontana ZDC to facilitate the development of 76 detached single-family cluster units and
supporting facilities including open space, amenities, parking, landscaping, and entry/exit
gates/walls on approximately 8.65 acres of land; refer to Exhibit 3, Project Conceptual Site Plan
for additional details. The GPA and ZC would facilitate the residential development of the Project
site. The Project would also include a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit
Development, and a Tentative Tract Map which are further described below in Section 2.4 Project
Approvals.
Planned Unit Development
The Citrus East includes a Planned Unit Development that would allow for deviations from the
underlying standards and requirements and contain design and development standards,
provisions, and procedures for the Project.
Division 24 – Planned Unit Development establishes the regulations and procedures for the
approval of a PUD project.
1) Purpose. The purpose of this division is as follows:
a. To encourage within the density standards of the general plan and Zoning and
Development Code the development of a more desirable living environment by
application of modern site planning techniques and building groupings or
arrangements that are not permitted through strict application of the present zoning
and subdivision ordinances;
b. To encourage the reservation of greater open space and amenities for visual
enjoyment and recreational use;
c. To encourage a more efficient, aesthetic and desirable use of land; and
d. To encourage variety in the physical development patterns of the City.
2) Intent. The intent of this division is to ensure that:
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 7
a. Planned unit development permits will be issued only where the subject parcel is large
enough to make innovative and creative site planning possible;
b. Applicants for planned unit development permits have the professional capability to
produce a creative plan;
c. The public's interest in achieving goals stated in the general plan will be served more
fully through the planned unit development process than through application of
conventional zoning regulations;
d. The advantages to landowners afforded by the planned unit development process will
be balanced by public benefits; and
e. Natural or man-made features and resources of the site such as topography, trees,
watercourses, and the like are preserved.
The Project PUD would provide development regulations and design guidelines. The PUD would
remain largely consistent with the Fontana ZDC’s R-2 standards and provisions but would also
provide additional standards and guidelines that only apply to the Project site. Specific Project
design standards and their consistency to the underlying R-2 zoning are shown in Table 2, Project
Summary below.
The Project PUD would be prepared to comply with the requirements in the Fontana MC,
Chapter 30 Article II, Division 24.
Project Site Plan/Development Plan
The Project includes the development of 76 detached cluster homes, consisting of 26 three-
bedroom units and 50 four-bedroom units. The three floor plans vary in size, ranging from
approximately 1,916 square feet (SF) to 2,388 SF (see Exhibit 4a – 4c, Elevations and Exhibit 5,
Floor Plans). All 76 units would be two-stories high with either Progressive Traditional,
Progressive Prairie, or Modern Farmhouse architectural styles; refer to Exhibit 4a - 4c.
The Project is required to provide a minimum of 238 spaces. The Project would exceed the
requirement by providing a total of 343 parking spaces; refer to Exhibit 3. The proposed density
is 8.78 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Although the Project density would be slightly greater than
the maximum density of 7.6 du/ac permitted for detached housing under the R-2 zoning
designation (without a PUD), the cluster layout of the neighborhood aligns the Project closer to
multi-family detached housing, which has a maximum density of 12 du/ac R2. Access to the site
would be located on Summit Avenue; refer to Table 2, Project Summary, as it identifies the
Project’s development specifications.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 8
Table 2: Project Summary
Project Element R-2 Zone/PUD standards Proposed Project consistency
Existing Uses N/A Vacant and undeveloped
Site Area N/A Approximately 8.65 acres (or approximately
376,794 SF)
Existing Zoning N/A Community Commercial (C-1)
Existing Land Use N/A Community Commercial (C-C)
Underlying Zoning N/A Medium Density/Multiple Family (R-2)
equivalence
Proposed PUD Land Use N/A Medium Density Residential (R-M)
Dwelling Unit Size (SF) 1,200 SF for SFD/Detached1 Approximately 1,916 – 2,388 SF
Proposed Floor Plans N/A
Total of 3 floor plans with 1 floor plan for
26 units 3 bedrooms/2.5 bathrooms and
2 floor plans for 50 units of 4 bedrooms and
3 bathrooms.
Building Height 35 feet Two-Story developments, ranging from
23 feet 2 inches to 27 feet 4 inches
Maximum Lot Coverage 50%/65% (PUD) 65%
Minimum Lot Size 5 acres 5 acres
Amenities: Four amenities for 76 units
Five usable open spaces have been identified
for a total of 26,742 SF (0.61 acres) = 7% of
total site. Plus 7,510 SF of non-amenitized
landscaping (.17 acres) for a total of 1.9% of
the total site. Five usable open spaces are as
follows:
• 10,588 SF (Lot A)
• 3,741 SF (Lot C)
• 1,034 (Lot D) • 2,065 SF (Lot B)
• 2,185 SF plus EVA (Lot E)
Open Space 35% common/ 5% (PUD) 100,343 SF – 26% of total site area
Private Open Space 150 sq. ft ground /100 sq. ft upper
A minimum of 150 sq.ft of private open
space is provided for each unit and
comprises 72,259 SF – 19% of total site area
Landscaping
Minimum 50% of front yard setback
must have no hardscaping (25% can be
decorative hardscape). No rear yard
setback landscape requirement./No
requirement for PUD.
Front yards of each unit shall be landscaped
with turf and shrubs per the approved
planting plan. Tress shall be planted as
appropriate for spacing per the approved
planting plan.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 9
Project Element R-2 Zone/PUD standards Proposed Project consistency
Parking
Total required: 238 spaces
3 bedrooms: 2 garage spaces per unit;
52 required
3 bedrooms: 0.5 open parking spaces
per unit; 13 required.
4 bedrooms: 2 garage spaces per unit;
100 required
4 bedrooms: 0.7 open parking spaces
per unit; 35 required
Guest Parking: 0.5 spaces per unit;
38 required
Total provided: 342 spaces
3 bedrooms: 52 garage spaces provided
3 bedrooms: 14 open parking spaces
provided.
4 bedrooms: 100 garage spaces provided
4 bedrooms: 100 open parking spaces
provided
Guest parking: 38 guest spaces provided
Building to Building
Setbacks
Front to Front: 35 Feet/ 25 feet (PUD)
Front to Side: 35 Feet/10 feet (PUD)
Front to Rear: 35 Feet/10 feet (PUD)
Rear to Side: 25 Feet/10 feet (PUD)
Rear to Rear: 25 Feet/10 feet (PUD)
Side to Side:20 Feet/10 feet (PUD)
36 to 46.2 Feet
At least 15 Feet
55.6 to 63 Feet
N/A
10 Feet
10 Feet
Building to Right of Way
(ROW) Setbacks
Major or Primary: 30 Feet2
Secondary or Collector: 25 Feet2
Local: 20 Feet2
Citrus Ave: 20.2 to 37.5 to ROW
Summit Ave: 20.7 to 43.2 to ROW
Florentine Ave: 15.1 to 26.4 to ROW
Perimeter Yard Setback2
Rear Yard Setback: 15-feet to ROW
Side Yard Setback: 10 feet to ROW
15 Feet
10 Feet
Grading Quantities
Cut: 19,207 cubic yards (CY) of cut
Fill: 8,048 CY of fill
Net: Approximately 11,159 CY of off-site export
Sources: City of Fontana. Zoning and Development Code. Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=CH30ZODECO_ARTVREZODI_DIV4DESTPRST
(Accessed May 6, 2022)
SF = Square Feet
The perimeter rear yard shall provide a minimum distance of 15 feet setback from the back door of the unit to the fence, wall or shared
property line.
1. Single Family Minimum dwelling unit sizes apply to R-2 detached standards. This is a minimum unit size.
2.The perimeter yard setback standard shall only apply to the following lots- 10, 12, 24, 25, 28, 29, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 44, 49, 50, 55, and 56.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 10
Open Space/Recreation
The Project proposes to provide both public and private open space. All units would be provided
private open space via private yards, patios, and balconies proposed for all floor plans. All floor
plans exceed the open space requirements per the City of Fontana development standards. The
Project is required to provide at least four amenities for 76 units; see Exhibit 6, Conceptual
Landscape Plan. The Project proposes five different open space areas for a total of 19,604 SF
(0.45 acres) = 7% of total site. In addition, the Project would also provide approximately 7,510 SF
of non-amenitized landscaping (.17 acres) for a total of 1.9% of the total site. The 10,588 SF center
open space would include an overhead solid roof shade structure, a multi-purpose lawn area, a
BBQ area, picnic table seating, and a tot lot. The 3,741 SF open space in the northwest would
include a citrus grove planting with trellised seating area and artificial turn for informal lawn
games, such as ladder toss or giant Jenga. The 1,034 SF open space in the northeast would include
perennial herb garden with potted dwarf citrus on pedestal, bench seating, and focal element.
The 2,065 SF open space in the west would include an artificial turn with bench seating area for
cornhole game. Lastly, the 2,185 SF with emergency vehicle access (EVA) driveway in the
southeast would include children’s informal concrete trike path and artificial turf islands.
Site Access
Vehicular access to the site would include one decorative paved ingress/egress driveway from
Summit Avenue. The main entry includes a gated entry and exit with planted dividers/median
and a traffic island. Both ingress and egress entry gates would each be 20 feet in width. In
addition, the Project also proposes a 20-foot-wide EVA along Summit Avenue in the southern
portion of the site.
Parking
The City’s required parking spaces are based on the number of bedrooms provided for each unit.
The three-bedroom product type requires two (2) garage parking spaces and 0.5 open parking
spaces per unit; the four-bedroom product type requires two (2) garage parking spaces and
0.7 open parking spaces per unit; additionally, guest parking is required at 0.5 spaces per unit. A
total of 238 total spaces are required by the Project.
The Project is proposed with a total of 344 parking spaces. Of these total spaces, 152 of them will
be private garage spaces and 152 will be available in the planned two-space driveways. The
common/guest parking spaces will total 38 spaces.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 11
Table 3: Parking Requirements
Parking Type Number of Units Code Requirement Requirement Provided
Three Bedroom 26 Units 2.0/each unit 52 spaces 52 spaces
Four Bedroom 50 Units 2.0/each unit 100 spaces 100 spaces
Open Parking Space 26 Three Bedroom
50 Four Bedroom
0.5/each unit for
three bedrooms
0.7/each unit for
four bedrooms
13 spaces
35 spaces
52 spaces
100 spaces
Guest Parking 76 Units 0.5/each unit for
three bedrooms
38 spaces 38 spaces
Total 238 342
Parcel Subdivision
A Tentative Tract Map application has been prepared for the Assessor Parcel Number
(APN) 1118-02-04, to create 76 individual lots for the purpose of developing 76 detached cluster
housing units.
Construction
The Project site is generally vacant and therefore construction would not include the demolition
of any structures. Construction is anticipated to begin January 2023 and continue for
approximately 12-18 months through the last phase of development. Construction would
include: (1) grading/removal of concrete, (2) building construction, (3) paving, (4) architectural
coating, (5) landscaping, and the construction of off-site improvements required by the City; see
Exhibit 7, Conceptual Grading Plan.
Project Approvals
The City of Fontana is the Lead Agency as set forth in CEQA Section 21067 and is responsible for
reviewing and approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Project requires the following
approvals:
1. General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21-009: The Project site is presently in the
Community Commercial (C-C) land use designation. The Project includes a GPA to amend
the land use designation of the site to Medium Density Residential (R-M). The General
Plan Amendment would be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council.
2. Zone Change (ZC) No. 21-011: The Project site presently zoned Community Commercial
(C-1) in the Fontana MC Chapter 30 – Zoning and Development Code. The Project includes
a Zone Change to amend the site’s zoning to R-2, Medium-density residential. The ZC
would be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council.
3. Design Review (DR) No. 21-047: Design Review of the proposed site plan and
architectural design for the development of 76 detached cluster single family homes and
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 12
associated facilities including open space amenities, utilities, and site improvements. In
addition, the Design Review also includes the PUD standards.
4. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 21-008: The Subdivision Map is a basic tool for
implementation of a residential development. The Project’s Tentative Tract Map (TTM)
would create the individual legal lots for Project development, formalize the parcel
boundaries, and provide for public rights‐of‐way for Project access.
5. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 21-022: The Conditional Use Permit for the Project
would establish a Planned Unit Development to facilitate the development of the 76-unit
cluster homes. The purpose of a PUD is to encourage a more desirable living environment
through the incorporation of modern site plan techniques and building grouping and/or
arrangements that would not be permitted with the strict application of the R-2
development standards.
Additional permits may be required upon review of construction documents. Other permits
required for the Project may include, but are not limited to, the following: issuance of
encroachment permits for driveways and utilities; security and parking area lighting permits;
building permits; grading permits; tenant improvement permits; and permits for new utility
connections.
Not to scale
Source: Map data. 2021 Google. US Census Bureau 2018
Not to scaleEXHIBIT 1: Regional Location Map
Citrus West Project, City of Fontana
Source: Map data. 2021 Google. US Census Bureau, 2018
FontanaFontana
Los Angeles CountyLos Angeles County
Riverside CountyRiverside County
Orange CountyOrange County
San Bernardino CountySan Bernardino County
^_
Project Site
EXHIBIT 1: Regional Map
Citrus East Project, City of Fontana
Lennar Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 14
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: ESRI World Imagery
EXHIBIT 2: Local Vicinity MapCitrus West Project, City of Fontana 1,0005000
Feet
Source: ESRI World ImageryEXHIBIT 2: Vicinity Map
Citrus East Project, City of Fontana
EXHIBIT 2: Local Vicinity Map
Citrus West Project, City of Fontana 1,0005000
Feet
Source: ESRI World ImageryasSummitAve
Joe Ave SorianoWayGaribaldiWayMessina St
BellaWayFlorentineAveBertiniWayCitrusAveSeminole
Wa
y
AugustaDrW
AvenalPlDoran Ln
Milan PlFlorentineAve
Summit Ave Summit AveSummitAveCitrusAve
CitrusAveSierra Lakes
Elementary
AugustaDrWAvenalPl
shireDrJoe Ave
Patricia Marrujo
Park CoralwoodPlOak Lea
WooSum
Se
mi
n
o
le
Wa
y
B
ig
h
or
nSan Bernardino County, Maxar, Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino,
Project SiteProject Site
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 16
This page intentionally left blank.
Not to scale
EXHIBIT 3: Project Conceptual Site Plan
Citrus East Project, City of Fontana
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 18
This page intentionally left blank.
Not to scale
EXHIBIT 4a: Elevations (Plan 1)
Citrus East Project, City of Fontana JOB #: 21
Inc klcarch.c
Architect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
LENNAR R
Kevin L. Crook0248
Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2022
Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2022
B - PROGRESSIVE PRAIRIE
Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2022
A - PROGRESSIVE TRADITIONAL
C - MODERN FARMHOUSE
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 20
This page intentionally left blank.
Not to scale
EXHIBIT 4b: Elevations (Plans 2)
Citrus East Project, City of Fontana JOB #: 21006Kevin L. Crook
Inc klcarch.comArchitect
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
LENNAR R
0 2 4 8
Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2022
Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2022
B - PROGRESSIVE PRAIRIE
Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2022
A - PROGRESSIVE TRADITIONAL
C - MODERN FARMHOUSE
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 22
This page intentionally left blank.
Not to scale
EXHIBIT 4c: Elevations (Plans 3)
Citrus East Project, City of Fontana JOB #: Inc klcarch
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
LENNAR
FENCE LINE
FENCE LINE
FENCE LINE
Kevin L. Crook0248
Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2022
Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2022
B - PROGRESSIVE PRAIRIE
Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2022
A - PROGRESSIVE TRADITIONAL
C - MODERN FARMHOUSE
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 24
This page intentionally left blank.
Not to scale
EXHIBIT 5: Floor Plans
Citrus East Project, City of Fontana
37'-6"
LENNA
LENNA JOB #: Inc klcarc
PLANNING + ARCHITECTURE
LENNAR
AREA TABULATION
UNCONDITIONED SPACE
CONDITIONED SPACE
13'-8"16'-6"xO. BEDRM.
W.I.C.19'-4" L.F.
11'-0"11'-2"xBEDRM. 3
11'-2"10'-2"xBEDRM. 2
16'-1"13'-6"xLOFT
13'-7"9'-8"xDINING
21'-10"20'-5"xGARAGE
15'-0"16'-3"xGREAT RM.
PWDR.
37'-6"6'-0"44'-3"18'-4"13'-4"5'-10"6'-0"13'-0"11'-0"26'-6"2'-2"36'-1"2'-2"23'-1"SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR
0 2 4 8
AREA TABULATION
UNCONDITIONED SPACE
CONDITIONED SPACE
W.I.C.22'-4" L.F.
12'-11"15'-5"xO. BEDRM.
12'-7"11'-2"xBEDRM. 3
11'-5"11'-2"xBEDRM. 2
14'-1"7'-10"xLOFT
LINEN
16'-10"15'-1"xGREAT RM.
20'-3"20'-3"xGARAGE
11'-10"14'-6"xDINING11'-2"12'-4"xBEDRM. 4
21'-0"14'-2"35'-0"18'-10"19'-6"14'-0"29'-4"3'-8"1'-0"1'-0"14'-0"14'-1"8'-2"18'-3"2'-0"54'-6"
Kevin L. Crook
SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR
0 2 4 8
AREA TABULATION
UNCONDITIONED SPACE
CONDITIONED SPACE
19'-3"13'-2"xO. BEDRM.
W.I.C.19'-1" L.F.
12'-6"10'-7"xLOFT 11'-7"11'-2"xBEDRM. 2
11'-0"13'-1"xBEDRM. 3W.I.C.
LINEN
20'-2"20'-3"xGARAGE
10'-2"10'-4"xBEDRM. 4
19'-3"9'-0"xDINING19'-3"11'-11"xGREAT RM.
58'-6"12'-6"24'-1"20'-10"20'-0"10'-7"5'-0"35'-8"
3'-0"34'-8"61'-6"2'-2"Kevin L. Crook
SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR
0 2 4 8
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 26
This page intentionally left blank.
Not to scale
EXHIBIT 6: Conceptual Landscape Plan
Citrus East Project, City of Fontana
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 28
This page intentionally left blank.
Not to scale
EXHIBIT 7: Conceptual Grading Plan
Citrus East Project, City of Fontana
NORTH
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20513
CITY OF FONTANACONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
SECTION A-A
N.T.S.
SECTION B-B
N.T.S.
SECTION C-CN.T.S.
SECTION D-D
N.T.S.
PRIVATE STREETN.T.S.
PRIVATE ALLEY
N.T.S.
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
CITRUS EASTTENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20513
LEGEND
2:1 MAX 2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX 2:1 MAX 2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX
S
SSS
SSS
S S S
S
SS
S
B
-
A
-
D
-
C
-
HOTWIRE
(DRIVEWAY D)
(DRIVEWAY C)(DRIVEWAY B)(DRIVEWAY A)(DRIVEWAY E)(DRIVEWAY F)(DRIVEWAY G)
(DRIVEWAY H)
(DRIVEWAY I)(DRIVEWAY J)(DRIVEWAY K)(DRIVEWAY L)SUMMIT AVENUE
(PUBLIC)CITRUS AVENUE(PUBLIC)FLORENTINE AVENUE(PUBLIC)1
2
34
5
67
8
910
11
12
59
60
6162
63
64
76
75
7473
72
71
1314
15
16
17 18
1920
21
22
23 24
46 45
44
43
4241
52 51
50
49
4847
58 57
56
55
5453
25
26
27
28 29
30
31 32
33
34 35
36
37
65
66
67 68
69
70
38
39
40
LOT B
(OPEN SPACE)LOT D(OPEN SPACE)LOT E(OPEN SPACE)LOT A
(OPEN SPACE)LOT C(OPEN SPACE)LOT FLOT ILOT F
(OPEN SPACE)
LOT F
(OPEN SPACE)
LOT I LOT JSTREET A(PRIVATE STREET)LOT LSTREET C(PRIVATE STREET)LOT NSTREET ELOT K
STREET B (PRIVATE STREET)LOT MSTREET D
(PRIVATE STREET)(PRIVATE STREET)
EVA ONLY
(PUBLIC)
MILAN PL
LOT GLOT HLEGEND
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 30
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 31
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
1. Project title:
Citrus East
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
3. Contact person and phone number:
Salvador Quintanilla
Phone: (909) 350-6656
4. Project location:
Citrus Avenue and Summit Avenue, City of Fontana.
Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 1118-021-04.
5. Project applicant’s/sponsor's name and address:
Lennar Homes of California
Ryan Combe, Director of Forward Planning
980 Montecito Drive, Suite 302
Corona, CA 92879
E-Mail: ryan.combe@lennar.com
Phone: (951) 712-9218
6. General Plan designation:
Current: (C-C) Community Commercial
Proposed: (R-M) Medium Density Residential
7. Zoning designation:
Current: (C-1) Community Commercial
Proposed: (R-2) Medium Density
8. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 32
9. Project summary:
The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to amend the current land use
designation from Community Commercial (C-C) to Residential Medium (R-M) and a Zoning
Code Amendment (ZCA) to change the zoning designation from Community Commercial
(C-1) to Medium Density Residential R-2, as well as a conditional use permit (CUP) for a
PUD, to develop 76 detached single-family “cluster” units with amenities, parking,
landscaping, perimeter walls, and entry/exit gates on approximately 8.65 acres of land; The
PUD would set forth development standards for the Project site. The 76-unit detached
cluster development involves three different floor plans that include one floor plan for
26 units with three-bedrooms/2.5 bathrooms and two floor plans for 50 units of
four-bedrooms/three bathrooms. The floor plans vary in size, ranging from approximately
1,916 – 2,388 SF.
10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
Project area requested consultation pursuant to PRC 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.?
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 PRC Section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage
Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources
Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC
Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) provided a list of tribes to be consulted
regarding the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18. On
March 3, 2021, the City initiated tribal consultation and invited the following tribes to
consult pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
• Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation
• Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
• Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
• Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
• San Manual Band of Mission Indians
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 33
• Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
• Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
• San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
Responses were received from Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Gabrielino Tongva
Indians of California, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, and Morongo Band
of Mission Indians. Each tribe’s interest in consultation and proposed mitigation measures
are included in the Tribal Cultural Resources section.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 34
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
Air Quality
Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
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
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation (check one):
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.
CERTIFICATION:
Signature
Date
Lennar Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2021 Page 35
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
AESTHETICS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not
limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
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?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
Regional Context
Fontana is located within southern San Bernardino County, major adjacent highways include
Interstate 10 (I-10), Interstate 15 (I-15), and State Route 210 (SR-210). Fontana is approximately
52-square miles which includes the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). The City of Fontana is
bordered by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the west, City of Rialto to the east, City of Riverside
to the southeast, and the City of Jurupa Valley to the south, see Exhibit 1, Regional Map.
Scenic Views
A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provided expansive views of a highly valued landscape
for the benefit of the public.2 The City is located on the desert valley floor between the
San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Jurupa Hills the south. Panoramic scenic view
corridors towards the mountains and views of the City from the mountains dominate the City’s
2 California Legislative Information. Streets and Highway Code Article 2.5 State Scenic Highways [260- 284]. Available at
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&division=1.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=2.5. Accessed
on September 17, 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 36
visual landscape character. Fontana’s open space consists of a mix of parks and recreation, utility
corridors, foothills, and other pockets of open space such as trails and amenities.3
Scenic Resources within Scenic Highways
In 1963, the State Legislature created the California Scenic Highway Program through Senate
Bill 1467 (Farr). The purpose of the bill was to protect and enhance scenic highway corridors from
change and encourage the growth of the recreation and tourism industries for the California
economy. A “scenic” highway is dependent on how much of the natural landscape can be seen
by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes
upon the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. In the City of Fontana, there are no highways eligible
or officially designated as state or county scenic highways.4 Thus, the provisions of the California
Scenic Highway Program do not apply.
Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035
(Fontana GP), the proposed Project is not near officially designated scenic vistas. However, the
San Bernardino Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, and Jurupa Hills are visible throughout the
City. The Project site is located approximately 1.7 south of the base of the San Gabriel Mountains,
approximately 8 miles southwest of the San Bernardino Mountains, and approximately 7.5 miles
north of the Jurupa Hills. The proposed residential buildings would not exceed the maximum
allowed height for the R-2 zoning of 35 feet. The existing surrounding residential developments
located to the north, east, and southeast of the site are two-story single-family homes. The views
of the San Gabriel Mountains, San Bernardino Mountain, or the Jurupa Hills views would not be
impacted by the implementation of the Project. Due to the proposed building heights and
distance from designated scenic vistas, the Project would result in a less than significant impact
on a scenic vista and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. Based on the CalTrans State Scenic Highway Map, there is only one Officially
Designated Highway, Route 38, which is about 37-miles east of the proposed Project.5 In a similar
manner, according to the City of Fontana’s General Plan, there are no historic buildings located
3 City of Fontana. 2019. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Final Environmental Impact Report (August 2018). Available at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29525/Final-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update. Accessed
September 17, 2021.
4 CalTrans State Scenic Highway Map. Available at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-
livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed August 10, 2021.
5 Ibid.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 37
near the proposed Project site.6 The Project site is currently vacant with the exception of a few
trees and is surrounded by residential properties. Therefore, no adverse impacts on scenic
resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway would be impacted as a result from the Project’s implementation. No
impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project is located in an urbanized area, surrounded by
residential developments to the north, northeast, and southeast. The 8.65-acre Project site is
currently vacant and undeveloped and zoned as C-1. The visual character or quality of public
views of the site would change from vacant land to a medium density residential development.
The Project would be similar in visual character, height, and architectural style as surrounding
existing residential developments. The Project proposes a ZC and municipal code amendments
to change the zoning from C-1 to R-2/ PUD. The proposed PUD standards would be compatible
with the existing zoning to the north and east of the Project site. The Project would be required
to comply with all applicable PUD development standards, the Fontana GP, and the Fontana MC
prior to approval. Standards include building scale, frontage and site layout, street scape, open
space, parking, signage, and architecture. Therefore, with adherence to these standards, the
Project would not impact scenic quality in the area and would not conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic quality. The anticipated impacts would be less than
significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. Existing sources of light and glare in the Project site are due to the
proximity of Citrus Avenue and Summit Avenue intersection, which include streetlights in the
area and car headlights from the street. The surrounding residential land uses to the east and
northeast of the Project site would also contribute to light and glare. However, very minimal
disturbances are attributed to residential lighting. The Project site is currently vacant and
undeveloped; thus, the development of the Project would increase the amount of light and glare
on the site and could potentially affect day or night views in the area. New sources of light and
glare from the Project would come from windows, outdoor landscaping lighting, on -site safety
lighting; as well as vehicles accessing the Project site.
6 City of Fontana. 2019. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035. Available at https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-
2015---2035. Accessed August 10, 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 38
The Project would include the implementation of on-site safety, street lighting, and security
lighting. The minimum standard of one (1) foot candle is required for all entrances, exists,
pedestrian paths, parking lots and activities areas, per Fontana MC §30-697. New lighting would
also be reviewed by the City to ensure conformance with the current California Building Code
(CBC), Title 24 (California Code of Regulations), as well as the 2019 California Green Building
Standard Code (Part 11 of Title 24, California Code of Regulations) such that only the minimum
amount of lighting is used, and no light spillage occurs. For these reasons, lighting and glare
impacts from the Project are would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 39
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
X
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))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
X
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?
X
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?
No Impact. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped with sparse vegetation and is
not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of statewide importance
(Farmland) as shown on the map of California Important Farmland Finder (California Department
of Conservation 2016). However, the map identifies the Project site as an area considered as
“grazing land.” Grazing land describes land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 40
grazing of livestock.7 Grazing land is not considered important farmland, as defined by the
California Department of Conservation. Therefore, the Project would not 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 is anticipated to occur.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The Project is not currently zoned for agricultural use. It is zoned for commercial uses
and would be changed to residential to accommodate the proposed residential development.
The Project site is in an urbanized area and is not located adjacent to existing agriculture lands
or lands zoned for agriculture uses. In addition, the Project site and its surrounding uses are not
under a Williamson Act contract.8 Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and no impact would occur.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The Project is currently zoned for commercial uses and would be changed to
residential to accommodate the proposed residential development. There is no forest land or
timberland zoning on the Project site or in the surrounding area. As such, the implementation of
the Project would not 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)) and no impact would occur.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The Project is currently zoned for commercial uses and would be changed to
residential to accommodate the proposed residential development. There is no forest land or
timberland zoning on the Project site or in the surrounding area. As such, the development of
the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use and no impact would occur.
7 California Department of Conservation. (2016). California Important Farmland Finder. Available at
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed September 23, 2021.
8 California Department of Conservation. (2017). Williamson Map 2016. Available at
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/HollywoodCenter/Deir/ELDP/(E)%20Initial%20Study/Initial%20Study/Attachment%20B%20References/Califor
nia%20Department%20of%20Conservation%20Williamson%20Map%202016.pdf. Access on September 23, 2017.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 41
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would convert the existing vacant and undeveloped
land to a residential development. The Project site is surrounded by urban land uses, including
residential, and is not surrounded by agriculture or forest uses. Therefore, the anticipated change
in land uses of the Project site is not expected to involve conversion of farm or forest land.
Therefore, impacts to agricultural land use would be less than significant and no further analysis
of this issue is necessary.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 42
AIR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
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?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors
adversely affecting a substantial number of people)?
X
An Air Quality Assessment was prepared for the proposed Project by Kimley-Horn and Associates
in November 2021. This report is included as Appendix A and the results are summarized herein.
Air Quality
Air Pollutants of Concern
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated
by state and federal laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants”
and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants.
Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic
gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine
particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and
PM2.5 are criteria pollutants. ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and form secondary
criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For
example, the criteria pollutant ozone (O3) is formed by a chemical reaction between ROG and
NOX in the presence of sunlight. O3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary
pollutants.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 43
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances that can cause short‐term (acute) or
long-term (i.e., chronic, carcinogenic or cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury
or illness). TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted
from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners,
industrial operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes more
than 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel‐fueled engines.
CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a toxic air contaminant. DPM differs from
other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of
substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine
burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in
diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust.
The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types
(heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel
formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some short-term (acute) effects
of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause
coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the
TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Due to their
extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and
alveolar regions of the lung.
Ambient Air Quality
CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the State.
These stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above ground level; therefore,
air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Existing levels of ambient
air quality, historical trends, and projections near the Project are documented by measurements
made by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the air pollution regulatory
agency in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) that maintains air quality monitoring stations which
process ambient air quality measurements.
Pollutants of concern in the SoCAB include O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The closest air monitoring station
to the Project that monitors ambient concentrations of these pollutants is the Fontana-Arrow
Monitoring Station (located approximately 4.11 miles to the southwest).
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than is the general
population. Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics are of particular
concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds,
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 44
childcare centers, long‐term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers,
and retirement homes. Sensitive land uses near the Project include single-family residential uses
located approximately 60 feet to the north and east of the site. There are also residences and a
school directly south of Summit Avenue (approximately 100 feet from the Project site).
Methodology (Air Quality)
This air quality impact analysis considers construction and operational impacts associated with
the Project. Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled
using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod is a
Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant
emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.
Air quality impacts were assessed according to methodologies recommended by CARB and the
SCAQMD.
Construction equipment, trucks, worker vehicles, and ground-disturbing activities associated
with Project construction would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. Daily
regional construction emissions are estimated by assuming construction occurs at the earliest
feasible date (i.e., a conservative estimate of construction activities) and applying off-road,
fugitive dust, and on-road emissions factors in CalEEMod.
Project operations would result in emissions of area sources (consumer products), energy
sources (natural gas usage), and mobile sources (motor vehicles from Project--generated vehicle
trips). Project-generated increases in operational emissions would be predominantly associated
with motor vehicle use. The increase of traffic over existing conditions as a result of the Project
was obtained from the Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memorandum for the Proposed Citrus
East Residential Project in the City of Fontana (Kimley-Horn, 2021) (Traffic Impact Study). Other
operational emissions from area, energy, and stationary sources were quantified in CalEEMod
based on land use activity data.
As discussed above, the SCAQMD provides significance thresholds for emissions associated with
proposed project construction and operations. The proposed Project’s construction and
operational emissions are compared to the daily criteria pollutant emissions significance
thresholds in order to determine the significance of the Project’s impact on regional air quality.
The localized effects from the Project’s on-site emissions were evaluated in accordance with the
SCAQMD’s LST methodology, which uses on-site mass emissions rate look-up tables and Project-
specific modeling. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected
to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standards and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant
for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 45
On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the need to
provide sufficient information connecting a project’s air emissions to health impacts or explain
why such information could not be ascertained (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno
[Friant Ranch, L.P.] [2018] Cal.5th, Case No. S219783). The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance
thresholds based on the FCAA9. The federal ambient air quality standards establish the levels of
air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Therefore,
projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and mass emissions thresholds would not violate
any air quality standards or contribute substantially to health impacts.
Would the Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each
state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan that
demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The State Implementation Plan (SIP)
must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific
measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance
standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under State law, the CCAA requires an air
quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment for the state and
federal ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and
control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.
The Project is located within the SoCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The
SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the FCAA, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which
the SoCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 AQMP.
The 2016 AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant
emissions and achieving state (California) and national air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP is a
regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the CARB, the SCAG, and the EPA. The
plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and
planning assumptions, including SCAG’s growth projections and RTP/SCS and updated emission
inventory methodologies for various source categories. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined
in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project is
subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMP.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators:
• Consistency Criterion No. 1: The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or
severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay
9 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) [i.e., PSD (40 CFR 52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, 40 CFR 51.165 (b)), Non-attainment NSR (40 CFR 52.24, 40 CFR 51.165,
40 CFR part 51, Appendix S)
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 46
the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions
specified in the AQMP.
• Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP, or
increments based on the years of the Project build-out phase.
• According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency
finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of
the regional air quality plans, and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ability to
comply with CAAQS and NAAQS.
The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown in
Table 4, Construction-Related Emissions and Table 5, Operational Emissions below, the Project
would not exceed the construction and operation emission standards set by SCAQMD. Thus, the
project would be consistent with the first criterion.
Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based
on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with
local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project would require a GPA and a
ZC to change from commercial uses (C-1 and C-C) to residential uses (PUD/R-M). Nonetheless, the
difference between emissions from 8.65-acres of commercial properties and emissions from
76 single-family units would be minimal. Further, an increase of 306 residents, based on an average
household of 4.02 persons per household, would not be substantial increase in population and is
within the City’s project growth estimates. As such, the Project is consistent with SCAG’s latest
growth forecasts. Thus, the Project is consistent with the second criterion. The Project would be
consistent with both criterion and thus impacts would be less than significant.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction Emissions
Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air
pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include O3-precursor
pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX), CO, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are
short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but
would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds
the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.
Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, road
paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 47
movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne
particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with
site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.
The duration of construction activities associated with the Project is estimated to last
approximately 12 months. Construction-generated emissions associated the Project were
calculated using the CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model
emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements. See
Appendix A of this IS/MND for more information regarding the construction assumptions used
in this analysis. Predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions for the Project are
summarized in Table 4 below.
Fugitive dust emissions 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 vicinity. Uncontrolled
dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and
working nearby. SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and
perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and were applied in
CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Standard Condition (SC) AQ-1 requires the
implementation of Rule 402 and 403 dust control techniques to minimize PM10 and PM2.5
concentrations.
Table 4: Construction-Related Emissions
Construction Year
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
2022 3.24 65.62 27.14 0.22 10.21 5.85
2023 29.38 54.20 38.45 0.21 9.67 4.02
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes: SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other
construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stock piles with
tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment. Refer to Appendix A of the
Air Quality Assessment for Model Data Outputs.
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A of the Air Quality Assessment for model outputs.
As shown in Table 4, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective
thresholds. While impacts would be considered less than significant, the Project would be subject
to SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, and 1113, which set requirements related to potential nuisances,
fugitive dust, and architectural coatings.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 48
Operational Emissions
The Project’s operational emissions would be associated with area sources (e.g., landscape
maintenance equipment, architectural coatings, off-road equipment, etc.), energy sources,
mobile sources (i.e., motor vehicle use), and off-road equipment. Primary sources of operational
criteria pollutants are from motor vehicle use and area sources. Long-term operational emissions
attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 7. The operational emissions sources are
described below.
• Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions would be generated due to on-site
equipment, architectural coating, and landscaping that were previously not present on
the site.
• Energy Source Emissions. Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity
and natural gas usage associated with the Project. Primary uses of electricity and natural
gas by the Project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation,
lighting, appliances, and electronics.
• Mobile Source. 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, PM10,
and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern. NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form
O3, known as photochemical smog. Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM10 and
PM2.5. However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.
Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Trip Generation
and VMT Screening Memorandum for the Proposed Citrus East Residential Project in the City of
Fontana (Kimley-Horn, 2021) (Traffic Impact Study), and incorporated into CalEEMod as
recommended by the SCAQMD. Based on the trip rates from the Traffic Impact Study, the Project
would generate 556 daily trips.
Table 5: Operational Emissions
Source
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Area Source Emissions 4.71 1.14 6.74 <0.01 0.12 0.12
Energy Emissions 0.03 0.28 0.12 <0.01 0.02 0.02
Mobile Emissions 1.85 2.38 18.15 0.04 4.07 1.11
Total Emissions 6.60 3.80 25.01 0.05 4.22 1.25
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A of the Air Quality Assessment for model outputs.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 49
As shown in Table 5, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective
thresholds during Project operations. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant
impact.
Cumulative Construction Emissions
The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and
nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for Federal standards. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper
on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (2003) notes
that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project-specific SCAQMD regional
thresholds of significance should result in a less than significant impact on a cumulative basis
unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. The mass-based regional significance
thresholds published by the SCAQMD are designed to ensure compliance with both NAAQS and
CAAQS and are based on an inventory of projected emissions in the SoCAB. Therefore, if a project
is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds, the project’s contribution
to the cumulative impact on air quality in the SoCAB would not be cumulatively considerable. As
shown in Table 4 above, Project construction-related emissions by themselves would not exceed
the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not generate a cumulatively considerable contribution to air pollutant emissions during
construction.
The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the
AQMP pursuant to the FCAA mandates. The analysis assumed fugitive dust controls would be
utilized during construction, including frequent water applications. SCAQMD rules, mandates,
and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also be imposed on
construction projects throughout the SoCAB, which would include related projects. Compliance
with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further reduce the Project construction-related
impacts. Therefore, Project-related construction emissions, combined with those from other
projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate local air quality. Construction emissions
associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to
significant cumulative air quality impacts.
Cumulative Operational Impacts
The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is
sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead,
individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality
impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level
above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the SoCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 50
SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a
significant cumulative impact.
As shown in Table 5, the Project’s operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD
thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not substantially deteriorate local air quality in its
operational phase.
Standard Conditions and Requirements:
SC AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the
Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors
to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s)
Rules 402 and 403 to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates.
The measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three
months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise
stabilized.
• All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or
chemically stabilized.
• All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely
covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation
operations will be minimized at all times.
• Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the
streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to
remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The nearest sensitive receptors are the single-family residences located approximately 60 feet
(18 meters) to the north and east. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD
recommends addressing LSTs for construction. 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]) for
guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated
with Project-specific emissions.
Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and
the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment,
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 51
Table 6, Equipment-Specific Grading Rates, is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed
acreage for comparison to LSTs. The appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is
the Central San Bernardino Valley (SRA 34), since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to CO,
NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects that disturb areas less
than or equal to 5 acres in size. Project construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of 3.5
acres in a single day.
Table 6: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction
Phase
Equipment
Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour Day
Operating Hours
per Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Grading
Tractors 3 0.5 8 1.5
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5
Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5
Scrapers 1 1 8 1
Total Acres Graded per Day 3.5
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A of the Air Quality Assessment for model outputs.
The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not
be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the
CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptors are the
single-family residences located 60 feet (18 meters) north and east of the Project. LST thresholds
are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. The
SCAQMD LST guidance states that projects located closer than 25 meters should use the LSTs for
receptors located at 25 meters.10 Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters were utilized
in this analysis. Table 7, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, presents the results of
localized emissions during construction.
Table 7: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Nitrogen
Oxide (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
Coarse Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Site Preparation (2022) 33.08 19.70 10.02 5.80
Grading (2022) 20.86 15.27 4.09 2.35
Grading (2023) 17.94 14.75 3.92 2.20
Building Construction (2023) 14.38 16.24 0.70 0.66
Paving (2023) 10.19 14.58 0.51 0.47
Architectural Coating (2023) 1.30 1.81 0.07 0.07
Maximum Daily Emissions 33.08 19.70 10.02 5.80
SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold (3.5 acres at 25 meters) 220 1,359 11 6
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A of the Air Quality Assessment for model outputs.
10 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, page 3-3, 2008.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 52
Table 7 shows that emissions of criteria pollutants on the peak day of construction would not
result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Significant impacts
would not occur concerning LSTs during construction.
Localized Operational Significance Analysis
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a
project only if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long
periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). Since the Project is
a residential development, the operational phase LST protocol is conservatively applied to both
the area source and all energy source emissions. As the nearest receptors are located
approximately 60 feet (18 meters) from the Project site, LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters
for SRA 34 were used in this analysis. Although the Project is 8.65-acres, the 5-acre LST threshold
was conservatively for the Project, as the LSTs increase with the size of the site.
The LST analysis only includes on-site sources. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the
emissions shown in Table 8, Localized Significance of Operational Emissions, conservatively
include all on-site Project-related stationary sources and five percent of the Project-related
vehicle emissions since a portion of mobile sources would include vehicles maneuvering and
idling on-site. Table 8 shows that the maximum daily emissions of these pollutants during
operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive
receptors. Therefore, significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs during operational
activities.
Table 8: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions
Activity
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Nitrogen
Oxide (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Total On-Site Emissions
(Area + five percent mobile emissions) 1.27 7.55 0.32 0.18
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(5 acres at 25 meters) 270 1,746 4 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A of the Air Quality Assessment for model outputs.
Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
NOX and ROG are precursor emissions that form ozone in the atmosphere in the presence of
sunlight where the pollutants undergo complex chemical reactions. It takes time and the
influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so ozone may be formed at
a distance downwind from the sources. Breathing ground-level ozone can result health effects
that include reduced lung function, inflammation of airways, throat irritation, pain, burning, or
discomfort in the chest when taking a deep breath, chest tightness, wheezing, or shortness of
breath. In addition to these effects, evidence from observational studies strongly indicates that
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 53
higher daily ozone concentrations are associated with increased asthma attacks, increased
hospital admissions, increased daily mortality, and other markers of morbidity. The consistency
and coherence of the evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggests that ozone can make asthma
symptoms worse and can increase sensitivity to asthma triggers.
According the SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP, ozone, NOX, and ROG have been decreasing in the Basin
since 1975 and are projected to continue to decrease in the future. Although vehicle miles
traveled in the Basin continue to increase, NOX and ROG levels are decreasing because of
mandated controls on motor vehicles and the replacement of older polluting vehicles with lower-
emitting vehicles. NOX emissions from electric utilities have also decreased due to the use of
cleaner fuels and renewable energy. The 2016 AQMP demonstrates how the SCAQMD’s control
strategy to meet the 8-hour ozone standard in 2023 would lead to sufficient NOX emission
reductions to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 2022. In addition, since NOX emissions also
lead to the formation of PM2.5, the NOX reductions needed to meet the ozone standards will
likewise lead to improvement of PM2.5 levels and attainment of PM2.5 standards.
The SCAQMD’s air quality modeling demonstrates that NOX reductions prove to be effective in
reducing ozone levels and will also lead to significant improvement in PM2.5 concentrations. NOX-
emitting stationary sources regulated by the SCAQMD include Regional Clean Air Incentives
Market (RECLAIM) facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants, etc.), natural gas combustion
equipment (e.g., boilers, heaters, engines, burners, flares) and other combustion sources that
burn wood or propane. The 2016 AQMP identifies robust NOX reductions from new regulations
on RECLAIM facilities, non-refinery flares, commercial cooking, and residential and commercial
appliances. Such combustion sources are already heavily regulated with the lowest NOX
emissions levels achievable but there are opportunities to require and accelerate replacement of
these combustion sources with cleaner zero-emission alternatives, such as residential and
commercial furnaces, pool heaters, and backup power equipment. The AQMD plans to achieve
such replacements through a combination of regulations and incentives. Technology-forcing
regulations can drive development and commercialization of clean technologies, with future year
requirements for new or existing equipment. Incentives can then accelerate deployment and
enhance public acceptability of new technologies.
The 2016 AQMP also emphasizes that beginning in 2012, continued implementation of previously
adopted regulations will lead to NOX emission reductions of 68 percent by 2023 and 80 percent
by 2031. With the addition of 2016 AQMP proposed regulatory measures, a 30 percent reduction
of NOX from stationary sources is expected in the 15-year period between 2008 and 2023. This is
in addition to significant NOX reductions from stationary sources achieved in the decades prior
to 2008.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 54
As previously discussed, localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors were
found to be less than significant (refer to Table 7 and Table 8). The LSTs represent the maximum
emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the
most stringent applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard. The LSTs were developed
by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance
to the nearest sensitive receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air
quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including
protecting the health of sensitive populations.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service
of an intersection resulting from the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of
the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular
emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have
become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a
maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more
stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation
of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined.
Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections
do not result in exceedances of the CO standard.
The South Coast Air Basin was re-designated as attainment for CO in 2007 and CO is no longer
addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP. The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses
CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran
Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an
average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for
CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is
well below the 35-ppm Federal standard. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire
Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be
reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections
resulting from 556 additional vehicle trips attributable to the Project. Thus, the Project would not
produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO
Hotspot Analysis. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial
number of people)?
No Impact
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These
land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 55
processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and
fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified
by the SCAQMD as odor sources.
During construction-related activities, some odors (not substantial pollutant concentrations) that
may be detected are those typical of construction vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust from grading and
construction equipment). These odors are a temporary short-term impact that is typical of
construction projects and would disperse rapidly. The Project would not include any of the land
uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. Therefore, the Project would not
create objectionable odors.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 56
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
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 Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
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
X
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?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
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?
X
The following is based on information in the Fontana GP Chapter 7 – Conservation, Open Space,
Parks and Trails and in the Habitat Assessment Report, prepared for the Project by ELMT
Consulting (October 2021). The report is included as Appendix B in this IS/MND and the results
are summarized herein.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 57
Methodology
A literature review and records search were conducted to determine which special-status
biological resources have the potential to occur on or within the general vicinity of the Project
site. In addition to the literature review, a general habitat assessment or field investigation of the
Project site was conducted to document existing conditions and assess the potential for special-
status biological resources to occur within the Project site.
Literature Review
Prior to conducting the habitat assessment, a literature review and records search was conducted
for special-status biological resources potentially occurring on or within the vicinity of the Project
site. Previously recorded occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species and their
proximity to the Project site were determined through a query of the CDFW’s QuickView Tool in
the Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), CNDDB Rarefind 5, the California
Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of
California, Calflora Database, compendia of special-status species published by CDFW, and the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species listings.
All available reports, survey results, and literature detailing the biological resources previously
observed on or within the vicinity of the Project site were reviewed to understand existing site
conditions and note the extent of any disturbances that have occurred within the Project site
that would otherwise limit the distribution of special-status biological resources. Standard field
guides and texts were reviewed for specific habitat requirements of special-status and non-
special-status biological resources, as well as the following resources:
• Google Earth Pro historic aerial imagery (1985-2021);
• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS), Soil Survey;11
• USFWS Critical Habitat designations for Threatened and Endangered Species; and
• USFWS Endangered Species Profiles.
The literature review provided a baseline from which to inventory the biological resources
potentially occurring within the Project site. The CNDDB database was used, in conjunction with
ArcGIS software, to locate the nearest recorded occurrences of special-status species and
determine the distance from the Project site.
11 A soil series is defined as a group of soils with similar profiles developed from similar parent materials under comparable climatic and
vegetation conditions. These profiles include major horizons with similar thickness, arrangement, and other important characteristics, which
may promote favorable conditions for certain biological resources.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 58
Habitat Assessment/Field Investigation
Following the literature review, biologist Jacob H. Lloyd Davies inventoried and evaluated the
condition of the habitat within the Project site on August 17, 2021. Plant communities and land
cover types identified on aerial photographs during the literature review were verified by walking
meandering transects throughout the Project site. In addition, aerial photography was reviewed
prior to the site investigation to locate potential natural corridors and linkages that may support
the movement of wildlife through the area. These areas identified on aerial photography were
then walked during the field investigation.
All plant and wildlife species observed, as well as dominant plant species within each plant
community, were recorded. Plant species observed during the field investigation were identified
by visual characteristics and morphology in the field. Unusual and less familiar plant species were
photographed during the field investigation and identified in the laboratory using taxonomical
guides. Wildlife detections were made through observation of scat, trails, tracks, burrows, nests,
and/or visual and aural observation. In addition, site characteristics such as soil condition,
topography, hydrology, anthropogenic disturbances, indicator species, condition of on-site plant
communities and land cover types, and presence of potential jurisdictional drainage and/or
wetland features were noted.
Soil Series Assessment
On-site and adjoining soils were researched prior to the field investigation using the USDA NRCS
Soil Survey for San Bernardino County, Southwestern Part. In addition, a review of the local
geological conditions and historical aerial photographs was conducted to assess the ecological
changes that the Project site have undergone.
Plant Communities
Plant communities were mapped using 7.5-minute USGS topographic base maps and aerial
photography. The plant communities were classified in accordance with Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and
Evens (2009), delineated on an aerial photograph, and then digitized into GIS A rcview. The
Arcview application was used to compute the area of each plant community and/or land cover
type in acres.
Plants
Common plant species observed during the field investigation were identified by visual
characteristics and morphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook. Unusual and less
familiar plants were photographed in the field and identified in the office using taxonomic guides.
Taxonomic nomenclature used in this study follows the 2012 Jepson Manual (Hickman 2012).
In the Habitat Assessment Report, scientific names are provided immediately following common
names of plant species (first reference only).
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 59
Wildlife
Wildlife species detected during the field investigation by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign
were recorded during surveys in a field notebook. Field guides used to assist with identification
of wildlife species during the survey included the Sibley Field Guide to the Birds of Western North
America (Sibley 2003), A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003), and A
Field Guide to Mammals of North America (Reid 2006). Although common names of wildlife
species are well standardized, scientific names are provided immediately following common
names in the Habitat Assessment Report (first reference only).
Jurisdictional Drainages and Wetlands
Aerial photography was reviewed prior to conducting a field investigation in order to locate and
inspect any potential natural drainage features, ponded areas, or water bodies that may fall
under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or CDFW. In general, surface drainage features indicated as blue-
line streams on USGS maps that are observed or expected to exhibit evidence of flow are
considered potential riparian/riverine habitat and are also subject to state and federal regulatory
jurisdiction. In addition, ELMT reviewed jurisdictional waters information through examining
historical aerial photographs to gain an understanding of the impact of land-use on natural
drainage patterns in the area. The USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program “My Waters” data layers were also reviewed to
determine whether any hydrologic features and wetland areas have been documented on or
within the vicinity of the Project site.
Existing Site Conditions
The Project site occurs in an area that has undergone a conversion from natural habitats into
agriculture and residential land uses in the northern portion of the City of Fontana southeast of
Interstate 15 and north of State Route 210. The Project site is bordered by residential
developments to the north; Florentine Avenue and residential developments to the east;
Citrus Avenue and undeveloped, vacant land to the west; undeveloped, vacant land and a water
storage tank to the southwest; and Summit Avenue and institutional and residential
development to the south.
Topography and Soils
The Project site is relatively flat with no areas of significant topographic relief, and ranges in
elevation from 1,642 to 1,660 feet above mean sea level. Generally, the Project site slopes from
northeast to southwest. Based on the NRCS USDA Web Soil Survey, the Project site is underlain
entirely by Soboba gravelly loam sand (0 to 9 percent slopes). Refer to Exhibit 4, Soils in
Attachment A of Appendix B. Soils on-site have been mechanically disturbed and heavily
compacted from historic land uses (i.e., grading and weed abatement activities).
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 60
Vegetation
Due to historic and existing land uses, no native plant communities or natural communities of
special concern were observed on or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site consists
primarily of vacant, undeveloped land with scattered developed portions. The site has been
subjected to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances including grading, routine weed abatement
activities, vehicular traffic, and on-site and surrounding development. These disturbances have
eliminated and/or greatly disturbed the natural plant communities that historically occurred
within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Refer to Attachment C of Appendix B, Site
Photographs, for representative site photographs. No native plant communities will be impacted
from implementation of the proposed Project.
No natural plant communities occur within the boundaries of the Project site. The site supports
two (2) land cover types that would be classified as disturbed and developed. Refer to Exhibit 5,
Vegetation in Attachment A of Appendix B. The disturbed portions of the site vary in vegetative
density from unvegetated to densely vegetated and are subjected to routine weed abatement.
Surface soils within these areas have been heavily disturbed/compacted from anthropogenic
disturbances. Common plant species observed in the disturbed portions of the site include
Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), Mediterranean mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), mouse barley
(Hordeum murinum), red brome (Bromus madritensis), ripgut (Bromus diandrus), Mediterranean
grass (Schismus barbatus), wild oat (Avena fatua), California buckwheat (Eriogonum
fasciculatum), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and
California croton (Croton californicus). In addition, several non-native ornamental trees are
present around historic building sites, including olive (Olea europaea), wattle (Acacia longifolia),
Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), tamarisk (Tamarix
ramosissima).
Developed areas generally encompass all buildings/structures or any paved or otherwise
impervious surfaces. Developed portions of the site include remnant structures and foundations
from historic land uses, paved and compacted gravel areas that formerly supported staging
activities or materials stockpiles, and paved sidewalks. These areas are generally unvegetated
except for especially hardy early successional species that are adapted to growing in highly
compacted soils such as telegraph weed, Mediterranean mustard, and non-native grasses.
Wildlife
Plant communities provide foraging habitat, nesting/denning site, and shelter from adverse
weather or predation. This section provides a discussion of those wildlife species that were
observed or are expected to occur within the Project site. The discussion is to be used a general
reference and is limited by the season, time of day, and weather conditions in which the field
investigation was conducted. Wildlife detections were based on calls, songs, scat, tracks,
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 61
burrows, and direct observation. The Project site provide limited habitat for wildlife species
except those adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbances and development.
Fish
No fish or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would
provide suitable habitat for fish were observed on or within the vicinity of the Project site.
Therefore, no fish are expected to occur and are presumed absent from the Project site.
Amphibians
No amphibians or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs)
that would provide suitable habitat for amphibian species were observed on or within the vicinity
of the Project site. Therefore, no amphibians are expected to occur and are presumed absent
from the Project site.
Reptiles
The Project site provides limited foraging and cover habitat for reptile species adapted to a high
degree of anthropogenic disturbance. The only reptile species observed during the field
investigation was western side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana elegans). Common reptilian
species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbances that have the potential to occur
on-site include Great Basin fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes) and alligator lizard
(Elgaria multicarinata). Due to the high level of anthropogenic disturbances on-site, and
surrounding development, no special-status reptilian species are expected to occur within
Project site.
Birds
The Project site provides limited foraging and nesting habitat for bird species adapted to a high
degree of anthropogenic disturbance. Bird species detected during the field investigation
included mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), turkey
vulture (Cathartes aura), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), western meadowlark (Sturnella
neglecta), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and rock
pigeon (Columba livia).
Mammals
The Project site provides limited foraging and cover habitat for mammalian species adapted to a
high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. The only mammalian species observed during the
field investigation were cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) and California ground squirrel
(Otospermophilus beecheyi). Common mammalian species adapted to a high degree of
anthropogenic disturbance that could be expected to occur include coyote (Canis latrans),
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and raccoon (Procyon lotor).
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 62
Nesting Birds
No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field survey, which
was conducted at the end of the bird nesting season. Although subjected to routine disturbance,
the ornamental trees found on-site have the potential to provide suitable nesting habitat for
year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds adapted to urban
environments that could occur in the area. Additionally, the open, disturbed habitat on-site also
provides nesting opportunities for ground-nesting species such as killdeer (Charadrius vociferus).
No raptors are expected to nest on-site due to lack of suitable nesting opportunities.
Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish
and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or
destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). If construction occurs between February 1st and
August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within
three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that
no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction.
Migratory Corridors and Linkages
Habitat linkages provide connections between larger habitat areas that are separated by
development. Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for
animals to disperse or migrate between areas, and may allow for the dispersal, seasonal
migration, breeding, and foraging of a variety of wildlife species. A corridor can be defined as a
linear landscape feature of sufficient width to allow animal movement between two
comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to
function as a wildlife movement area. It is possible for a habitat corridor to be adequate for one
species yet still inadequate for others. Additionally, open space can provide a buffer against both
anthropogenic disturbance and natural fluctuations in resources.
According to the San Bernardino County General Plan, the Project site has not been identified as
occurring within a Wildlife Corridor or Linkage. As designated by the San Bernardino County
General Plan Open Space Element, major open space areas documented in the vicinity of the
Project site include the Lytle Creek Wash, located approximately 2.5 miles to the northeast, which
is separated from the Project by existing developments.
The proposed Project will be confined to existing areas that have been heavily disturbed and are
isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages. In addition, there are no riparian corridors,
creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural areas) within or connecting the site
to a recognized wildlife corridor or linkage. As such, implementation of the proposed Project is
not expected to impact wildlife movement opportunities. Therefore, impacts to wildlife corridors
or linkages are not expected to occur.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 63
Jurisdictional Areas
There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian
areas in California. The Corps Regulatory Branch regulates discharge of dredge or fill materials
into “waters of the United States” pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the CDFW regulates alterations
to streambeds and banks under Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 1600 et seq., and the Regional
Board regulates discharges into surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
The Project site does not support any discernible drainage courses, inundated areas, wetland
features, or hydric soils that would be considered jurisdictional by the Corps, Regional Board, or
CDFW. Query of the NWI database found no potential blueline streams, riverine, or other aquatic
resources within or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, Project activities will not result in
impacts to Corps, Regional Board, or CDFW jurisdictional areas and regulatory approvals will not
be required.
Special-Status Biological Resources
The CNDDB Rarefind 5 and the CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants
of California were queried for reported locations of special-status plant and wildlife species as
well as special-status natural plant communities in the Devore USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. The
habitat assessment evaluated the conditions of the habitat(s) within the boundaries of the
Project site to determine if the existing plant communities, at the time of the survey, have the
potential to provide suitable habitat(s) for special-status plant and wildlife species. Only one
quadrangle was searched since the Project site is located near the middle of the quadrangle and
is surrounded by existing development.
The literature search identified twenty (20) special-status plant species, forty-two (42)
special-status wildlife species, and three (3) special-status plant communities as having potential
to occur within the Devore USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. 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. Species determined to have
the potential to occur within the general vicinity of the Project site are presented in Table D-1:
Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources, provided in Attachment D of
Appendix B.
Special-Status Plants
According to the CNDDB and CNPS, twenty (20) special-status plant species have been recorded
in the Devore quadrangle (refer to Attachment D in Appendix B). No special-status plant species
were observed on-site during the field investigation. The Project site primarily consists
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 64
undeveloped land that has been subject to a high level of anthropogenic disturbances from
historic grading and stockpiling activities, on-site and surrounding development, and routine
weed abatement activities, and is largely surrounded by existing development. These
disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred on-site, which
has removed ability of the habitat on the Project site to provide suitable habitat for special-status
plant species known to occur in the general vicinity. Based on habitat requirements for specific
special-status plant species and the availability and quality of habitats needed by each species, it
was determined that the Project site does not provide suitable habitat for any of the special-
status plant species known to occur in the area and all are presumed to be absent. No focused
surveys are recommended.
Special-Status Wildlife
According to the CNDDB, forty-two (42) special-status wildlife species have been reported in the
Devore quadrangle (refer to Attachment D in Appendix B). No special-status wildlife species were
observed on-site during the habitat assessment. The Project site consists developed land and
vacant, undeveloped land that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances from
historic grading and stockpiling activities, on-site and surrounding development, and routine
weed abatement activities, and is largely surrounded by existing development. These
disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred on -site which
has greatly reduced potential foraging opportunities for wildlife species.
Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on-site
habitats, it was determined that the proposed Project site has a high potential to provide suitable
habitat for California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia); and a low potential to support
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae). It was further
determined that the Project site does not have the potential to support any of the other special-
status wildlife species known to occur in the area since the site has been heavily impacted by on-
site disturbances and surrounding development.
None of the aforementioned species are federally or state listed as endangered or threatened.
In order to ensure impacts to the aforementioned species do not occur from implementation of
the proposed Project, a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted prior
to ground disturbance. With implementation of the pre-construction nesting bird clearance
survey, impacts to the aforementioned species will be less than significant and no mitigation will
be required.
Based on regional significance, the potential occurrence of California gnatcatcher, burrowing owl,
and San Bernardino kangaroo rat within the Project site are described in further detail below:
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 65
California Gnatcatcher
California gnatcatcher is a federally threatened species with restricted habitat requirements,
being an obligate resident of sage scrub habitats that are dominated by California sagebrush. This
species generally occurs below 750 feet elevation in coastal regions and below 1,500 feet inland.
According to J. Atwood and J. Bolsinger (1992), 99% of all California gnatcatcher observations are
in areas with elevations below 950 feet. There are reported occurrences of California gnatcatcher
at 1,600 feet elevation (500 meters).
California gnatcatcher ranges from Ventura County south to San Diego County and northern Baja
California and is less common in sage scrub with a high percentage of tall shrubs. It prefers habitat
with more low-growing vegetation. California gnatcatchers breed between mid-February and the
end of August, with peak activity from mid-March to mid-May. Population estimates indicate that
there are approximately 1,600 to 2,290 pairs of coastal California gnatcatcher remaining.
Declines are attributed to loss of sage scrub habitat due to development, as well as cowbird nest
parasitism.
California gnatcatcher are ground and shrub-foraging insectivores. They feed on small insects and
other arthropods. A California gnatcatcher’s territory is highly variable in size and seems to be
correlated with distance from the coast, ranging from less than 1 ha to over 9 ha. In a 1998 study,
biologist Patrick Mock concluded that California gnatcatcher in the inland region require a larger
territory than those on the coast in order to meet the nutritional requirements needed for
survival and breeding.
The Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs)12 essential to support the biological needs of foraging,
reproducing, rearing of young, intra-specific communication, dispersal, genetic exchange, or
sheltering for California gnatcatcher that were surveyed for include:
1. Dynamic and Successional sage scrub Habitats and Associated Vegetation (Diegan Coastal
Sage Scrub, Coastal Sage-Chaparral Scrub, etc.) that provide space for individual and
population growth, normal behavior, breeding, reproduction, nesting, dispersal and
foraging; and
2. Non-sage scrub habitats such as chaparral, grassland, and riparian areas, in proximity to
sage scrub habitats that have the potential to provide linkages to help with dispersal,
foraging and nesting.
The Project site ranges in elevation from 1,642 to 1,660 feet above mean sea level, which is
outside the known elevational range of California gnatcatcher. The preferred habitat for
California gnatcatcher is coastal sage scrub dominated by California sage brush. The Project site
12 Specific elements of physical and biological features that provide for a species’ life-history process and are essential to the conservation of
the species.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 66
does not support coastal sage scrub habitat, nor does it support any vegetation alliances capable
of providing suitable habitat for California gnatcatcher. In addition, the site is isolated from
California gnatcatcher occupied coastal sage scrub habitats and linkage areas in the region by
surrounding development. Given the highly degraded condition of the site, plus the lack of any
observation of California gnatcatcher in north Fontana and isolation of the site due to the recent
development of surrounding properties, it is highly unlikely that the site supports this species.
The site is presumed to be unoccupied and focused surveys are not recommended.
Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl is currently listed as a California Species of Special Concern. It 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. Burrowing
owls use a wide variety of arid and semi-arid environments with well-drained, level to
gently-sloping areas characterized by sparse vegetation and bare ground (Haug and Didiuk 1993;
Dechant et al. 1999). Burrowing owls are dependent upon the presence of burrowing mammals
(such as ground squirrels), whose burrows are used for roosting and nesting (Haug and
Didiuk 1993). The presence or absence of colonial mammal burrows is often a major factor that
limits the presence or absence of burrowing owls. Where mammal burrows are scarce, burrowing
owls have been found occupying man-made cavities, such as buried and non-functioning drain
pipes, stand-pipes, and dry culverts. Burrowing mammals may burrow beneath rocks and debris
or large, heavy objects such as abandoned cars, concrete blocks, or concrete pads. They also
require open vegetation allowing line-of-sight observation of the surrounding habitat to forage
as well as watch for predators.
No burrowing owls or recent sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or white wash) was observed
during the field investigation. The Project site is unvegetated and/or vegetated with a variety of
low-growing plant species that allow for line-of-sight observation favored by burrowing owls and
the site supports minimal suitable burrows (>4 inches in diameter) capable of providing roosting
and nesting opportunities. However, the site is surrounded by buildings, trees, and light poles,
which decrease the likelihood that burrowing owls would occur on the Project site as these
features provide perching opportunities for larger raptor species (i.e., red-tailed hawk
[Buteo jamaicensis]) that prey on burrowing owls. Further, the Project site is largely surrounded
by existing development and is thoroughly isolated from nearby suitable habitats.
Based on the results of the field investigation, it was determined that the Project site has a low
potential to provide suitable habitat for burrowing owls and focused surveys are not
recommended. However, a pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey is recommended to
be conducted prior to development to ensure burrowing owl remain absent from the Project site.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 67
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
The San Bernardino kangaroo rat, federally listed as endangered, is one of several kangaroo rat
species in its range. The Dulzura (Dipodomys simulans), the Pacific kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys agilis) and the Stephens kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) occur in areas occupied
by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, but these other species have a wider habitat range.
San Bernardino kangaroo rat historically ranged from the San Bernardino Valley in
San Bernardino County to southwest Perris, Bautista Canyon, and Murrieta Hot Springs in
Riverside County, with at least 25 separate localities identified. Currently, populations of the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat are limited to seven widely separated locations in San Bernardino
and Riverside Counties, four of which (City Creek, Etiwanda, Reche Canyon, and
South Bloomington) support only small, remnant populations. The Santa Ana River, Lytle and
Cajon washes, and the San Jacinto River support the largest extant concentrations of
San Bernardino kangaroo rat and the largest areas of habitat for this species
(approximately 3,200 acres total). The total area of occupied habitat occurs across a mosaic
of approximately 13,697 acres of potential habitat; however, all but the 3,215 occupied areas
are currently more mature than the open, early successional habitat types preferred by the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat (USFWS 2009).
San Bernardino kangaroo rat is found primarily on sandy and loamy sand substrates, where they
can readily excavate simple, shallow burrows. This is typically associated with Riversidean Alluvial
Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) habitat, a relatively uncommon desert-influenced plant community in
southern California that develops on alluvial fans and floodplains subjected to scouring and
deposition (USFWS 2009). Adjacent upland habitat provide refuge for San Bernardino kangaroo
rat during flood events. Animals occupying this refugia habitat are able to repopulate core habitat
areas within the floodplain following major flood events. Most of the drainages have been
historically altered as a result of flood control efforts and the resulting increased use of river
resources, including mining, off-road vehicle use, and road and housing development. This
increased use of river resources has resulted in a reduction in both the amount and quality of
habitat available for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The past habitat losses and potential future
losses prompted the emergency listing of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat as an endangered
species (USFWS, 1998a).
The Project site has not supported a natural plant community since at least 2002, and the existing
plant community and land cover types do not exhibit the species diversity or distribution of RAFFS
habitat. In addition, the Project site and surrounding area are no longer exposed to fluvial
processes needed to maintain the intermediate RAFSS habitat that would be required for
long-term San Bernardino kangaroo rat conservation, since the site has been isolated from the
influences of nearby waterways and alluvial fans extending out of the San Gabriel Mountains
since the mid-1980s to early-2000s. Due to the history of regular disruption and manipulation of
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 68
the native soils, the loss of fluvial scouring due to flood control activities, and isolation from
known occupied habitat, it was determined that the Project site does not provide suitable habitat
for San Bernardino kangaroo rat. No further studies are recommended.
Special-Status Plant Communities
According to the CNDDB, three (3) special-status plant communities have been reported in the
Devore USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle: Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, southern riparian
forest, and Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland. Based on the results of the field
investigation, no special-status plant communities were observed onsite. Therefore, no
special-status plant communities will be impacted by Project implementation.
Critical Habitat
Under the federal Endangered Species Act, “Critical Habitat” is designated at the time of listing
of a species or within one year of listing. Critical Habitat refers to specific areas within the
geographical range of a species at the time it is listed that include the physical or biological
features that are essential to the survival and eventual recovery of that species. Maintenance of
these physical and biological features requires special management considerations or protection,
regardless of whether individuals or the species are present or not. All federal agencies are
required to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding activities
they authorize, fund, or permit which may affect a federally listed species or its designated
Critical Habitat. The purpose of the consultation is to ensure that Projects will not jeopardize the
continued existence of the listed species or adversely modify or destroy its designated Critical
Habitat. The designation of Critical Habitat does not affect private landowners, unless a Project
they are proposing is on federal lands, uses federal funds, or requires federal authorization or
permits (e.g., funding from the Federal Highways Administration or a CWA Permit from
the Corps). If there is a federal nexus, then the federal agency that is responsible for providing
the funding or permit would consult with the USFWS.
The Project site is located within designated Critical Habitat Unit 2, Lytle Creek/Cajon Wash.
Refer to Exhibit 6, Critical Habitat in Attachment A of Appendix B. In 2002 the USFWS designated
Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and the Project site was included within the
designated area. In 2008 the USFWS reduced the boundaries of the previously designated
Critical Habitat which removed the Project site from designation, however, in 2011 the original
(2002) designated Critical Habitat was reinstated by a federal district court ruling. Nonetheless,
since the Project does not have a federal nexus, a Section 7 consultation with the USFWS would
not be required for loss or adverse modification of Critical Habitat.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 69
North Fontana Conservation Program
The North Fontana Conservation Program (previously referred to as the North Fontana Interim
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan) was prepared to address lands in north Fontana and
the listed and special-status species that have the potential to occur on these lands.
To adequately mitigate for the loss of sensitive habitats, as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a tiered development mitigation fee was created for new
development in north Fontana. The mitigation fee is based on the quality of the habitat on the
development site and a site’s potential to support SBKR, coastal California gnatcatcher, or other
special-status species occurring in the vicinity. The mitigation fee is charged for each acre of land
proposed for development based on the habitat quality rating.
The North Fontana Conservation Program mitigation fee areas (habitat quality ratings) were
overlain over the Project site boundaries in ArcGIS in order to calculate the acreage of impacts to
the various habitat qualities occurring on the Project site. From this, the mitigation fee for the
proposed Projects were calculated.
The Project site is located within two (2) habitat quality (or mitigation fee types): “Unsuitable
Habitat” and Suitable Habitat” (refer to Exhibit 7, North Fontana Conservation Program Fee Map
in Attachment A of Appendix B). Approximately 8.57 acres of “Unsuitable” habitat were
identified within the Project site that would be mitigated as required per the North Fontana
Conservation Program at a cost of $1,035.00 per acre totaling an estimated $8,869.95 of
mitigation costs. Approximately 0.009 acres of “Suitable Habitat” was identified on the southwest
corner of the Project site and would be mitigated at a cost of $6,210.00 per acre totaling an
estimated $55.89 of mitigation costs. Per these estimated costs and acreages, development of
the Project site will result in a total of $8,925.84 in mitigation costs under the North Fontana
Conservation Program. Refer to Table 9, Habitat Qualities and Mitigation Fees below for a
summary of the habitat qualities and mitigation fees.
Table 9: Habitat Qualities and Mitigation Fees
Habitat Qualities Mitigation Fee
(per acre) Acreage Mitigation Fee
Suitable $6,210.00 0.009 $55.89
Unsuitable Habitat $1,035.00 8.57 $8,869.95
TOTALS 8.579 $8,925.84
Conclusion
Based literature review and field survey, and existing site conditions discussed in this report,
implementation of the Project will have no significant impacts on federally or State listed species
known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, the Project will not
interfere with any regional wildlife corridors/linkage because none exists within the area. No
jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the Project site during the field
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 70
investigation. No further surveys are recommended. With completion of the recommendations
provided below, no impacts to year-round, seasonal, or special-status avian residents or
special-status species will occur from implementation of the proposed Project.
Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact. A Habitat Assessment for the Project site was prepared by
ELMT Consulting to verify potential habitat for sensitive biological resources within the site and
vicinity (October 2021). ELMT Consulting conducted a literature review and records search for
special-status biological resources as well as a field investigation to evaluate the condition of the
habitat within the Project site and surrounding areas. In addition, ELMT also conducted aerial
photographs and topographic maps review of the Project site and surrounding areas. As
discussed above, the Habitat Assessment Report concluded that implementation of the Project
will have no significant impacts on federally or State listed species known to occur in the general
vicinity of the Project site.13 No jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed
on the Project site during the field investigation and no impacts to year-round, seasonal, or
special-status avian residents or special-status species will occur.14 Therefore, no further surveys
are recommended.15As described above, the Project site is located within two (2) habitat quality
(or mitigation fee types): “Unsuitable Habitat and “Suitable Habitat.” The Project is subject to
payment of Habitat Qualities and Mitigation Fees as listed in Table 9.
Although, the Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, the surrounding lands have been
disturbed and developed with residential development to the west, north, and east. Therefore,
the Project would not create an 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 (CDFW) or
USFWS. No sensitive or special status plant species are identified to occur on-site. The Project is
subject to payment of the Habitat Qualities and Mitigation Fees. Therefore, a less than significant
impact is anticipated to occur.
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 Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
13 ELMT Consulting. Habitat Assessment Report. October 2021.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 71
No Impact. As discussed in Threshold 4(a), the Habitat Assessment Report concluded that, based
on the results of the field surveys, no jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were
observed on the Project site. Further, the Project site does not contain any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community. Therefore, no impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural vegetation communities are anticipated.
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?
No Impact. As discussed in Threshold 4(a), the Habitat Assessment Report concluded that, based
on the results of the field surveys, no jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were
observed on the Project site. Further, the Project site does not contain any drainage features
onsite that would meet any criteria subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA) or Fish and Game Code
(FGC). Therefore, no impact would occur.
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?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the San Bernardino County
General Plan, the Project site has not been identified as occurring within a Wildlife Corridor or
Linkage.16 The Habitat Assessment Report concluded that, based on the results of the field
surveys, no jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the Project site.
The Project is primarily vacant, undeveloped land with scattered developed portions and has
been subjected to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances including grading, routine weed
abatement activities, vehicular traffic, and on-site and surrounding development. These
disturbances have eliminated and/or greatly disturbed the natural plant communities that
historically occurred within the immediate vicinity of the Project site.17 As such, no active nests
or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field survey conducted during
breeding season.
Nesting birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) which provides
protection for nesting birds that are both residents and migrants whether or not they are
considered sensitive by resource agencies. The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy,
sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed under 50 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 10,
including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing
regulations (50 CFR 21). The direct or indirect injury or death of a migratory bird, due to
construction activities such as nest abandonment, nestling abandonment, or forced fledging
16 ELMT Consulting. Habitat Assessment for the Citrus East Project. October 2021.
17 Ibid.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 72
would be considered illegal under federal law. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), in coordination with the CDFW, administers the MBTA.
Although, no active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field
survey, the following mitigation measure is recommended to ensure any potential impacts to
nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant:
Mitigation Measure:
MM BIO-1 If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction
clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within three (3) days of the
start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no
nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the
clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report
indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is
discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities
shall stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer. The size of the no disturbance buffer
will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise
and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest
and the construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, ambient
noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of
construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging,
fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be
instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor shall be present to
delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to
ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity.
Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes
inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area
can occur. As part of the nesting bird clearance, a burrowing owl pre-construction
clearance survey shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation
removal activities to ensure that burrowing owls remain absent from the project
site.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Fontana MC Chapter 28, Article III – Preservation of Heritage,
Significant and Specimen Trees establishes regulations for the preservation and protection of
heritage, significant and/or specimen trees within the City. The Project site contains ornamental
trees that are not considered heritage or significant, as well as olive trees that are considered to
be heritage trees under the City’s ordinance. The Project implementation would result in removal
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 73
of the trees that are not protected under the Preservation of Heritage, Significant and Specimen
Trees Ordinance. The existing olive trees would be protected in place to the extent possible, and
a tree removal permit would be required if they must be removed or are damaged during
construction. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No impact would
occur in this regard.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Fontana is currently finalizing the North Fontana
Conservation Program (previously known as the North Fontana Interim MSHCP). The Project is
within the Fontana Conservation Program mitigation fee areas; and therefore, would be subject
to the mitigation fee.
Payment of the mitigation fee would ensure the Project would not conflict with the provisions of
an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, a less than significant impact would
occur in this regard and no mitigation is required.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 74
CULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
X
This section discusses the historic, archaeological resources that may be impacted due to Project
implementation. Cultural resources are defined as places, objects, and settlements that reflect
group or individual religious, archaeological, or architectural activities. Such resources provide
information on scientific progress, environmental adaptations, group ideology, or other human
advancements. By statute, CEQA is primarily concerned with two classes of cultural resources:
“historical resources,” which are defined in PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5, and “unique archaeological resources,” which are defined in PRC
Section 21083.2. Tribal cultural resources are generally described as sites, features, places,
cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe and are further defined in PRC Section 21074(a)(1)(A) and (B), and discussed in Geology and
Soils Section 7.
The information and analysis in this section is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment
report, prepared for the Project by BCR Consulting, LLC. (BCR) in November 2021; as well as
literature review of the City of Fontana General Plan (2007) and City of Fontana General Plan
Update 2015 – 2035 (2018), and existing conditions of the Project site. The BCR report is included
as Appendix C to this IS/MND and the results are summarized herein.
Historical Resources
Historical resources consist of any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or
manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the
architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political,
military, or cultural annals of California. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead
agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), Section 15064.5(a)(3)).
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 75
Archaeological Resources
An archaeological site is defined by the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as a place or
places where the remnants of a past culture survive in a physical context that allows for the
interpretation of these remains. Archeological remains usually take the form of artifacts
(e.g., fragments of tools, vestiges of utilitarian or non-utilitarian objects), features (e.g., remnants
of walls, cooking hearths, or midden deposits), or ecological evidence (e.g., pollen remaining from
plants that were in the area when the activates occurred). Prehistoric archaeological sites
generally represent the material remains of Native American groups and their activities dating to
the period before European contact. In some cases, prehistoric sites may contain evidence of
trade contact with Europeans. Ethnohistoric archaeological sites are defined as Native American
settlements occupied after the arrival of European settlers in California. Historic archaeological
sites reflect the activities of non-native populations during the Historic period
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 governs the excavation of archaeological
sites on federal and Indian lands in the United States, and the removal and disposition of
archaeological collections from those sites.
Paleontological Resources
Paleontology, exclusive of the study of human fossils, is a natural science closely associated with
geology and biology. In geologically diverse California, vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossils
are usually found in sedimentary and metasedimentary deposits. CEQA provides guidance
relative to significant impacts on paleontological resources, indicating that a project would have
a significant impact on paleontological resources if it disturbs or destroys a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Section 5097.5 of the California Public
Resources Code specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a
misdemeanor. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for damage
or removal of paleontological resources.
CEQA provides guidance relative to significant impacts on paleontological resources, indicating
that a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it disturbs or
destroys a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Section 5097.5 of
the California Public Resources Code specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological
remains is a misdemeanor. Further, California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for
damage or removal of paleontological resources. CEQA documentation prepared for projects
would be required to analyze paleontological resources as a condition of the CEQA process to
disclose potential impacts. As of January 2018, paleontological resources are considered in the
geological rather than cultural category. Therefore, paleontological resources are discussed in
the Geology and Soils discussion.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 76
Methodology18
Records Search
Prior to fieldwork, an archaeological records search was conducted by SCCIC staff using data on
file at California State University, Fullerton. This included a review of all recorded historic and
prehistoric cultural resources, as well as a review of known cultural resources within 0.5 miles of
the Project site. In addition, a review was conducted of the National Register of Historic Places
(HRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and documents and inventories
from the California Office of Historic Preservation (COHP), including the lists of California
Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, Listing of National Register
Properties, and the Inventory of Historic Structures.
Field Survey
An intensive-level cultural resources field survey of the Project site was conducted on
September 2, 2021. The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced
approximately 15 meters apart across 100 percent of the project site, where accessible. Cultural
Resources were recorded on DPR 523 forms. Ground visibility averaged approximately 80 percent
within project boundaries. Digital photographs were taken at various points within the project
site.
Results19
Records Search
Records search results conducted by SCCIC staff using data on file at California State University,
Fullerton indicate that 19 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within a
0.5 miles radius of the Project site, resulting in the recordation of three historic-period cultural
resources. Of these, one of the previous studies assessed the project site for cultural resources
but did not identify any cultural resources within its boundaries. The Historic-Period Grapeland
Homesteads/Water Works (designated P-36-15376) encompasses the Project site, although no
components of that resource have ever been identified within the project site boundaries.
Results are summarized in Table 10, Cultural Resources and Reports Located within 0.5 Miles of
the Project Site, and a comprehensive records search bibliography is in Appendix B of the Cultural
Resources Assessment Report, provided as Appendix C of this Initial Study.
Table 10: Cultural Resources and Reports Located within 0.5 Miles of the Project Site
USGS 7.5 Min Quad. Cultural Resources Within 0.5 Miles of Project Site Studies Within One Mile
Devore, Calif. (1980) P-36-6287: Historic-Period Foundation (1/4 Mile SE)
P-36-6588: Historic-Period Foundation (Adjacent SE)
P-36-15376: Historic-Period Grapeland
Homesteads/Water Works (Encompasses Project Site)
SB-1407, 1611, 1737, 1983,
2064, 2096, 2621, 3049, 3527,
3957, 4020, 4021, 4022, 4209,
5088, 5089*, 6986, 7375, 7990
*Previously assessed for the Project site for cultural resources.
Source: BCR Consulting, LLC.November 2021. Cultural Resources Assessment.
18 BCR Consulting LLC. (2021). Cultural Resources Assessment; Methodology. Accessed November 2021.
19 BCR Consulting LLC. (2021). Cultural Resources Assessment; Results. Accessed Nevember 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 77
Sacred Lands File Search
BCR Consulting conducted a Sacred Lands File search with the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC). Findings were positive during the Sacred Lands File (SLF) search with the
NAHC. The NAHC has recommended contacting the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh
Nation for more information regarding this finding. The City will initiate Assembly Bill (AB) 52
Native American Consultation for the project. Since the City will initiate and carry out the
required Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in the
BCR report. Refer to Section 18: Tribal Cultural Resources of this IS/MND for consultation results
and additional information regarding AB 18 and AB 52.
Field Survey
During the field survey, BCR Consulting identified a stone alignment that measures approximately
350 feet long (east to west direction) by about eight feet wide, and a concrete foundation with
building footings and partial four course stone wall that were part of a residential/agricultural
complex developed between the late 1920s to early 1930s. These items have been temporarily
designated KIM2116-H-1. Modern and historic-period building materials are scattered around
the former residence. The project site has been subject to repeated mechanical clearing and
weed abatement, and subsurface probes indicate little potential for intact buried materials. Site
vegetation included pepper trees, mixed seasonal grasses, and buckwheat. Sediments included
silty sand with many granitic cobbles.
Significance Evaluations
CEQA calls for the evaluation and recordation of historic and archaeological resources. The
criteria for determining the significance of impacts to cultural resources are based on
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Guidelines for the Nomination of Properties to the
California Register. Properties eligible for listing in the California Register and subject to review
under CEQA are those meeting the criteria for listing in the California Register, or designation
under a local ordinance.
Significance Criteria
California Register of Historical Resources. The California Register criteria are based on
National Register criteria. For a property to be eligible for inclusion on the California Register,
one or more of the following criteria must be met:
1. It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the U.S.;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or U.S. history;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values; and/or
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 78
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California, or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that
sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly
perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]). The
California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for
the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association.
Finally, CEQA requires that significant effects on unique archaeological resources be considered
and addressed. CEQA defines a unique archaeological resource as any archaeological artifact,
object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the
current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there
is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available
example of its type.
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person.
California Register Evaluations
KIM2116-H-1. As discussed above, during the field survey, BCR Consulting identified a stone
alignment that measures approximately 350 feet long (east to west direction) by about eight feet
wide, and a concrete foundation with building footings and partial four course stone wall from
the residence. Using the CRHR Criteria to determine if a property would be eligible for inclusion
on the California Register, the KIM2116-H-1 does not meet any of the four criteria. Substantial
research has not indicated a close association between the subject property and any important
events (Criterion 1 not met). Substantial research has failed to connect the subject property with
the lives of persons important in California’s past (Criterion 2 not met). The remaining elements
do not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values (Criterion 3 not met). And lastly,
the subject property has not and is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or
history (Criterion 4 not met). The subject property and its historic-age components are therefore
not eligible under any of the four criteria for listing on the California Register, and as such are not
historical resources under CEQA.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 79
BCR Report Conclusion
BCR Consulting conducted a Cultural Resources Assessment of the Citrus East Project located in
the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The records search data indicated that
the project site was encompassed within the Grapeland Homesteads/Water Works (designated
P-36-15376), although the field survey did not identify any items that could be associated with
this resource. During the field survey, BCR archaeologists identified a historic-period building
foundation and stone alignment, temporarily designated KIM2116-H-1. These were part of a
residential/agricultural complex developed between the late 1920s and early 1930s that is
unassociated with the Historic-Period Grapeland Homesteads/Water Works development. It is
not recommended eligible for the California Register and as such is not a historical resource under
CEQA. Due to a lack of historical resources located within the project site, BCR Consulting
recommends that no additional cultural resources work, or monitoring is necessary for any
proposed project activities.
Would the Project:
a & b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical and/or
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the CRHR significance criteria, research has failed to
associate the historic-period stone alignment with any important events or persons (Criteria 1
and 2). The site does not embody any distinctive characteristics, represent the work of a master,
or possess high artistic values (Criterion 3). Intensive survey has not identified any potential for
the site to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California,
or the nation (Criterion 4). As such, the Project site does not meet any of the CRHR significance
criteria and is not a historical resource under CRHR. Therefore, it is not a unique archaeological
resource and is also not a historical resource under CEQA and does not warrant further
consideration. Based on these results, no additional cultural resource work or monitoring is
necessary for any earthmoving proposed within the Project site. However, if previously
undocumented cultural (historical or archaeological) resources are identified during earthmoving
activities, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to assess the nature and significance of
the find, diverting construction excavation if necessary. Mitigation measure MM CUL-1 and
MM CUL-2 are required to ensure any potential impacts to cultural resources would be reduced
to less than significant.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
No Impact. The Project site is not located within a known or suspected cemetery, and there are
no known human remains within the Project site. Additionally, the results of the records search
conducted through the Western Science Center (WSC) concluded that the Project area is mapped
entirely as alluvial fan deposits dating from the Holocene period. While Holocene alluvial units
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 80
are considered to be of high preservation value, material found is unlikely to be fossil material
due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits. The WSC does not have localities
within the Project area or within a one-mile radius. While the presence of any fossil material is
unlikely, if excavation activity disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the
Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, the material would be scientifically significant. Based on
the WSC results and history of the general Project area, excavation activity associated with the
development of the Project area is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive and a less than
significant impact on human remains is anticipated, but caution during development should be
observed. The following Standard Condition would be carried out during Project construction.
Standard Condition
SC-1 If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the
County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of
the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner
will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will
determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the
landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of
the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of
notification by the NAHC.
Mitigation Measures:
MM CUL-1 In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all
work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and
a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to
assess the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted.
Depending upon the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record
the find and allow work to continue. Work on the other portions of the project
outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. If the
resource(s) are determined to be Native American in origin, the Project
archaeologist shall notify the appropriate Native American Tribe(s) from a list
provided by the City, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and
treatment.
MM CUL-2 If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by
CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the
archaeologist shall prepare an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data
recovery or Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided
to the Planning Director or his/her designee and if the discovery are determined
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 81
to be Native American in origin, shall be submitted to the appropriate Native
American Tribe(s) for review and comment, as detailed within MM TCR-1. The
archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan
accordingly.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 82
ENERGY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
6. ENERGY. Would the Project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact
due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during Project construction or
operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
X
Analysis in this section is based on Energy Calculations prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates
utilizing VMT and emissions data discussed in other sections of this IS/MND. The energy
calculations may be found in Appendix G of this IS/MND.
Building Energy Conservation Standards
In June 1977, the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission
(now the California Energy Commission) adopted energy conservation standards for new
residential and non-residential buildings, which the Commission updates every three years
(Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations). Title 24 requires the design of building
shells and building components to conserve energy. The periodic update of these standards allow
for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
On May 9, 2018, the California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted the 2019 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards, which took effect on January 1, 2020.
The 2019 Standards improved upon the previous 2016 Standards for new construction of and
additions and alterations to residential and non-residential buildings. Implementation of the
2019 Title 24 standards result in residential buildings being approximately 7 percent more energy
efficient, and when the required rooftop solar is factored in for low-rise residential construction,
residential buildings that meet 2019 Title 24 standards would use approximately 53 percent less
energy than those built to meet current standards.
Senate Bill 350
In September 2015, then California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 350 into law.
This legislation established tiered increases to the Renewable Portfolio Standard: 40 percent by
2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 83
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100 (De Leon). This legislation, referred to as
“The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2019,” increased the required Renewable Portfolio
Standards. Under SB 100, the total kilowatt-hours (kWh)of energy sold by electricity retailers to
their end-use customers must consist of at least 50 percent renewable resources by 2026,
60 percent renewable resources by 2030, and 100 percent renewable resources by 2045. SB 100
also establishes a State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero -carbon
resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and
100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the
bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource
shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.
Local Policies
Fontana General Plan: Infrastructure and Green Systems Element
Goal 7: Fontana is an energy efficient community
Policy 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.
Action 7.A: Promote participation in renewable energy programs.
Action 7.B: Regional and state programs provide a wide range of programs to assist
homeowners, other property owners, and businesses access renewable energy.
Action 7.C: Promote state and regional retrofit programs for property owners. At the time of
writing, these programs include:
• California Solar Initiative. This program provides rebates for solar installation
to income-eligible owners of single-family homes and also has a program for
affordable multifamily housing.
Action 7.D: Encourage customer participation in renewable energy programs offered by
Southern California Edison. Currently, two programs are available:
• Green Tariff: Customers can sign up with the utility to receive up to 100% of
their energy from renewable sources.
• Enhanced Community Renewables (ECR): Under this “community solar”
program, a developer of a local solar project sells shares in the solar electricity
produced to customers, who sign up for at least 25% and as much as 100% of
their monthly electricity demand. They pay the producer directly and receive a
credit on their utility bill.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 84
Action 7.E: Work with the San Bernardino Regional Energy Partnership (SBREP) to acce ss
assistance to city government in energy efficiency.
Action 7.F: Encourage industrial and other suitable non-residential developers to participate
in the Enhanced Community Renewables program.
• This is a “distributed energy” and “community solar” system whereby the
developers sell shares of electricity they do not use for their own activities to
purchasers. Warehouse buildings with solar panel roofs may be very suitable
for this program.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the Project area. The Project’s annual
energy demand would total approximately 0.35 GWh. According to the California Energy
Commission, the total electricity usage for San Bernardino County was approximately 15,968.52
GWh in 2020. The Project’s increase in electricity demand would represent an insignificant
percent increase compared to overall consumption in San Bernardino County. Therefore,
projected electrical demand would not significantly affect SCE’s level of service. In addition, the
Project design and materials would be subject to compliance with the most current Building
Energy Efficiency Standards. The Project would also be required adhere to CALGreen provisions,
which establish planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy
efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material
conservation, and internal air contaminants.
Project development would not interfere with achievement of the 60 percent Renewable
Portfolio Standard set forth in SB 100 for 2030 or the 100 percent standard for 2045. These goals
apply to SCE and other electricity retailers. As electricity retailers reach these goals, emissions
from end user electricity use would decrease from current emission estimates. Therefore, Project
impacts on electric energy resources would be less than significant.
Natural Gas
Southern California Gas (SoCal Gas) provides natural gas service to the Project area. The
CalEEMod modeling outputs estimates that the Project’s annual natural gas demand would total
approximately 1,093,040 KBtu. The total natural gas consumption for San Bernardino County was
approximately 15,448,085,922 KBtu in 2020. According to 2020 California Gas Report,
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 85
from 2020 to 2035, statewide annual gas requirements will decline from 4,194 (MMcf/d) to 3,594
(MMcf/d), while supplies remain constant. Therefore, the Project’s natural gas demand would
represent a nominal percentage of overall demand in the City and State. Therefore, the Project
would result in a less than significant impact regarding natural gas.
Fuel
During construction, transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, vehicle
miles traveled, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during
construction would be associated with the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery
vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel/gasoline.
The Project would use 15,733 gallons of gasoline and 61,464 gallons of diesel fuel, which would
not meaningfully increase the County’s fuel consumption. Most construction equipment during
demolition and grading would be gas-powered or diesel-powered, however the later
construction phases would require electricity-powered equipment. Impacts related to
transportation energy use during construction would be temporary and would not require
expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure; impacts would be less than
significant.
During operations, fuel consumption would be associated with residential activities such as
driving cars and heating and cooling homes. The Project would result in an additional 556 vehicle
trips; however, vehicle fuel efficiency is expected to increase. Additionally, electric and hybrid
vehicles are becoming more commonplace and are likely to become a larger part of future fleet
mixes, which will lower the demand for and usage of gasoline or diesel fuel.
The Project is close to public transportation, further reducing the need to drive. The City and
surrounding areas are highly urbanized with numerous gasoline fuel facilities and infrastructure.
Consequently, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial demand for energy that
would require expanded supplies or the construction of other infrastructure or expansion of
existing facilities. Existing rules and regulations concerning vehicle fuel consumption efficiencies
would ensure that vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project would not be considered as
inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts are less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The Infrastructure and Green Systems City Element of the Fontana General Plan provides a
framework for the City to achieve its energy goals. Goals and policies under Goal 7 address plans
to reduce GHGs, promote energy conservation, and incorporate sustainable building practices.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 86
As shown in Table 11, Project Consistency with the Infrastructure and Green Systems Element,
the Project would comply with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan.
Table 11: Project Consistency with the Infrastructure and Green Systems Element
Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis
Goal 7: Fontana is an energy-efficient community.
Policy 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 be required to comply with
the latest Title 24 and CALGreen Energy Efficiency
standards which include a requirement to provide solar
technology to new homes. In addition, the Project would
obtain electricity from the electric utility, Southern
California Edison (SCE). SCE obtained 36 percent of its
power supply from renewable sources in 2019. Therefore,
the utility would provide power when needed on-site that
is composed of a greater percentage of renewable sources.
In addition, the Project would be designed in compliance
with the applicable solar standards from Title 24, and the
rooftops of the proposed buildings would be able to
accommodate solar energy systems in the future.
Action 7.A: Promote participation in renewable
energy programs.
Consistent. The Project would be required to comply with
the latest Title 24 and CalGreen Energy Efficiency
standards. In addition, future residents at the Project site
would be able to participate in renewable energy
programs (at their discretion).
Action 7.B: Regional and state programs provide a
wide range of programs to assist homeowners,
other property owners, and businesses access
renewable energy.
Consistent. The Project would be required to comply with
the latest Title 24 and CalGreen Energy Efficiency
standards. In addition, the Project would be designed in
compliance with applicable energy efficiency policy.
Incentive programs would be available to future residents
of the Project.
Action 7.C: Promote state and regional retrofit
programs for property owners. At the time of
writing, these programs include:
• California Solar Initiative. This program provides
rebates for solar installation to income-eligible
owners of single-family homes and also has a
program for affordable multifamily housing.
Consistent. The Project would be required to comply with
the latest Title 24 and CalGreen Energy Efficiency
standards. In addition, the Project would be designed in
compliance with applicable energy efficiency policy.
Incentive programs (such as the California Solar Initiative)
would be available to future residents of the Project.
Action 7.D: Encourage customer participation in
renewable energy programs offered by Southern
California Edison. Currently, two programs are
available:
• Green Tariff: Customers can sign up with the
utility to receive up to 100% of their energy from
renewable sources.
• Enhanced Community Renewables (ECR): Under
this “community solar” program, a developer of
a local solar project sells shares in the solar
electricity produced to customers, who sign up
for at least 25% and as much as 100% of their
monthly electricity demand. They pay the
producer Streetside bioswales help runoff
percolate into the ground, complementing
traditional stormwater infrastructure while
Consistent. The Project would be required to comply with
the latest Title 24 and CalGreen Energy Efficiency
standards. In addition, the Project would be designed in
compliance with applicable energy efficiency policy.
Incentive programs (such as SCE’s renewable energy
programs) would be available to future residents of the
Project.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 87
Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis
adding visual appeal. Approved and Adopted by
City Council November 13, 2018 City Council
Resolution 2018-096 City Council Resolution
2018-097 Chapter 10 Infrastructure and Green
Systems 10.17 directly and receive a credit on
their utility bill
Action 7.E: Work with the San Bernardino Regional
Energy Partnership (SBREP) to access assistance to
city government in energy efficiency.
Not applicable. This action is specific to assistance for City
government and does not apply to individual development
projects.
Action 7.F: Encourage industrial and other suitable
non-residential developers to participate in the
Enhanced Community Renewables program.
• This is a “distributed energy” and “community
solar” system whereby the developers sell
shares of electricity they do not use for their
own activities to purchasers. Warehouse
buildings with solar panel roofs may be very
suitable for this program.
Not Applicable. The Project is neither industrial nor non-
residential, therefore Action 7.F does not apply.
Source: City of Fontana, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035, Infrastructure and Green Systems Element, adopted
November 13, 2018.
Additionally, State and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency include the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, the 2019 California
Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24), and the 2019 CALGreen standards. Compliance
with these standards would ensure the Project incorporates energy efficient windows, insulation,
lighting, ventilation systems, and other energy efficient design features to reduce energy
consumption. Further, the Project would recycle and/or salvage a minimum of 65 percent of the
nonhazardous construction and demolition waste per the 2019 CalGreen standards. Adherence
to the CPUC’s energy requirements as well as the 2019 California Building Energy Efficiency
Standards (Title 24) and the 2019 CALGreen standards would ensure conformance with the
State’s goal of promoting energy and lighting efficiency. In addition, Therefore, the proposed
Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with renewable energy or energy
efficiency plans.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 88
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the Project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
X
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 89
The scope of this discussion and findings herein are based in part on the following study (refer to
Appendices I and J in this IS/MND):
• Appendix H: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by Weis
Environmental (March 2021).
• Appendix I: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).
California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act’s (Act) purpose is to mitigate the hazards of fault
rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for human occupancy across the trace of an
active fault. The Act dictates that cities and counties withhold development permits for projects
within an Earthquake Fault Zone within their jurisdiction until geologic investigations
demonstrate that the projects are not threatened by surface displacements from future
earthquakes. However, local agencies can be more restrictive than the State . The Cucamonga
and San Jacinto faults, two of the most active faults in southern California, extend across the
northern portion of the City of Fontana.20
Ground Shaking
Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the earth’s surface resulting
from an earthquake that can cause major damage in seismic events. The extent of ground shaking
results from the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and
local geologic conditions. Magnitude is a measure of the energy released by an earthquake; it is
assessed by seismographs. Intensity is a subjective measure of the perceptible effects of seismic
energy at a given point and varies with distance from the epicenter and local geologic conditions.
Ground shaking can primarily cause property damage and injury during earthquakes and can
result in other natural phenomenon such as surface rupture, liquefaction, landslides, lateral
spreading, differential settlement, tsunamis, building failure, and broken gas and other utility
lines, leading to fire and other collateral damage. Areas underlain by thick, saturated,
unconsolidated soils will experience greater shaking motion than those areas underlain by firm
bedrock.21
Seismicity and Seismic Hazards
The City generally lies within the northern and northwestern portion of the Peninsular Ranges
Geomorphic Province of Southern California, which is characterized by northwest-southeast
trending faults, folds, and mountain ranges. The faulting and seismicity of the Inland Empire
generally is characterized by the San Andreas Fault zone. The zone separates two of the major
tectonic plates that comprise the earth’s crust. The relative movement between the Pacific Plate
20 City of Fontana. (2017). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-
Hazard-Mitigation-Plan. Accessed on September 23, 2021.
21 Ibid.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 90
and North American Plate is the driving force of fault ruptures in western California. There are
numerous faults in surrounding area that are categorized as active, potentially active, and
inactive. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) U.S. Quaternary Faults GIS
map, the City has several Late Quaternary, Middle and Late Quaternary, and Latest Quaternary
Faults throughout the City’s boundary.22
A fault is classified as active by the state if it has either moved during the Holocene epoch
(during the last 11,000 years) or is included in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zone
(as established by the California Geological Survey [CGS]). A fault is classified as potentially active
if it has experienced movement within the Quaternary period (during the last 1.6 million years).
Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years generally are considered inactive.
Earthquake Induced Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when loosely packed sandy or silty materials saturated with water are shaken
hard enough to lose strength and stiffness. Liquefied soils behave like a liquid and are responsible
for tremendous damage in an earthquake. For example, liquefaction can cause buildings to
collapse, pipes to leak, and roads to buckle.23 Liquefaction potential is the highest in area with
shallow groundwater and saturated soils. Liquefaction occurs at depths less than 50 feet below
ground surface (bgs), with the most susceptible conditions occurring in sandy soils with less than
15 percent silt and clay at depths shallower than 30 feet bgs. Saturated deposits that are deeper
than 50 feet bgs generally are stable regardless of their grain-size distribution.24
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.
Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest Alquist-Priolo fault zone is the Cucamonga fault zone,
located approximately 1.5 miles north of the Project site.25 The Project site is not located within
an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone, as defined by the State of California in the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, nor is it located in the San Bernardino Geologic
22 United States Geological Survey. (2019). U.S. Quaternary Faults GIS Map. Available at
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf. Accessed September 26, 2021.
23 City of Fontana. (2017). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-
Hazard-Mitigation-Plan. Accessed on September 23, 2021..
24 City of Fontana. (2018). General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Available at https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-
2015---2035. Accessed September 26, 2021.
25 United States Geological Survey. (2019). U.S. Quaternary Faults GIS Map. Available at
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf. Accessed September 26, 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 91
Hazard Zone. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated with regards to potential
fault ruptures.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the strong natural seismic activities of Southern California,
the Project site is susceptible to seismic ground shaking. For this reason, all structures, including
the proposed residential buildings, would be exposed to potential strong seismic ground shaking
throughout their lifespan. However, the design and construction of the Project would be required
to be in conformance with the most recent CBC, Fontana MC, the City’s 2017 Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan (2017 LHMP), and other applicable local and state standards. Adherence to these
standards and regulations would reduce the potential substantial adverse effects, caused by
strong seismic ground shaking to less than significant.
iii and iv) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? And Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to San Bernardino County General Plan, Geologic Hazard
Overlays, the Project site is not located within or near an area that is susceptible to either
landslide or liquefaction26. The nearest mapped liquefaction and landslide zones are located over
two (2) miles northeast and north of the site, respectively. Therefore, a less than significant
impacts would occur.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Short-term Construction Impacts
General construction activities would include earthwork activities to fill in the existing
stormwater detention basin. Depending on the time of year when construction occurs, short-
term erosion by wind and water could occur. The Project is required to comply with Chapter 9,
Article II of the Fontana MC for the purpose of controlling blowing sand and preventing soil
erosion. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permitting process for construction activities (e.g., implementation of
Best Management Practices [BMPs] through preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP)), consistent with the San Bernardino County’s Municipal Storm Water
Management Program. With compliance with applicable regulations, impacts would be less than
significant.
26 County of San Bernardino. 2010. Geologic Hazards Overlays. Available at http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH29C.pdf.
Accessed September 26, 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 92
Long-term Operational Impacts
Unpaved portions of the Project site would be landscaped and properly maintained, so as to
reduce water runoff. The Project would include catch basins that would catch any runoff.
According to the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix I), there are seven
proposed onsite catch basins throughout the site which would convey stormwater into three
drainage areas (DMA 1, DMA 2, and DMA 3). DMA 1 and DMA 2 combined drainage areas with
underground corrugated metal pipe (CMP) infiltration system would provide sufficient storage
capacity to capture and store the projected 41,373 cf on-site water quality volume, estimated in
the Appendix I; see Exhibit 7, WQMP.
The Project owner would maintain the drainage systems, including catch basins and culverts. The
Project would have catch basins inspected and, if necessary, cleaned prior to the storm season,
no later than October 15th each year or prior to the first 24-hour storm event, whichever occurs
first. These duties may be contracted out to a landscape maintenance firm hired by the owner.27
No additional activities would cause a loss of topsoil and therefore, the potential for substantial
soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during construction and operations would be considered less
than significant with the implementation of the BMPs.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would adhere to the City’s 2017 LHMP which lists the
types of geologic hazards known to occur in the City regarding slope instability.28 Map 8 of the
2017 LHMP’s Appendix I shows that the Project site is not located in an area sensitive to
slope/landslide instability and liquefaction.29 The Project site is relatively flat and is not located
adjacent to a hillside or riverbank that is characterized by unstable conditions or liquefaction.
Additionally, the Project site is mapped as having Soboba gravelly loamy sand (SoC) which has a
high infiltration and low runoff rate in addition to low expansion characteristics.30 Therefore,
impacts associated with unstable and expansive soils would be less than significant.
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?
No Impact. As discussed above in Threshold 7c, the Project site is mapped as having Soboba
gravelly loamy sand that has low expansion characteristics with no appreciable clay content.
27 Ibid.
28 City of Fontana. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017). Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-
Hazard-Mitigation-Plan. Accessed on September 26, 2021.
29 City of Fontana. Appendix E - Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlays – Landslide & Liquefaction Susceptibility, Map 8 (2017).
Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29774/LHMP-Appendix-E---Hazard-Screening-Maps. Accessed
September 26, 2021.
30 USDA. 2020. Websoil Survey. Available at https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed December 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 93
Therefore, no design considerations related to expansive soils are considered necessary. No
impact would occur.
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?
No Impact. The proposed Project does not include a septic tank or alternative wastewater
disposal system. The Project site would connect to the City’s existing sanitary sewer system for
wastewater disposal. Thus, no impacts associated with the use of septic tanks would occur as
part of the proposed Project’s implementation and no mitigation is required.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Cultural Resources Assessment conducted by
BCR Consulting for the Project site determined the geologic units underlying this Project are
mapped primarily as alluvial fan deposits dating from the Holocene period. While Holocene
alluvial units are considered to be of high preservation value, the very young alluvial material
underlying the Project site is unlikely to contain fossil material. Additionally, it is worth noting
that the Wester Science Center (WSC) does not have localities within the Project area or within
a one-mile radius. While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, excavation activity for the
Project is additionally anticipated to be shallower than what would disturb the deeper sediment
of significance. If excavation activities disturb deeper sediment, this could potentially impact
material dating to the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, which would be
scientifically significant. Therefore, the following mitigation is required to reduce the impact to
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure:
MM GEO-1 If excavation activities for the Citrus East Project disturbs deeper sediment dating
to the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene period (greater than 20
feet in depth), the material would be scientifically significant, and the project area
will be observed by a qualified archeologist or historian during any such
excavation to determine if any significant materials or fossils are present. If
significant materials are discovered during excavation, all work shall stop in the
immediate area of the excavation and a recovery plan shall be approved by the
archeologist or historian prior to additional excavation.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 94
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the Project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
The following analysis is based on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment prepared by
Kimley-Horn and Associates dated November 2021 and included as Appendix F in this IS/MND.
Background
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere classified as GHGs play a critical role in determining the
earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion
of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is
reflected back toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-
frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to
temperature. Because the earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower-
frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is
absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into
space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known
as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.
The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that
contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen
trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use
development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are
believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of
unnatural warming of the Earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming.
GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which
are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects
have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 95
lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time
periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is
dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, more CO2 is emitted into the
atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, or other forms of carbon
sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent is
sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last 50 years,
whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the
atmosphere.31
Due to the nature of global climate change, it is not anticipated that any single development
project would have a substantial effect on global climate change. GHG emissions from the
proposed Project would combine with emissions emitted across California, the United States, and
the world to cumulatively contribute to global climate change.
Addressing GHG emissions generation impacts requires an agency to determine what constitutes
a significant impact. The CEQA Guidelines specifically allow lead agencies to determine
thresholds of significance that illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to
apply mitigation measures. This means that each agency is left to determine whether a project’s
GHG emissions would have a “significant” impact on the environment. The guidelines direct that
agencies are to use “careful judgment” and “make a good-faith effort, based to the extent
possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” the project’s GHG
emissions (14 CRC § 15064.4(a)).
On September 28, 2010, air quality experts serving on the SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance
Threshold Stakeholder Working Group recommended an interim screening level numeric bright‐
line threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e annually. The Working Group was formed to assist
the SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and is composed of a wide variety
of stakeholders including the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CARB, the Attorney
General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the Air Basin, various
utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout the Air Basin, industry groups, and
environmental and professional organizations. The numeric bright line and efficiency-based
thresholds were developed to be consistent with CEQA requirements for developing significance
thresholds, are supported by substantial evidence, and provide guidance to CEQA practitioners
and lead agencies with regard to determining whether GHG emissions from a proposed project
are significant.
31 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis,
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013,
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 96
In Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 2014, 213,
221, 227, following its review of various potential GHG thresholds proposed in an academic study,
[Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: California's Search for
Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011), 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 203], the
California Supreme Court identified the use of numeric bright-line thresholds as a potential
pathway for compliance with CEQA GHG requirements. The study found numeric bright-line
thresholds designed to determine when small projects were so small as to not cause a
cumulatively considerable impact on global climate change was consistent with CEQA.
Specifically, California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21003(f) provides it is a policy of the
State that "[a]ll persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be
responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to
conserve the available financial, governmental, physical and social resources with the objective
that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on
the environment." The California Supreme Court-reviewed study noted, "[s]ubjecting the
smallest projects to the full panoply of CEQA requirements, even though the public benefit would
be minimal, would not be consistent with implementing the statute in the most efficient,
expeditious manner. Nor would it be consistent with applying lead agencies' scarce resources
toward mitigating actual significant climate change impacts." (Crockett, Addressing the
Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an
Uncertain World (July 2011), 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 203, 221, 227.)
The City of Fontana has not adopted GHG significance thresholds but may set a project-specific
threshold based on the context of each particular project, including using the SCAQMD Working
Group expert recommendation, for this Project because: (1) it is in the same air quality basin that
the experts analyzed; (2) it is a residential project; and, (3) there is a factual basis to support why
the experts believe that projects with less than 3,000 MTCO2e/yr would have less than significant
contributions to GHG emissions. For the proposed Project, the SCAQMD’s proposed 3,000
MTCO2e/yr non-industrial screening threshold is used as the significance threshold in addition to
the qualitative thresholds of significance set forth below from Section VIII of CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G. The 3,000 MTCO2e/yr screening threshold represents a 90 percent capture rate
(i.e., this threshold captures projects that represent approximately 90 percent of GHG emissions
from new sources). The 3,000 MTCO2e/year value is typically used in defining small projects
within this Air Basin that are considered less than significant because it represents less than one
percent of the future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target and the lead agency can provide more
efficient implementation of CEQA by focusing its scarce resources on the top 90 percent or new
developments within the Air Basin emitting GHGs. Residential and commercial projects above
the 3,000 MTCO2e/year level would fall within the 90 percent of largest projects that are worth
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 97
mitigating without wasting scarce financial, governmental, physical and social resources.32 As
noted in the academic study, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (Crockett, 2011), the fact that
small projects below a numeric bright line threshold are not subject to CEQA-based mitigation
does not mean such small projects do not help the State achieve its climate change goals. Even
small projects participate in or comply with non-CEQA-based GHG reduction programs, such
constructing development in accordance with statewide GHG-reducing energy efficiency building
standards (CalGreen or Title 24 energy-efficiency building standards).33 Moreover, as
homeowners within small residential projects buy cars and gasoline from manufacturers
regulated by the State to reduce GHG emissions, the GHG generated by a project often reduces
over time, as demonstrated in the GHG modeling addressed later in this section.34
As noted above, the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan details how the State will reduce GHG emissions to
meet the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. The 2017 Scoping
Plan includes various goals for reducing GHG emissions from energy generation, transportation
fuel, the extension of the Cap and Trade program, among others. For example, the 2017 Scoping
Plan includes the SB 350 renewable portfolio standard requirement of 50 percent by 2030,
increased stringency in the low carbon fuel standard, cleaner technology and fuel mobile source
strategy, sustainable freight action plan, short-lived climate pollutant reduction strategy,
increased stringency of SB 375 targets, extension of the Cap and Trade program, refinery sector
reductions, and development of an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to create
carbon sinks.
Methodology (Greenhouse Gas Emissions)
The Project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California
Emissions Estimator Model version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod). Details of the modeling assumptions
and emission factors are provided in Appendix F. For construction, CalEEMod calculates
emissions from off-road equipment usage and on-road vehicle travel associated with haul,
delivery, and construction worker trips. GHG emissions during construction were forecasted
based on the proposed construction schedule and applying the mobile-source and fugitive dust
32 SCAQMD, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold, at pp. 3-2 and 3-3, October 2008; Crockett,
Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World, July 2011,
4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 203, 221, 227, 229-235).
33 Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World,
July 2011, 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 203, 221, 227, 229-235).
34 On pages 3-2 and 3-3 of the SCAQMD’s Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold
(October 2008), the SCAQMD notes that a GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate may be more appropriate
to address the long-term GHG impacts. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a
substantial fraction of future stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic
growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction
of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. This assertion is based on the fact that the SCAQMD estimates that these GHG emissions would
account for less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target (85 MMTCO2e/yr). In addition, these small projects would
be subject to future applicable GHG control regulations that would further reduce their overall future contribution to the statewide GHG
inventory.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 98
emissions factors derived from CalEEMod. The Project’s construction-related GHG emissions
would be generated from off-road construction equipment, on-road hauling and vendor
(material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles. The Project’s operational-related GHG emissions
would be generated by vehicular traffic, area sources (e.g., landscaping maintenance, consumer
products), electrical generation, natural gas consumption, water supply and wastewater
treatment, and solid waste.
Would the Project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction. The approximate
quantity of daily GHG emissions generated by construction equipment utilized to build the
Project is depicted in Table 12, Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Table 12: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category MTCO2e
2022 Construction 148.45
2023 Construction 614.01
Total Construction Emissions 762.46
30-Year Amortized Construction 25.42
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A of the of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for model outputs.
As shown, the Project would result in the generation of approximately 762.46 MTCO2e over the
course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over
the lifetime of the Project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions.35
The amortized Project construction emissions would be 25.42 MTCO2e per year. Once
construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.
Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result
from direct emissions such as Project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural
gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result
from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to
35 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air Quality
Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009).
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 99
convey water to, and wastewater from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste
generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.
Total GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table 13, Project Greenhouse
Gas Emissions. As shown in Table 13, Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would
generate approximately 862.64 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations and the
Project. Project-related GHG emissions would not exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year
threshold. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions.
Table 13: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source MTCO2e per Year
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years 25.42
Area Source 16.92
Energy 120.52
Mobile 656.65
Waste 17.68
Water 25.44
Total 862.64
Project Threshold1 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for model outputs.
Therefore, the proposed Project would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
required.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact.
SCAG RTP/SCS Consistency
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [2020 RTP/SCS]). The RTP/SCS is a long-
range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic,
environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS embodies a collective vision for the region’s
future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions,
tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders in the counties
of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. SCAG’s RTP/SCS
establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 2035 as well
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 100
as an overall GHG target for the Project region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and
the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Orders 5-03-05 and B-30-15.
The RTP/SCS contains over 4,000 transportation projects, ranging from highway improvements,
railroad grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and replacement bridges. These future
investments were included in county plans developed by the six county transportation
commissions and seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region’s
network, and expand mobility choices for everyone. The RTP/SCS is an important planning
document for the region, allowing project sponsors to qualify for federal funding.
The plan accounts for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost
effectiveness. The RTP/SCS is also supported by a combination of transportation and land use
strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emissions reduction goals and Federal Clean
Air Act (FCAA) requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway
safety, support our vital goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently. GHG
emissions resulting from development-related mobile sources are the most potent source of
emissions, and therefore Project comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of
whether the Project would inhibit the post-2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the state.
The Project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS goals is analyzed in detail in Table 14, Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency.
Table 14: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency
SCAG Goals Compliance
GOAL 1: Encourage regional economic prosperity
and global competitiveness.
N/A. This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore
not applicable. However, the Project is located on a
vacant site and development of the site would contribute
to regional economic prosperity.
GOAL 2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability,
and travel safety for people and goods.
Consistent. Although this Project is not a transportation
improvement project, the Project is located near existing
Omnitrans transit routes (Route 82) on Citrus Avenue.
GOAL 3: Enhance the preservation, security, and
resilience of the regional transportation
system.
N/A. This is not a transportation improvement project
and is therefore not applicable.
GOAL 4: Increase person and goods movement
and travel choices within the
transportation system.
N/A. This is not a transportation improvement project
and is therefore not applicable.
GOAL 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
improve air quality.
Consistent. The Project is located within a suburban area
in proximity to existing employment centers and
community services. Location of the Project within a
developed area would reduce trip lengths, which would
reduce GHG and air quality emissions.
GOAL 6: Support healthy and equitable
communities
Consistent. The Project does not exceed state and
localized thresholds.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 101
SCAG Goals Compliance
GOAL 7: Adapt to a changing climate and support
an integrated regional development
pattern and transportation network.
N/A. This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore
not applicable.
GOAL 8: Leverage new transportation
technologies and data-driven solutions
that result in more efficient travel.
N/A. This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore
not applicable.
GOAL 9: Encourage development of diverse
housing types in areas that are supported
by multiple transportation options.
Consistent. The Project involves development of
residential housing that will provide the community with
more housing options. The Project is located within a
relatively short walking distance to local bus routes and is
surrounded by connected sidewalks and bicycle lanes to
allow for multimodal transportation.
GOAL 10: Promote conservation of natural and
agricultural lands and restoration of
habitats.
N/A. This the Project is located on a previously disturbed
site surrounded by residential neighborhoods and is
unlikely to house natural resources. Additionally, the
Project is not located on agricultural lands.
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2020.
Compliance with applicable State standards would ensure consistency with State and regional
GHG reduction planning efforts. The goals stated in the RTP/SCS were used to determine
consistency with the planning efforts previously stated. As shown in Table 14 above, the
proposed Project would be consistent with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the
proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts or interfere with SCAG’s ability to
achieve the region’s post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets.
Consistency with the CARB Scoping Plan
The California State Legislature adopted AB 32 in 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHGs
(CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Pursuant to the
requirements in AB 32, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in 2008,
which outlines actions recommended to obtain that goal. The Scoping Plan provides a range of
GHG reduction actions that include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms,
monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as
the cap-and-trade program, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program. The 2017
Scoping Plan Update identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the 2030
target. These measures build upon those identified in the first update to the Scoping Plan in 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 actions to
reduce GHG emissions will be adopted as required to achieve statewide GHG emissions targets.
As shown in Table 15, Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures, the
Project is consistent with most of the strategies, while others are not applicable to the Project.
As such, impacts related to consistency with the Scoping Plan would be less than significant.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 102
Table 15: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures
Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
Transportation California Cap-and-
Trade Program
Linked to Western
Climate Initiative
Regulation for the
California Cap on GHG
Emissions and Market-
Based Compliance
Mechanism
October 20, 2015
(CCR 95800)
Consistent. The Cap-and-Trade Program
applies to large industrial sources such as
power plants, refineries, and cement
manufacturers. However, the regulation
indirectly affects people who use the
products and services produced by these
industrial sources when increased cost of
products or services (such as electricity and
fuel) are transferred to the consumers. The
Cap-and-Trade Program covers the GHG
emissions associated with electricity
consumed in California, generated in-state or
imported. Accordingly, GHG emissions
associated with CEQA projects’ electricity
usage are covered by the Cap-and-Trade
Program. The Cap-and-Trade Program also
covers fuel suppliers (natural gas and
propane fuel providers and transportation
fuel providers) to address emissions from
such fuels and combustion of other fossil
fuels not directly covered at large sources in
the Program’s first compliance period.
California Light-Duty
Vehicle GHG
Standards
Pavley I 2005 Regulations
to Control GHG Emissions
from Motor Vehicles
Pavley I 2005 Regulations
to Control GHG Emissions
from Motor Vehicles
Consistent. This measure applies to all new
vehicles starting with model year 2012. The
Project would not conflict with its
implementation as it would apply to all new
passenger vehicles purchased in California.
Passenger vehicles, model year 2012 and
later, associated with construction and
operation of the Project would be required to
comply with the Pavley emissions standards.
2012 LEV III California
GHG and Criteria
Pollutant Exhaust and
Evaporative Emission
Standards
Consistent. The LEV III amendments provide
reductions from new vehicles sold in
California between 2017 and 2025.
Passenger vehicles associated with the site
would comply with LEV III standards.
Low Carbon Fuel
Standard
2009 readopted in 2015.
Regulations to Achieve
GHG Emission Reductions
Subarticle 7. Low Carbon
Fuel Standard CCR 95480
Consistent. This measure applies to
transportation fuels utilized by vehicles in
California. The Project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure. Motor
vehicles associated with construction and
operation of the Project would utilize low
carbon transportation fuels as required
under this measure.
Regional
Transportation-
Related GHG
Targets.
SB 375. Cal. Public
Resources Code §§ 21155,
21155.1, 21155.2,
21159.28
Consistent. The Project would provide
development in the region that is consistent
with the growth projections in the RTP/SCS.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 103
Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
Goods Movement Goods Movement Action
Plan January 2007
N/A. The Project does not propose any
changes to maritime, rail, or intermodal
facilities or forms of transportation.
Medium/Heavy-
Duty Vehicle
2010 Amendments to the
Truck and Bus Regulation,
the Drayage Truck
Regulation and the
Tractor-Trailer GHG
Regulation
Consistent. This measure applies to medium
and heavy-duty vehicles that operate in the
state. The Project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure. Medium
and heavy-duty vehicles associated with
construction and operation of the Project
would be required to comply with the
requirements of this regulation.
High Speed Rail Funded under SB 862 N/A. This is a statewide measure that cannot
be implemented by a project applicant or
Lead Agency.
Electricity and
Natural Gas
Energy Efficiency Title 20 Appliance
Efficiency Regulation
Consistent. The Project would not conflict
with implementation of this measure. The
Project would comply with the latest energy
efficiency standards.
Title 24 Part 6 Energy
Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Non-
Residential Building
Title 24 Part 11 California
Green Building Code
Standards
Renewable Portfolio
Standard/Renewable
Electricity Standard.
2010 Regulation to
Implement the
Renewable Electricity
Standard (33% 2020)
Consistent. The Project would obtain
electricity from the electric utility, Southern
California Edison (SCE). SCE obtained 36
percent of its power supply from renewable
sources in 2018. Therefore, the utility would
provide power when needed on-site that is
composed of a greater percentage of
renewable sources.
Million Solar Roofs
Program
SB 350 Clean Energy and
Pollution Reduction Act
of 2015 (50% 2030)
Million Solar Roofs
Program
Tax Incentive Program Consistent. This measure is to increase solar
throughout California, which is being done by
various electricity providers and existing solar
programs. The program provides incentives
that are in place at the time of construction.
Water Water Title 24 Part 11 California
Green Building Code
Standards
Consistent. The Project would comply with
the CalGreen standards, which requires a 20
percent reduction in indoor water use. The
Project would also comply with the City’s
Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations
(Chapter 28, Article IV of the Fontana
Municipal Code).
SBX 7-7—The Water
Conservation Act of 2009
Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance
Green
Buildings
Green Building
Strategy
Title 24 Part 11 California
Green Building Code
Standards
Consistent. The State is to increase the use of
green building practices. The Project would
implement required green building strategies
through existing regulation that requires the
Project to comply with various CalGreen
requirements. The Project includes
sustainability design features that support
the Green Building Strategy.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 104
Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
Industry Industrial Emissions 2010 CARB Mandatory
Reporting Regulation
N/A. The Mandatory Reporting Regulation
requires facilities and entities with more than
10,000 MTCO2e of combustion and process
emissions, all facilities belonging to certain
industries, and all electric power entities to
submit an annual GHG emissions data report
directly to CARB. The Project proposes a
residential development and therefore this
regulation would not apply.
Recycling and
Waste
Management
Recycling and Waste Title 24 Part 11
California Green Building
Code Standards
Consistent. The Project would not conflict
with implementation of these measures. The
Project is required to achieve the recycling
mandates via compliance with the CALGreen
code. The City has consistently achieved its
state recycling mandates.
AB 341 Statewide 75
Percent Diversion Goal
Forests Sustainable Forests Cap and Trade Offset
Projects
N/A. The Project is not located in a forested
area.
High Global
Warming
Potential
High Global
Warming Potential
Gases
CARB Refrigerant
Management Program
CCR 95380
N/A. The regulations are applicable to
refrigerants used by large air conditioning
systems and large commercial and industrial
refrigerators and cold storage system. The
Project would not conflict with the
refrigerant management regulations
adopted by CARB.
Agriculture Agriculture Cap and Trade Offset
Projects for Livestock
and Rice Cultivation
N/A. No grazing, feedlot, or other agricultural
activities that generate manure occur
currently exist on-site or are proposed to be
implemented by the Project.
Source: California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017 and CARB, Climate Change Scoping
Plan, December 2008.
As seen in Table 14 and Table 15, the Project would be consistent with all applicable plan goals.
As shown previously in Table 13, the Project is estimated to emit approximately 862.64 MTCO2e
per year directly from on‐site activities and would not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per year
threshold.
Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify
the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed;
nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the proposed Project would benefit from
the implementation of current and potential future regulations (e.g., improvements in vehicle
emissions, SB 100/renewable electricity portfolio improvements, etc.) enacted to meet an
80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.
The majority of the GHG reductions from the Scoping Plan would result from continuation of the
Cap-and-Trade regulation. Assembly Bill 398 (2017) extends the state’s Cap-and-Trade program
through 2030 and the Scoping Plan provides a comprehensive plan for the state to achieve its
GHG targets through a variety of regulations enacted at the state level. Additional reductions are
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 105
achieved from electricity sector standards (i.e., utility providers to supply 60 percent renewable
electricity by 2030 and 100 percent renewable by 2045), doubling the energy efficiency savings
at end uses, additional reductions from the LCFS, implementing the short-lived GHG strategy
(e.g., hydrofluorocarbons), and implementing the Mobile Source Strategy and Sustainable Freight
Action Plan.
Several of the State’s plans and policies would contribute to a reduction in mobile source
emissions from the Project. These include the CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation,
Executive Order N-79-20, CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan,
and CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement. For example,
CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation requires truck manufacturers to transition from diesel
trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold
in California is required to be zero-emission. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates
the transition of zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8.
California executive Order N-79-20 requires that all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all
drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment sold will be zero-emission by 2035
and all medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045. The Executive Order also
directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and
heavy-duty fleets (as feasible), drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring
increasing volumes” of new zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) “towards the target of 100 percent.”
CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy takes an integrated planning approach to identify the level of
transition to cleaner mobile source technologies needed to achieve all of California’s targets by
increasing the adoption of ZEV buses and trucks. Additionally, CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action
Plan improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near-zero emissions technology, and facilities the
deployment of ZEV trucks. The Sustainable Freight Action Plan includes existing trucks or new
trucks that are part of the statewide goods movement sector. Furthermore, CARB’s Emissions
Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement identifies measures to improve goods movement
efficiencies such as advanced combustion strategies, friction reduction, waste heat recovery, and
electrification of accessories. While these measures are not directly applicable to the Project, any
commercial activity associated with goods movement would be required to comply with these
measures as adopted.
The Project would not obstruct or interfere with efforts to increase ZEVs or state efforts to
improve system efficiency. As discussed above, the Project’s operational and construction
emissions would not exceed local thresholds. Therefore, the Project would only benefit from
implementation of these State programs and measures, which would reduce future GHG
emissions from trucks.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 106
The Project’s long-term operational and short-term construction GHG emissions would not
exceed the City’s threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Additionally, the Project would be
consistent with applicable regulations and goals. Therefore, the Project would have a less than
significant impact.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 107
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
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?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
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?
X
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?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X
The scope of this discussion and findings herein are based in part on the following study (refer to
Appendix H of this IS/MND):
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by Weis Environmental
(March 2021).
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 108
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?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction
Any potentially hazardous materials used during Project construction would be handled on-site.
This generally includes paints and solvents and other petroleum-based products, usually used for
on-site construction equipment and for building exterior finishes. The use or handling of these
potentially hazardous materials would be short-term, only during the construction phases of
Project. Although these materials could be stored on-site, such storage would be required to
comply with the guidelines established by the San Bernardino County Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The transport, removal, and disposal of hazardous materials on the
Project site would be conducted by a permitted and licensed service provider, consistent with
federal, state, and local requirements, including applicable regulations promulgated by the
U.S. EPA, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the California
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), Caltrans, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, and the San Bernardino County Fire Department. Therefore, the management
of hazardous materials during the Project’s construction phase would not result in a significant
impact.
Operations
Direct hazardous waste would be generated from landscaping involving the use of
pesticides/herbicides and fertilizers. Landscaping maintenance best management practices
(BMPs) would be conducted according to the California Stormwater Quality Association’s
Stormwater BMPs, which would reduce pesticides and fertilizers from running off off-site.
Indirect hazardous materials such as sediment, metals, oils and grease, trash/debris and other
organic compounds that may pollute stormwater would be captured via infiltration basins to
avoid stormwater runoff from seeping off-site. Impacts from operations would be less than
significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Sierra Lakes Elementary School is located within ¼ mile
southeast of the Project site. Direct and indirect hazardous materials would be contained on-site
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 109
using BMPs and compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws pertaining to hazardous
waste handling. The Project would adhere to the SWPPP and the Conditionally Exempt Small
Quantity Generator (CESQG) program, which would prevent hazardous materials from running
off-site. No long-term handling of hazardous materials would occur because the Project is
residential in nature, and not industrial or manufacturing. will be to be less than significant.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The proposed Project and surrounding vicinity are not included on the DTSC Cortese
list (Government Code Section 65962.5).36 Further, the Phase I ESA concluded that there was no
evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions, Controlled Recognized Environmental
Conditions, or Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions identified near the Project site.
Therefore, no impacts associated with hazardous materials sites 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?
No Impact. The nearest airport to the Project site is the Ontario International Airport (ONT),
located approximately 10 miles southwest of the Project site. As such the Project is not located
within an airport land use plan nor is located within two (2) miles of a public airport or public use
airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan. In August 2018, the City adopted a Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan (LHMP) with the intent to reduce and/or eliminate loss of life and property due
to potential hazards. The City also has an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) that identifies
evacuation routes, emergency facilities, and City personnel and equipment available to deal with
any emergency situation. There will be no revisions of the adopted LHMP or EOP associated with
the Project. The nearest fire stations are Fire Station 78, located approximately 1.7 miles south
and Fire Station 79, located approximately 1 mile northwest of the Project site. Thus, existing
36 State of California; Department of Toxic Substances Control (EnviroStor). (2021). Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese).
Available at
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?PAGE=3&CMD=search&ocieerp=&business_name=&main_street_number=&main_street
_name=&city=&zip=&county=&branch=&status=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&site_type=CSITES%2CFUDS&cleanup_type=&npl=&funding=&reporttyp
e=CORTESE&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29&federal_superfund=&state_response=&volunta
ry_cleanup=&school_cleanup=&operating=&post_closure=&non_operating=&corrective_action=&tiered_permit=&evaluation=&spec_prog=&na
tional_priority_list=&senate=&congress=&assembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&display_results=&school_district=&pub=&hw
mp=False&permitted=&pc_permitted=&inspections=&complaints=&censustract=&cesdecile=&ORDERBY=city&next=Next+50. Accessed on
September 29, 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 110
stations would be able to provide any necessary fire or emergency services and be able to reach
the proposed Project as no major roads would be altered during construction. As such, impacts
are expected to be less than significant.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires?
Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(CalFire) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) map for the City, the Project site is not
located within the VHFHSZ vicinity.37 Refer to Section 20, Wildfire thresholds below for more
information regarding the exposure or people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
37 CAL FIRE. (2008). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA; Fontana. Available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5943/fontana.pdf.
Accessed on September 29, 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 111
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
Project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
X
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:
X
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
X
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
X
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?
X
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
A Water Quality Management Plan was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates (January 2022).
The document is included in this IS/MND as Appendix I, and the results are summarized herein.
Surface Water Hydrology
The City is located within the Lower Lytle Creek Watershed, which forms the northwest portion
of the Santa Ana River Watershed and drains the eastern portion of the San Gabriel Mountains.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 112
Daytime temperatures in the summer months frequently exceed 100 degrees in the lower
watershed and are about 10 to 15 degrees cooler in the upper watershed. Winter temperatures
can fall below freezing throughout the entire watershed. The lower watershed averages 15 to
20 inches of rain annually, while the upper watershed averages 35 inches annually. The Lower
Lytle Creek Watershed covers an area of approximately 186 square miles with a mean annual
runoff of roughly 31,720-acre-feet (AF). Lytle Creek is a tributary of Warm Creek, which in turn is
a tributary to the Santa Ana River (SAR), joining the main stem of the river in the vicinity of
Prado Dam.38
Ground Water
The Project site would be serviced by the Fontana Water Company’s (FWC). FWC’s water supplies
predominately come from groundwater supplied by the Chino Basin, Rialto-Colton Basin, and No
Man’s Land Basin. FWC also purchases imported water supplies from the Inland Empire Utilities
Agency (IEUA) and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD). According to FWC
2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), FWC’s groundwater wells have a total pumping
capacity of approximately 50,000 gallons per minute (gpm) and booster pumping facilities with a
total design pumping capacity of 115,000 gpm.39
Would the Project:
a) 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 (“Water Quality”) 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 (CWA), require
comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all waters within the State of
California. The Project’s Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Concept and
Supporting Calculations was created to comply with the requirements of the City of Fontana and
the Area-Wide Urban Storm Water Permit. The Project proponent would be responsible for the
implementation of this plan and any necessary amendments based on up‐to‐date conditions on
the site. The Project proponent would ensure the plan’s consistency with the Municipal
Stormwater Management Plan (MSWMP) and the intent of the NPDES Permit until the
Preliminary WQMP is transferred to the Project’s new owner. The Project site is located within
the jurisdiction of the RWQCB.
38 City of Fontana. General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. 2015-2035. Hydrology and Water Quality. Available at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update. Accessed
December 2021.
39 Fontana Water Company. (2015). Urban Water Management Plan; Page 3-2. Available at https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/San-Gabriel-Fontana_Amended-Final-December-2017-1.pdf. Accessed December2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 113
Construction of the proposed Project would involve filling in the Project site with documented
soil at grade, utility installation, paving, building construction, and landscaping, which would
result in the generation of potential water quality pollutants such as sediment, silt, debris,
chemicals, paints, pesticides/herbicides, and other solvents with the potential to adversely affect
water quality. As such, short‐term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during
construction of the Project, in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures. Operation
water quality impacts would arise directly from landscaping maintenance and indirectly from
stormwater pollutants such as nitrogen, oil and grease, trash/debris, and other organic
compounds.
The Project would disturb more than one (1) acre of land surface and would, therefore, be
required to obtain coverage under the NPDES stormwater program. To minimize water quality
impacts during construction, construction activities would be required to comply with the WQMP
via the San Bernardino County’s MSWMP and prepare a SWPPP, consistent with the General
Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity (Construction Activity
General Permit). To obtain coverage under the Construction Activity General Permit, the Project
Applicant is required to submit a NOI prior to construction activities and develop and implement
an SWPPP and monitoring plan. The SWPPP identifies erosion-control and sediment-control
BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction Activity General Permit
to control potential construction-related pollutants. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to
prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been
mobilized.
The development of the Project site would result in an increase of impervious surfaces which
would increase stormwater runoff. However, this runoff would be captured and conveyed to the
storm drain system. The Project would be required to implement a WQMP, pursuant to the
requirements of the City’s NPDES permit. The WQMP is a post-construction management
program that ensures the ongoing protection of the watershed basin by requiring structural and
programmatic controls. The WQMP identifies structural and programmatic BMPs and controls to
minimize, prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat stormwater runoff flows before they are
discharged from the site. Mandatory compliance with the applicable WQMP BMPs would ensure
that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
during long‐term operation.
The final Project WQMP would identify all BMPs incorporated into the final site design and
provide other detailed information to minimize water quality impacts. Therefore, adherence to
identified BMPs would ensure that potential Project impacts related to soil erosion, siltation, and
sedimentation remain less than significant and avoid violation of any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements. Water quality impacts associated with construction and
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 114
operation of the Project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be
required.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
Less Than Significant Impact. No potable groundwater wells are proposed as part of the Project.
The Project would be served with potable water by FWC, which receives groundwater resources
from Chino Basin, Rialto-Colton Basin, and No-Man’s Land Basin and imported water supplies
from external sources. These sources would be used to service the proposed residential
development and for landscaping maintenance.
According to the Preliminary WQMP created for the Project, the Project site will include three
drainage areas to convey stormwater flows into infiltration and water treatment facilities.
Stormwater in drainage area A (DMA A) includes a majority of the Project site
(approximately 7.6 acres), excluding the entrance and Lot A. Drainage in this area would be
conveyed as sheet flows through each lot and into yard drains. Drainage from DMA B consists of
the entrance area and Lot A (approximately 0.7 acres) would flow through the Project site to
catch basins located at low points within the Project site. The stormwater from both drainage
areas would then be collected within an underground perforated corrugated metal pipe (CMP)
system, which allows both volume storage and infiltration. Both drainage systems would be sized
to accommodate flows from both drainage areas. The final drainage area (DMA C) includes the
outer boundary of the Project site. Runoff from DMA C would sheet flow into a landscaped area
for self-treatment. This drainage area does not require additional treatment.
Therefore, the Project’s demand for domestic water service would not substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Please refer to the following threshold for
more information about the proposed drainage system.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would expose large areas of soil during the duration of
Project construction. The appropriate soil erosion and control techniques would be employed in
conformance to the Construction BMP handbook and the BMPs set in the Preliminary WQMP.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 115
Landscaping areas would be inspected for signs of erosion, vegetation health and mulch depth
regularly with landscaping maintenance activities or at minimum once per month. Identified
eroded areas, decaying, or dying vegetation, and bare areas shall be repaired, replaced and/or
mulched as soon as possible to minimize exposed sediment and potential for erosion. Therefore,
with the proposed drainage systems and implementation of BMPs pursuant to the Project’s
Preliminary WQMP, impacts would be less than significant.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project would include a new drainage
system, would reduce the rate of runoff from Project activities and prevent runoff that could
result in flooding. Specifically, there are seven proposed onsite catch basins throughout the site
which would convey stormwater into three drainage areas (DMA 1, DMA 2, and DMA 3). DMA 1
and DMA 2 have a combined storage capacity of up to 41,444 cubic feet (cf) to treat stormwater.
The maximum capacity of the proposed CMP detention system would be sufficient to capture
and store the projected 41,373 cf onsite water quality volume, estimated in Appendix I. Further,
the site does not include any streams or rivers, that would be altered by the proposed Project.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact. On‐site stormwater runoff associated with the Project would be
engineered to be conveyed through sheet flows to drainage inlets and catch basins to
underground CMPs. Additionally, runoff minimizing landscape would be implanted. Therefore,
less than significant impacts would occur.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is proposed to be self-contained and would not
include any offsite flows from adjacent properties. Storm water flows would pass through the
infiltration facilities and will then flow through the storm drain to the west or east pending storm
flow.
The Project would include the development of a drainage system consistent with City
requirements to convey stormwater runoff to the mainline storm drain system. Stormwater
management practices, as required under Fontana MC §28-111, would further reduce any
impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 116
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
No Impact. The Project site is located over 60 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. As such, the
potential for the Project site to be inundated by a tsunami is negligible. No steep slopes are
located in the Project vicinity; therefore, the risk of mudflow is also negligible. The Project site is
within FEMA “Flood Zone X (unshaded)” which corresponds with areas outside the 500-year
floodplain (i.e., less than 0.2-percent annual chance of flood) with no seiche risk.40 Therefore, no
associated impacts are anticipated to occur.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. No potable groundwater wells are proposed as part of the Project.
The Project would be served with potable water by the FWC. Domestic water from this service
provider are supplied via the groundwater from multiple sources. This includes the
Chino Groundwater Basin, the Rialto Groundwater Basin, the Lytle Groundwater Basin, and the
No-Man’s Land Groundwater Basin. These sources provide the City with the majority of its water
needs, with room for expansion. As well, all municipal water entities that exceed their safe yield
incur a groundwater replenishment ligation, which is used to recharge the groundwater basin
with State Water Project. Thus, the Project’s demand for domestic water service would not
conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan.
Although the Project would result in additional impervious surfaces on-site, the Project would
construct a water quality infiltration basin which would capture low flow storm water runoff from
the site. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not significantly impact local groundwater
recharge and is not anticipated to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The Project would be subject to the
WQMP via the County’s SWPPP. Impacts would be less than significant.
40 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 06071C7915H. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=16183%20Milan%20Pl%2C%20fontana#searchresultsanchor. Accessed May 3, 2022.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 117
LAND USE AND PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
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?
X
Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The 8.65-acre Project site is a vacant and undeveloped rectangular-shaped lot that is
bordered by Citrus Avenue to the west and Summit Avenue to the south. The Project would
involve grading and site preparation operations prior to construction and include the
development of 76 two-story single-family cluster homes with associated amenities such as
recreational area and landscaping. The Project site is bordered on the north, east, and south by
existing residential and public service developments. These neighborhoods would not be divided
or otherwise modified by the implementation of the Project. Since the Project would not divide
an established community and would be consistent with adjacent uses, no impact would occur.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project involves a GPA to change the land use designation from
Community Commercial (C-C) to Medium Density Residential (R-M) and a ZC to change the
underlying zoning from Community Commercial (C-1) to Medium Density (R-2) to accommodate
the development of 76 residential units. The Project also involves site-specific PUD standards.
The PUD would provide development standards that would be consistent with the Fontana MC
Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development Code) while including specific design standards to facilitate
a more modern, desirable development style.
The Project would also be compatible with the surrounding residential developments. Therefore,
the implementation of the Project would not 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. Impacts would be considered less than significant.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 118
MINERAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
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?
X
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?
No Impact. A mineral resource is any naturally occurring rock material with commercial value.
The Project site is located within the Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) – 3, which denotes areas
where there is a moderate potential for aggregate resources.41 The most valuable mineral
resource in the area would be sand and gravel deposits, which extend southward from the San
Gabriel Mountains. These aggregate materials are essential to the creation of construction
materials like concrete and mortar. The Project site is not designated as containing aggregate
materials essential for the creation of construction materials.42 No sand or gravel deposits are
known to exist within the Project site. In addition, there are no known gemstones, ores, or unique
minerals in the area as denoted on the Data Basin Map for California Mineral Resources.43
Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. According to the Fontana GP, no mining operations are currently active within the
City limits, and none are being considered at this time. Therefore, the Project would not have an
effect on locally important mineral resources recovery site. Because the Project is not designated
for mineral resource recovery and does not contain any known mineral resources, no impact
would occur.
41 County of San Bernardino. 2020. Countywide Plan - Policy Map Nr-4 Mineral Resource Zones. Available at: https://countywideplan.com/wp-
content/uploads/sites/68/2021/02/NR-4-Mineral-Resources-Zones-201027.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2022.
42 California Department of Conservation. 2008. Mineral Land Classification. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mineralresources/.
Accessed on May 3, 2022.
43 Conservation Biology Institute. 2019. California Mineral Resources. Available at:
https://databasin.org/maps/new#datasets=f2985196ca6b45cf8f2ad604beb95b34. Accessed on September 30, 2021
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 119
NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13. NOISE. Would the Project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
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?
X
The following analysis is based on the Acoustical Assessment prepared by Kimley-Horn and
Associates dated May 2022 and is included as Appendix D in this IS/MND.
Sound and Environmental Noise
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating
object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium (e.g., air) to human (or animal) ear. If
the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), they can be heard
and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of
sound and is expressed as cycles per second, or hertz (Hz).
Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, or annoying sound. In acoustics, the fundamental model
consists of a noise source, a receptor, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness
of the noise source, obstructions, or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path,
determine the perceived sound level and noise characteristics at the receptor. Acoustics deal
primarily with the propagation and control of sound. A typical noise environment consists of a
base of steady background noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise
sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sou rces. These
sources can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to continuous noise from traffic
on a major highway. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 120
Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a large range of numbers. To avoid
this, the decibel (dB) scale was devised. The dB scale uses the hearing threshold of 20 micro-
pascals (µPa) as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared
to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range.
The dB scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in
levels correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.
Noise Descriptors
The dB scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant
frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Several
rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people.
Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise
on people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the
time of day when the noise occurs. The equivalent noise level (Leq) is the average noise level
averaged over the measurement period, while the day-night noise level (Ldn) and Community
Equivalent Noise Level (CNEL) are measures of energy average during a 24-hour period, with dB
weighted sound levels from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Most commonly, environmental sounds are
described in terms of Leq that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-
varying events.
The A-weighted decibel (dBA) sound level scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound
to which the human ear is most sensitive. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short
period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical
behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described
in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-
varying events.
The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can
accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various
computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways
and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends on the distance between the
receptor and the noise source.
A-Weighted Decibels
The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent on many factors, including sound pressure level
and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels,
perception of loudness is relatively predictable and can be approximated by dBA values. There is
a strong correlation between dBA and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason,
the dBA has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels
reported in this document are in terms of dBA, but are expressed as dB, unless otherwise noted.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 121
Addition of Decibels
The dB scale is logarithmic, not linear, and therefore sound levels cannot be added or subtracted
through ordinary arithmetic. Two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of
10. When the standard logarithmic dB is A-weighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived
as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound and
twice as loud as a 60-dBA sound. When two identical sources are each producing sound of the
same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dBA higher than one
source under the same conditions. Under the dB scale, three sources of equal loudness together
would produce an increase of 5 dBA.
Sound Propagation and Attenuation
Sound spreads (propagates) uniformly outward in a spherical pattern, and the sound level
decreases (attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a
stationary or point source. Sound from a line source, such as a highway, propagates outward in
a cylindrical pattern. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3 dB for each doubling of
distance from a line source, such as a roadway, depending on ground surface characteristics. No
excess attenuation is assumed for hard surfaces like a parking lot or a body of water. Soft
surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound, so an excess ground-attenuation value of
1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. For line sources, an overall attenuation rate
of 3 dB per doubling of distance is assumed.
Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings
between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid
wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The way older homes in California were
constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to
25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units is
generally 30 dBA or more.
Human Response to Noise
The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual
to individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of
actual physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well-
being and contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health effects of noise in the
community arise from interference with human activities, including sleep, speech, recreation,
and tasks that demand concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise
intensity levels.
Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by
median noise levels during the day or night or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 122
are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA
range, and high above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with
noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets with noise levels around
40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise
environments are urban residential or semicommercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and
commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but
most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier urban residential or residential-
commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). Regarding
increases in dBA, the following relationships should be noted:
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a 1-dBA change cannot be
perceived by humans.
• Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference.
• A minimum 5-dBA change is required before any noticeable change in community
response would be expected. A 5-dBA increase is typically considered substantial.
• A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would
almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response.
Effects of Noise on People
Hearing Loss. While physical damage to the ear from an intense noise impulse is rare, a
degradation of auditory acuity can occur even within a community noise environment. Hearing
loss occurs mainly due to chronic exposure to excessive noise but may be due to a single event
such as an explosion. Natural hearing loss associated with aging may also be accelerated from
chronic exposure to loud noise. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has a noise
exposure standard that is set at the noise threshold where hearing loss may occur from long-term
exposures. The maximum allowable level is 90 dBA averaged over 8 hours. If the noise is above
90 dBA, the allowable exposure time is correspondingly shorter.
Annoyance. Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for
noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was
determined that causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television,
house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been
found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People
have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation
noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different
sources. A noise level of about 55 dBA Ldn is the threshold at which a substantial percentage of
people begin to report annoyance.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 123
Groundborne Vibration
Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic
eruptions, sea waves, landslides, etc.) or man-made causes (explosions, machinery, traffic, trains,
construction equipment, etc.). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or
transient (e.g., explosions or use of heavy equipment during construction). Ground vibration
consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several different
methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is vibration decibels (VdB) (the
vibration velocity level in decibel scale). Other methods are the peak particle velocity (PPV) and
the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive
or negative peak of the vibration wave. The RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared
amplitude of the signal. The PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate
human response to vibration.
Table 16, Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent
Vibrations displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings produced by continuous
vibration levels. The annoyance levels shown in the table should be interpreted with care since
vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those listed, depending on the
level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching
the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating
secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling
sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of
actual structural damage. In high noise environments, which are more prevalent where
groundborne vibration approaches perceptible levels, this rattling phenomenon may also be
produced by loud airborne environmental noise causing induced vibration in exterior doors and
windows.
Ground vibration can be a concern in instances where buildings shake, and substantial rumblings
occur. However, it is unusual for vibration from typical urban sources such as buses and heavy
trucks to be perceptible. Common sources for ground-borne vibration are planes, trains, and
construction activities such as earthmoving that requires the use of heavy-duty earth moving
equipment. For the purposes of this analysis, a PPV descriptor with units of inches per second
(in/sec) is used to evaluate construction-generated vibration for building damage and human
complaints.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 124
Table 16: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations
Peak Particle
Velocity
(in/sec)
Approximate
Vibration Velocity
Level (VdB)
Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.006-0.019 64-74 Range of threshold of perception Vibrations unlikely to cause damage
of any type
0.08 87 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level to which
ruins and ancient monuments
should be subjected
0.1 92
Level at which continuous
vibrations may begin to annoy
people, particularly those involved
in vibration sensitive activities
Virtually no risk of architectural
damage to normal buildings
0.2 94 Vibrations may begin to annoy
people in buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk of
architectural damage to normal
dwellings
0.4-0.6 98-104
Vibrations considered unpleasant
by people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to
some people walking on bridges
Architectural damage and possibly
minor structural damage
Source: California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2013.
in/sec – inches per second
VdB - vibration decibels
Regulatory Setting
California Government Code. California Government Code Section 65302(f) mandates that the
legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive
general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines
established by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use
compatibility in terms of “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable,” “normally
unacceptable,” and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types. Single -family
homes are “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and
“conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Multiple-family residential uses are “normally
acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries, and
churches are “normally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business,
commercial, and professional uses.
California Code of Regulations, Title 24 – Building Code. The State’s noise insulation standards
are codified in the CCR, Title 24: Part 1, Building Standards Administrative Code, and Part 2, CBC.
These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for interior noise
compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be
prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are
located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior
noise level of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must
demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 125
acceptable noise levels. For new multi-family residential buildings, the acceptable interior noise
limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.
City of Fontana General Plan. Adopted on November 13, 2018, the Fontana Forward General
Plan Update 2015-2035 (Fontana General Plan) identifies noise standards that are used as
guidelines to evaluate transportation noise level impacts. These standards are also used to assess
the long‐term traffic noise impacts on specific land uses. According to the Fontana General Plan,
land uses such as residences have acceptable exterior noise levels of up to 65 dBA CNEL. Based
on the guidelines in the Fontana General Plan, an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL is generally
considered the maximum exterior noise level for sensitive receptors.
Land uses near significant noise‐producers can incorporate buffers and noise control techniques
including setbacks, landscaping, building transitions, site design, and building construction
techniques to reduce the impact of excessive noise. Selection of the appropriate noise control
techniques would vary depending on the level of noise that needs to be reduced as well as the
location and intended land use. The City has adopted the Noise and Safety Element as a part of
the updated Fontana General Plan. The Noise and Safety Element specifies the maximum
allowable unmitigated exterior noise levels for new developments impacted by transportation
noise sources. Additionally, the Noise and Safety Element identifies transportation noise policies
designed to protect, create, and maintain an environment free of harmful noise that could impact
the health and welfare of sensitive receptors. The following Fontana General Plan goals, policies,
and actions for addressing noise are applicable to the Project:
Goal 8: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent
planning through 2035.
Policy 8.2: Noise-tolerant land uses shall be guided into areas irrevocably committed to land
uses that are noise-producing, such as transportation corridors.
Policy 8.4: Noise spillover or encroachment from commercial, industrial and educational land
uses shall be minimized into adjoining residential neighborhoods or noise-
sensitive uses.
Action C: The State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines
shall be followed with respect to acoustical study requirements.
Goal 9: The City of Fontana provides a diverse and efficiently operated ground
transportation system that generates the minimum feasible noise on its residents
through 2035.
Policy 9.1: All noise sections of the State Motor Vehicle Code shall be enforced.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 126
Policy 9.2: Roads shall be maintained such that the paving is in good condition and free of
cracks, bumps, and potholes.
Action A: On-road trucking activities shall continue to be regulated in the City to ensure
noise impacts are minimized, including the implementation of truck-routes based
on traffic studies.
Action B: Development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the
ambient noise level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses shall provide appropriate
mitigation measures.
Action C: Noise mitigation practices shall be employed when designing all future streets and
highways and when improvements occur along existing highway segments.
Action D: Explore the use of “quiet pavement” materials for street improvements.
Goal 10: Fontana’s residents are protected from the negative effects of “spillover” noise.
Policy 10.1: Residential land uses and areas identified as noise-sensitive shall be protected
from excessive noise from non-transportation sources including industrial,
commercial, and residential activities and equipment.
Action A: Projects located in commercial areas shall not exceed stationary-source noise
standards at the property line of proximate residential or commercial uses.
Action B: Industrial uses shall not exceed commercial or residential stationary source noise
standards at the most proximate land uses.
Action C: Non-transportation noise shall be considered in land use planning decisions.
Action D: Construction shall be performed as quietly as feasible when performed in
proximity to residential or other noise-sensitive land uses.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Standards established under the Fontana Municipal Code are used to analyze noise impacts
originating from the Project. Operational noise impacts are typically governed by the Municipal
Code Sections 18-61 through 18-67. Noise standards for non-transportation and stationary noise
source impacts from operations at private properties are found in the Zoning and Development
Code in Section 30-543 of the Municipal Code. Applicable guidelines indicate that no person shall
create or cause any sound exceeding the City’s stated noise performance standards measured at
the property line of any residentially zoned property. The performance standards for exterior
noise are 70 dBA between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 65 dBA during the noise-
sensitive hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. at residential uses. For this analysis, a 65-dBA nighttime
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 127
noise level standard is used to be consistent with residential nighttime exterior noise
performance standards listed in Section 30-543 of the Municipal Code.
The City has also set restrictions to control noise impacts from construction activities.
Section 18-63(b)(7) states that the erection (including excavation), demolition, alteration, or
repair of any structure shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on
weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and is prohibited on
Sundays and Federal holidays, except in the case of urgent necessity or otherwise approved by
the City of Fontana. Although the Municipal Code limits the hours of construction, it does not
provide specific noise level performance standards for construction.
Existing Noise Sources
The City is impacted by various noise sources. Mobile sources of noise, espe cially cars, trucks,
and trains are the most common and significant sources of noise. Other noise sources are the
various land uses (i.e., residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational and parks activities)
throughout the City that generate stationary-source noise.
Mobile Sources
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments in the Project vicinity.
This task was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and Existing (2017) ADT Volumes from the
Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report. The noise
prediction model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes,
average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle
noise rates (also referred to as energy rates) used in the FHWA model have been modified to
reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans). The Caltrans data indicates that California automobile noise is 0.8 to
1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower
than national levels. The existing traffic noise levels in the Project vicinity range between
53.7 dBA CNEL and 64.4 dBA CNEL.
Stationary Sources
The primary sources of stationary noise in the Project vicinity are those associated with
residential properties north, south, and east of the Project. There is an elementary school directly
to the south of the Project site. The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-
event noise occurrence or short-term noise. Other noises include mechanical equipment
(e.g., heating ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment), dogs barking, idling vehicles,
and residents talking.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 128
Noise Measurements
The Project site is currently vacant and unoccupied. To quantify existing ambient noise levels in
the Project area, Kimley-Horn conducted four short-term noise measurements on
October 7, 2021. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise
exposure within and immediately adjacent to the Project site. The 10-minute measurements
were taken between 10:05 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Measurements of Leq are considered
representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The average noise levels and sources of
noise measured at each location are listed in Table 17, Existing Noise Measurements and shown
on Exhibit 8, Noise Measurement Locations.
Table 17: Existing Noise Measurements
Site Location Measurement Period Duration Daytime Average Leq
(dBA)
1 Intersection of Doran Lane and
Florentine Avenue 10:05 – 10:15 a.m. 10 Minutes 49.5
2 Cul-de-sac at the western end of
Basswood Lane 10:21 – 10:31 a.m. 10 Minutes 53.8
3 Western corner of Seminole
Way and Riverwood Lane 10:35 – 10:45 a.m. 10 Minutes 48.8
4 Intersection of Enna Lane and
Summit Avenue 10:50 – 11:00 a.m. 10 Minutes 71.1
Source: Noise measurements taken by Kimley-Horn, October 7, 2021. See Appendix D.
Noise-Sensitive Receptors
Noise exposure standards and guidelines for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise
sensitivities associated with each of these uses. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include
residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term health care facilities,
rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Sensitive land uses
surrounding the Project consist mostly of residential communities and an elementary school.
Sensitive land uses near the Project include single-family residential homes directly adjacent to
the north, approximately 0.23-mile feet to the east, and approximately 40 feet to the south of
the site. New residential homes are being constructed approximately 440 feet northwest of the
Project site. There is also an elementary school directly south of the site across Summit Avenue
(approximately 100 feet from the Project site).
Not to scale
City of Fontana Citrus East Residential Development Project Acoustical Assessment
November 2021
age | 16
Exhibit 4: Noise Measurement Locations
EXHIBIT 8: Noise Measurement Locations
Citrus East Project, City of Fontana
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2022 Page 130
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 131
Methodology
Construction
Construction noise levels were based on typical noise levels generated by construction
equipment published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and FHWA. Construction noise
is assessed in dBA Leq. This unit is appropriate because Leq can be used to describe noise level
from operation of each piece of equipment separately, and levels can be combined to represent
the noise level from all equipment operating during a given period.
Construction noise modeling was conducting using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise
Model (RCNM). Reference noise levels are used to estimate operational noise levels at nearby
sensitive receptors based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance
(line-of-sight method of sound attenuation for point sources of noise). Noise level estimates do
not account for the presence of intervening structures or topography, which may reduce noise
levels at receptor locations. Therefore, the noise levels presented herein represent a
conservative, reasonable worst-case estimate of actual temporary construction noise. The City
of Fontana does not establish quantitative construction noise standards. As noted above, this
analysis conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for residential uses and
90 dBA (8-hour Leq) for non-residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts.
Operations
The analysis of the Without Project and With Project noise environments is based on noise
prediction modeling and empirical observations. Reference noise level data are used to estimate
the Project operational noise impacts from stationary sources. Noise levels collected from field
noise measurements and other published sources from similar types of activities are used to
estimate noise levels expected with the Project’s stationary sources. The reference noise levels
are used to represent a worst-case noise environment as noise level from stationary sources can
vary throughout the day. Operational noise is evaluated based on the standards within the City’s
Noise Ordinance and General Plan. The Without Project and With Project traffic noise levels in
the Project vicinity were calculated using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108).
Vibration
Groundborne vibration levels associated with construction-related activities for the Project were
evaluated utilizing typical groundborne vibration levels associated with construction equipment,
obtained from FTA published data for construction equipment. Potential groundborne vibration
impacts related to building/structure damage and interference with sensitive existing operations
were evaluated, considering the distance from construction activities to nearby land uses and
typically applied criteria.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 132
For a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines
show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any
vibration damage. Human annoyance is evaluated in vibration decibels (VdB) (the vibration
velocity level in decibel scale) and occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above
the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. The FTA Transit Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA, 2018) (FTA Noise and Vibration Manual) identifies
80 VdB as the threshold for buildings where people normally sleep.
Would the Project:
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?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase
of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction
equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high
levels. During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods and
school surrounding the construction site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project
construction area are existing residential uses located approximately 240 feet to the north of the
Project site’s acoustic center. Following FTA methodology, when calculating construction noise,
equipment is assumed to operate at the center of the Project because equipment would operate
throughout the Project site and not at a fixed location for extended periods of time.
Construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and
architectural coating. Such activities would require dozers and tractors during site preparation;
excavators, graders, and dozers during grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and
welders during building construction; pavers, rollers, mixers, and paving equipment during
paving; and air compressors during architectural coating. Typical operating cycles for these types
of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to
4 minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be
random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of
equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Noise generated by construction
equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high
levels. Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are listed in
Table 18, Typical Construction Noise Levels.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 133
The City’s Municipal Code does not establish quantitative construction noise standards. Instead,
the Municipal Code establishes limited hours of construction activities. Municipal Code
Section 18-63 states that construction activities may only take place between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on
Saturdays, except in the case of urgent necessity or otherwise approved by the City of Fontana.
However, this analysis conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for
residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts.44 The noise levels calculated in Table 19,
Project Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor, show estimated exterior construction
noise levels at the nearest sensitive uses (residences located approximately 240 to the north of
the Project site’s acoustic center) without accounting for attenuation from physical barriers or
topography.
Table 18: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50 feet from Source
Air Compressor 81
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane, Derrick 88
Crane, Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 81
Grader 85
Impact Wrench 85
Jack Hammer 88
Loader 85
Paver 89
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 76
Roller 74
Saw 76
Scraper 89
Shovel 82
Truck 88
Calculated using the inverse square law formula for sound attenuation: dBA2 = dBA1+20Log(d1/d2)
Where: dBA2 = estimated noise level at receptor; dBA1 = reference noise level; d1 = reference distance; d2 = receptor location distance
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
44 Federal Transit Administration (2018). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-2, Page 179.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 134
Table 19: Project Construction Noise Levels
Construction Phase
Modeled Exterior Construction
Noise Level at Nearest Sensitive
Receptor (dBA Leq)
Noise Threshold
(dBA Leq) Exceed Threshold?
Site Preparation 76.0
80 No
Grading 71.4
Building Construction 70.4
Paving 66.4
Architectural Coating 64.0
Note:
Following FTA methodology, all equipment is assumed to operate at the center of the Project site because equipment would operate
throughout the Project site and not at a fixed location for extended periods of time. Thus, the distance used in the RCNM model was
approximately 240 feet for the nearest sensitive receptors to the north of the construction zone.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006. Refer to Appendix A of the Acoustical Assessment for
noise modeling results
Following FTA guidance, the two loudest pieces of equipment from each phase of construction
were modeled operating from the center of the construction area and measured to the nearest
sensitive receptors. Following FTA methodology, when calculating construction noise, equipment
is assumed to operate at the center of the Project because equipment would operate throughout
the Project site and not at a fixed location for extended periods of time. As indicated in Table 19,
Project construction noise levels would not exceed the FTA’s 80 dBA threshold at the nearest
residential uses. Impacts would be less than significant.
Operations
Implementation of the proposed Project would create new sources of noise in the project vicinity.
The major noise sources associated with the Project that would potentially impact existing
nearby residences and the school include stationary noise equipment (i.e., trash compactors, air
conditioners, etc.); parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car
pass-by); and off-site traffic noise.
Mechanical Equipment
The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are the single-family residences directly north
of the Project site. Potential stationary noise sources related to long-term operation of the
Project would include mechanical equipment (e.g., heating ventilation and air conditioning
[HVAC] equipment), which typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet.
Based on Project site plans, the nearest potential location for HVAC equipment would be located
approximately 10 feet from the residential property line to the north. At this distance, HVAC noise
levels would attenuate to approximately 66.0 dBA. However, since the residences directly north
of the Project site are two-story buildings and there is an approximately 6-foot-high perimeter
wall between them and the Project site, the residences would be partially shielded from HVAC
noise and HVAC noise levels would be reduced by at least 5 dBA. Therefore, the exterior HVAC
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 135
noise levels resulting from the Project would be approximately 61.0 dBA, which is below the City’s
65 dBA exterior noise standard for residential uses.
Additionally, standard construction practices, such as wall assemblies and windows, would result
in an exterior-interior noise level reduction of approximately 25 dBA. As such, interior HVAC noise
levels would be approximately 41.0 dBA, which is below the City’s 45 dBA interior noise standard
for residential uses. Operation of mechanical equipment would not increase ambient noise levels
beyond the acceptable compatible land use noise levels. Further, it is noted that noise from
stationary sources at the Project site would primarily occur during the daytime activity hours of
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant
impact related to stationary noise levels.
Parking Noise
The Project would provide 347 parking spaces (see Section 1.2, Project Description). Parking
spaces would be a combination of ground-floor garage spaces, parking within driveways for each
unit, and open parking spaces towards the center of the Project site. Nominal parking noise
would occur within the on-site parking facilities. Traffic associated with parking lots is typically
not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time-
averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a
car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-bys range from 53 to 61 dBA and may be an
annoyance to adjacent noise-sensitive receptors. It should be noted that parking lot noises are
instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the hourly Leq or 24-hour CNEL
metrics, which are averaged over the entire duration of a time period.
Additionally, parking noise also occurs at the adjacent properties to the north, east, and south
under existing conditions. Parking and driveway noise would be consistent with existing noise in
the vicinity and would be partially masked by background traffic noise from motor vehicles
traveling along Citrus Avenue to the west and Summit Avenue to the south. Actual noise levels
over time resulting from parking activities will be far below the local noise standards. Therefore,
noise impacts associated with parking would be less than significant.
Off-Site Traffic Noise
Implementation of the Project would generate increased traffic volumes along nearby roadway
segments. According to the Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memorandum for the Proposed
Citrus East Residential Project in the City of Fontana (Kimley-Horn, 2021) (Traffic Impact Study),
the proposed Project would generate 549 daily trips, which would result in noise increases on
Project area roadways. In general, a traffic noise increase of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible
to people, while a 5-dBA increase is readily noticeable. Generally, traffic volumes on Project area
roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase by
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 136
3 dBA. Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels of less than 3 dBA are considered
to be less than significant.
Traffic noise levels for roadways primarily affected by the Project were calculated using the
FHWA’s Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Traffic noise modeling was
conducted for conditions with and without the Project, based on traffic volumes from the Traffic
Impact Study. As indicated in Table 20, Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, Existing
Conditions Plus Project traffic-generated noise levels on Project area roadways would range
between 55.0 dBA CNEL and 64.4 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline, and the Project would
result in a maximum increase of 1.3 dBA CNEL along Citrus Avenue. As such, the Project would
result in an increase of less than 3.0 dBA CNEL for the roadway segments analyzed and traffic
noise. Noise impacts from off-site traffic would be less than significant.
The Horizon Year “2040 Without Project” and “2040 Plus Project” scenarios were also compared.
As shown in Table 21, Horizon Year and Horizon Year Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, Horizon
Year (2040) Plus Project roadway noise levels would range between 58.5 dBA CNEL and 64.1 dBA
CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline, and the Project would result in a maximum increase of 0.6
dBA CNEL. As such, the Project would result in an increase of less than 3.0 dBA CNEL for the
roadway segments analyzed and traffic noise. Noise impacts from off-site traffic would be less
than significant in this regard.
Table 20: Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Existing Existing + Project Project
Change from
No Build
Conditions
Significant
Impact? ADT1 dBA
CNEL2 ADT dBA
CNEL2
Citrus Avenue
Casa Grande Avenue to Summit
Avenue
1,500 53.7 2,056 55.0 1.3 No
Summit Avenue to Curtis
Avenue
15,100 63.7 15,656 63.8 0.1 No
Summit Avenue
Knox Avenue to Citrus Avenue 18,100 64.4 18,656 64.4 0.0 No
Citrus Avenue to Sierra Avenue 6,900 60.3 7,456 60.5 0.2 No
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL= Community Equivalent Noise Level
Notes:
1. Traffic data obtained from the Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2018.
2. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. Noise levels modeled using the FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise
Prediction Model; see Appendix A of the Acoustical Assessment for traffic noise modeling results.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 137
Table 21: Horizon Year and Horizon Year Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment Horizon Year
(2040)
Horizon Year (2040)
Plus Project
Project Change
from No Build
Conditions
Significant
Impact?
ADT1 dBA CNEL2 ADT dBA CNEL2
Citrus Avenue
Casa Grande Avenue
to Summit Avenue
4,000 57.9 4,556 58.5 0.6 No
Summit Avenue to
Curtis Avenue
16,000 63.9 16,556 64.1 0.2 No
Summit Avenue
Knox Avenue to
Citrus Avenue
14,000 63.2 14,556 63.4 0.2 No
Citrus Avenue to
Sierra Avenue
11,000 62.3 11,556 62.5 0.2 No
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL= Community Equivalent Noise Level
Notes:
1. Traffic data obtained from the Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2018.
2. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. Noise levels modeled using the FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise
Prediction Model; see Appendix A of the Acoustical Assessment for traffic noise modeling results.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Increases in groundborne vibration
levels attributable to the proposed Project would be primarily associated with short‐term
construction‐related activities. The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for
construction equipment operations in their 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Manual. The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building
damage.
Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile
would not experience cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This
distance can vary substantially depending on soil composition and underground geological layer
between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration
generated by construction equipment. For example, for a building that is constructed with
reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to
0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any vibration damage. Human annoyance
is evaluated in vibration decibels (VdB) (the vibration velocity level in decibel scale) and occurs
when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for
extended periods of time. The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual
identifies 80 VdB as the approximate threshold for residences.
Construction
The nearest sensitive receptors are the residences located approximately 10 feet to the north of
the Project site. However, since construction activity would be intermittent and the use of heavy
construction equipment would be spread throughout the Project site and not concentrated at
one specific location for an extended period of time, it is assumed the concentration of
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 138
construction activity for the purposes of this vibration analysis would occur no closer than 15 feet
from the nearest sensitive receptors. Table 22, Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels,
lists vibration levels at 15, 25, 41, and 50 feet for typical construction equipment.
Table 22: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Groundborne vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and
diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. As indicated in Table 22, Typical Construction
Equipment Vibration Levels, based on FTA data, worst-case vibration velocities from typical heavy
construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from
0.007 to 0.192 in/sec PPV at 15 feet from the source of activity (i.e., the closest potential distance
from Project construction activities to the residences to the north), which is below the FTA’s 0.20
PPV threshold for building damage. However, as shown in Table 22, Typical Construction
Equipment Vibration Levels, large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and jackhammers operating at a
distance of 15 feet, and large bulldozers and loaded trucks operating at a distance between 25
and 41 feet from the residences to the north would exceed the FTA’s 80 VdB annoyance
threshold. Construction equipment vibration levels would not exceed the FTA’s 80 VdB threshold
at distances beyond 41 feet as indicated in Table 22, Typical Construction Equipment Vibration
Levels.
Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is required to reduce construction
vibration annoyance impacts at the residences to the north of the Project Site. Mitigation
Measure NOI-1 requires the construction contractor to implement vibration reduction measures
to ensure vibration levels do not exceed the FTA’s 80 VdB human annoyance threshold at the
nearest residences to the north of the Project site. With implementation of Mitigation Measure
NOI-1, construction vibration impacts would be less than significant.
Equipment
Peak
Particle
Velocity
at 15
Feet
(in/sec)1
Peak
Particle
Velocity
at 25
Feet
(in/sec)1
Peak
Particle
Velocity
at 41
Feet
(in/sec)1
Peak
Particle
Velocity
at 50
Feet
(in/sec)1
Approximate
VdB at 15
Feet2
Approximate
VdB at 25
Feet2
Approximate
VdB at 41
Feet2
Approximate
VdB at 50
Feet2
Large Bulldozer 0.192 0.089 0.042 0.032 94 87 81 78
Loaded Trucks 0.164 0.076 0.036 0.027 93 86 80 77
Jackhammer 0.075 0.035 0.017 0.012 86 79 73 70
Small
Bulldozer/Tractors 0.007 0.003 0.001 0.001 65 58 52 49
1. Calculated using the following formula: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5, where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted
for the distance; PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration
Impact Assessment Manual, 2018; D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.
2. Calculated using the following formula: Lv(D) = Lv(25 feet) - (30 x log10(D/25 feet)) per the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Manual (2018).
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 139
Operations
Once operational, the Project would not be a significant source of groundborne vibration.
Groundborne vibration surrounding the Project currently result from heavy-duty vehicular travel
(e.g., refuse trucks, heavy duty trucks, delivery trucks, and transit buses) on the nearby local
roadways. Operations of the proposed Project would include reside ntial activities that typically
would not cause excessive groundborne vibrations. Due to the rapid drop-off rate of ground-
borne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic-induced ground-
borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and rarely results in
vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity. According to the FTA’s Transit
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, trucks rarely create vibration levels that exceed 70 VdB
(equivalent to 0.012 inches per second PPV) when they are on roadways. Therefore, trucks
operating at the Project site or along surrounding roadways would not exceed FTA thresholds for
building damage or annoyance. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measure:
NOI-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the construction contractor shall
include the following equipment restrictions and reduction measures in Project
construction plans:
• The operation of large bulldozers and/or loaded trucks shall be prohibited
within a distance of 41 feet from any residence (excluding outdoor patio
shade structures or overhangs).
OR
• The construction contractor shall utilize small bulldozers and trucks within
a distance of 41 feet from any residence (excluding outdoor patio shade
structures or overhangs.
AND
• The operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited with a distance of 25
feet from any residence (excluding outdoor patio shade structures or
overhangs).
• Temporary signage in the immediate proximity of the northern Project
construction boundary shall be erected notifying construction personnel
of these prohibitions.
This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Fontana
Building Official and Community Development Department.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 140
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The nearest airport to the Project site is the Ontario International
Airport located approximately 9.52 miles to the southwest. Thus, the Project is not located within
an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport and would not expose people residing
or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. No impact would incur in this regard.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 141
POPULATION AND HOUSING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
X
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)?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the Project site is currently zoned for
commercial uses. The ZCA would change the zoning from C-1 to R-2 and would accommodate for
residential development. The Project would construct 76 detached single-family “cluster”
residential units, which would cause a direct increase in the City’s population by introducing new
residents to the Project site and surrounding areas.
The State of California Department of Finance (DOF) has provided population estimates per
household for each city through their E-5 Table.45 In Fontana, the current average household size
is 4.02 persons per household.46 Given an average household size of 4.02 persons per household
Project could potentially add an estimated 306 residents to the City.
The DOF has estimated the City’s total population for 2021 to be approximately 213,944 persons
with the total housing stock of 55,909 housing units and 5.1% vacancy rate.47 Further, the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) forecasts the population of Fontana will
increase to approximately 286,700 residents by the year 2045, which is an increase of
approximately 72,756 persons or 34 percent from the current population (SCAG 2020).48 The
45 California Department of Finance. 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010
Census Benchmark. Available at https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5/. Accessed on September 26, 2021.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 Southern California Association of Governments. (August 2020). Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast. Available at
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf. Accessed on
September 30, 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 142
level of population growth associated with the project (306 residents) would be minimal. The
Project’s housing development would count towards Fontana’s housing needs as prepared by
the Southern California Association of Governments Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA).49 The increase of housing units is anticipated in the City of Fontana’s Housing Element,
which strongly encourages housing expansion throughout the City. As such, the Project would
create a less than significant impact to population growth in the area.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project proposes construction of 76 single-family housing units. The Project site
is currently vacant and undeveloped. Therefore, the Project would not displace substantial
numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere. No impacts would occur.
49 City of Fontana. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Chapter 5 Housing. Page 5.7. Available at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26744/Chapter-5---Housing. Accessed on September 30, 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 143
PUBLIC SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the Project:
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? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
Would the Project:
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project implementation would increase the demand for fire
protection services in the area. However, the Project would be designed in accordance with
applicable city, county, and state regulations, codes, and policies pertaining to fire hazard
reduction and protection. More specifically, the Project would be developed in accordance with
the latest California 2019 Fire Code and 2019 Building Standards Code. The 76-unit residential
development would be equipped with emergency sprinkler systems and fire detectors. Water
lines with fire-sufficient flows, supplied by FWC, would be connected to fire hydrants placed in
accordance with Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) standards. The applicant is also required
to pay the Development Impact Fees (DIF) pursuant to §11-2 of the Fontana MC which would
mitigate any additional required Fire protection.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 144
Fire protection and emergency response services would be provided for the Project site by the
FFPD. The FFPD operates seven fire stations. Fire Station 78 is located approximately 1.8 miles
south and Fire Station 79 is located approximately 1 mile northwest of the Project site. Thus, no
new facilities are required to serve the Project. Further, according to the Fontana Fire District
Strategic Plan 2018, FFPD will construct two (2) new Fire Stations (Station 80 in Years 2020-2022)
and (Station 81 in Years 2024-2025) which would improve service ratios and response times in
the City.50 The FFPD will continue to collect funds through its Fire Facilities Fees until such a future
time as more development in the area warrants the acquisition of property and construction of
Station 81. With compliance of the applicable city, and state regulations, codes, and the payment
of associated DIF, potential impacts on fire services from implementation of the Project would
be less than significant.
ii) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project buildout would increase the demand for police
protection services in Northern Fontana. The Project site is located in Area 1 of the Area
Commander Program and would be served by the City of Fontana Police Department
(Fontana PD), located 3.5 miles south of the Project site.51 The Fontana PD currently has
188 sworn officers providing law enforcement services 24 hours a day, 365 days a year with a
one officer to 1,138 residents ratio, based on the 2021 DOF population estimate.52 The
306-person population increase resulting from the Project would lead to a possible increase in
police services to the immediate Project site and to the surrounding areas. However, as stated
above, payment of the DIF would offset any increases in the demand for public services granted
by this Project. In addition, the Project would adhere with Fontana PD’s Standard Building
Security Specifications and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles (CPTED),
which include natural surveillance, natural access control, territorial reinforcements and
maintenance and management. Further, the proposed Project is designed to have a gated
entrance/exit and provide private security, which will decrease demand for public police
protection as in-house security. No new police facilities would be necessary to serve the Project.
As such, impacts would be less than significant.
iii) Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in the Fontana Unified School District
(FUSD). The Project site is located approximately 200 feet northwest of Sierra Lakes Elementary
School, 0.75 miles east of Summit High School, and approximately 0.78 miles southeast of Falcon
Ridge Elementary School. Due to the residential nature of the Project, the Project would be
50 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Fire Protection District Strategic Plan. Accessible at
https://novus.fontana.org/AttachmentViewer.ashx?AttachmentID=16102&ItemID=12107. Accessed on September 27, 2021.
City of Fontana Police Department.Area Commander Program. Available at https://www.fontana.org/120/Area-Commander-Programs.
Accessed on September 27, 2021.
52 City of Fontana Police Department. Available at https://www.fontana.org/2509/About-Us. Accessed on September 27, 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 145
expected to increase demand for school services. According to Government Code §65996, the
payment of development fees, authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be full and complete school
facilities mitigation. The Project would be required to pay mandated development impact fees
for residential buildings. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
iv) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Recreation, Section 16, below, the Project would
marginally increase the demand for public recreational facilities. However, the Project proposes
a total of approximately 100,373 square feet of usable open space areas that would include
amenities for the residents of the development, which would reduce Project residents’ use of
existing park facilities. The Project would also be subject to the DIF to offset the impact to the
City’s public services and facilities, including parks. The Project would not create additional need
for recreational facilities. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
v) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. Demand for other public facilities in the area, such as senior centers
or libraries, would be nominally increased with the increase in population of approximately 306
persons, resulting from the Project implementation. However, new or expanded facilities would
not be necessary as the City has anticipated this growth in the General Plan and these facilities
are adequate to serve the population anticipated with the Project. Further, the Project would be
required to pay applicable development impact fees (e.g., the Library Impact Fee), which would
minimize any impact from the increased demand. As such, impacts would be considered less than
significant.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 146
RECREATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16. RECREATION. Would the Project:
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?
X
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?
X
Would the Project:
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. The nearest neighborhood park is Patricia Marrujo Park
only 0.24 miles south of the Project site. To ensure that sufficient public parks serve all areas of
the City, the General Plan sets a minimum standard of 5 acres of public parkland per
1,000 residents. The City currently provide more than the required 5 acres of parkland per 1,000
residents and with the project, will continue to remain in excess of this requirement. As
previously discussed, the Project would result in a potential increase of 306 residents. The Project
would also include on-site amenities, including useable open spaces for the Project’s future
residents. Thus, the Project would not substantially increase the use of existing neighborhood,
regional parks or other recreational facilities and a less than significant impact is anticipated.
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. Refer to Response Public Service (15-a.iv) above. The proposed
Project includes the development of approximately 100,343 square feet of usable open space
areas that would include amenities for the residents of the development and offset the need for
City-owned parks or recreational facilities. A less than significant impact would occur.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 147
TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the Project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
A Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Memorandum was prepared by
Kimley-Horn and Associates (May 2022). This report is summarized below and is included as
Appendix E of this IS/MND.
Summary of Citrus East Project Trip Generation and VMT Analysis
The Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memorandum, prepared by Kimley-Horn for the Project
site, provides ADT estimates for the proposed 76-unit residential development. The Project
would generate approximately 556 daily trips, with 35 trips (8 inbound and 27 outbound) in the
morning peak hour and 43 trips (27 inbound and 16 outbound) in the evening peak hour; see
Table 23, Summary of Project Trip Generation Citrus East Residential Project below for additional
details.
Table 23: Summary of Project Trip Generation Citrus West Residential Project
TRIP GENERATION RATES 1
ITE Land Use ITE
Code Unit Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 DU 7.320 0.106 0.354 0.460 0.353 0.207 0.560
Proposed Project
Project Land Use Quantity Unit
TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 76 DU 556 8 27 35 27 16 43
Total Proposed Project Trips 556 8 27 35 27 16 43
1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 148
Jurisdictional Requirements
The City of Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and
Level of Service Assessment (June 2020) provides guidance on when a Traffic Impact Study is
required for a project. The City document specifies that:
• If a project generates less than 50 peak hour trips, a traffic analysis shall not be required,
and a trip generation memo will be considered sufficient unless the City has specific
concerns related to project access and interaction with adjacent intersections.
Since the Project is expected to generate less than 50 peak hour trips, a traffic analysis is not
required.
CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was approved by California legislature in September 2013. SB 743
requires changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically directing the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop alternative metrics to the use of
vehicular “Level of Service” (LOS) for evaluating transportation projects. OPR has prepared a
technical advisory (“OPR Technical Advisory”) for evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA and
has recommended that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) replace LOS as the primary measure of
transportation impacts. The Natural Resources Agency has adopted updates to CEQA Guidelines
that require transportation impacts to be evaluated based on VMT.
The City of Fontana’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
and Level of Service Assessment (June 2020) includes screening thresholds that can be used to
identify when a proposed land use project can be presumed to result in a less than significant
impact without conducting a more detailed level analysis. Screening thresholds are broken down
into the following four steps:
1. Projects in a Transit Priority Area (TPA)
2. Low VMT Area
3. Low Project Type
4. Project Net Daily Trip Less Than 500 ADT
Land development projects that meet one or more of the above screening thresholds may
be presumed to create a less than significant impact on transportation and circulation.
1. Projects in a Transit Priority Area (TPA)
In accordance the City of Fontana’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment (June 2020), projects located within half mile from
an existing major transit stop or within half of a mile from an existing stop along a high-quality
transit corridor can be screened out. Based on San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 149
(SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool, the Project is not located in a Transit Priority Area (TPA). The TPA
screening criteria is not met.
2. Low VMT Area
Residential and office projects located within a low VMT generating area may be presumed to
have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other
employment related, and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the
project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service
population that is similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area. Based on the traffic analysis
zone (“TAZ”) that the Project is in and the San Bernardino County Traffic Analysis Model (SBTAM)
travel forecast model, the low VMT area screening criteria is not met.
3. Low Project Type
The City presumes various usages, assumed to be local serving in nature, as having less than
significant impact absent of substantial evidence to the contrary. The low VMT project type
screening is not met for this project.
4. Project Net Daily Trips Less Than 500 ADT
The City presumes that projects that generate fewer than 500 average daily trips (ADT) would
not cause a substantial increase in the total citywide or regional VMT and would therefore have
a less than significant impact on VMT. Based on the trip generation noted earlier, the Project is
expected to generate more than 500 average net new daily trips. Therefore, the less than 500 ADT
screening criteria is not met for the Project.
Findings and Conclusions
Based on review of the City’s guidelines, the Project is expected to generate less than 50 peak
hour trips; therefore, Level of Service and traffic analyses are not required. However, per the
City’s VMT guidelines, the Project would not be screened out from a VMT analysis.
Would the Project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would be required to comply with any applicable traffic
and circulation regulation set forth by the City of Fontana. The Project site will be utilizing existing
roads: Citrus Avenue and Summit Avenue. As explained in the Trip Generation and VMT Screening
Memorandum, the project would generate a nominal increase in traffic, and thus does not trigger
the need for a traffic analysis. Consistent with the City of Fontana Guidelines, a project level VMT
analysis was performed with the SBTAM model for the proposed residential use. The Project’s
VMT was found to be less than significant based on City of Fontana’s recommended thresholds
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 150
based on VMT per service population. Further, coordination with OmniTrans and other mass
transit will be implemented to create reasonable access to their services. Pedestrian sidewalks
are also implemented in the Project design as to enable an efficient flow of foot traffic. With
adherence to any relevant circulation regulations, the Project would result in a less than
significant impact on circulation policies.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines §15064.3 contains several subdivisions. In brief,
these Guidelines provide that transportation impacts of projects are, in general, best measured
by evaluating the project's VMT. Methodologies for evaluating such impacts are already in use
for most land use projects, as well as many transit and active transportation projects. Consistent
with the City of Fontana Guidelines, a project level VMT analysis was performed with the SBTAM
model for the proposed residential use. The Project was initially assessed for potential screening
through one of four thresholds:
1. Projects in a Transit Priority Area (TPA)
2. Low VMT Area
3. Low Project Type
4. Project Net Daily Trip Less than 500 ADT
Projects that meet one or more of the above screening thresholds are presumed to generate less
than significant VMT impacts, and do not require further VMT analysis. The Project failed to meet
these screening thresholds. Thus, a project-specific VMT analysis was required.
VMT Thresholds
Consistent with the City Guidelines, the project would result in a significant VMT impact if either
of the following conditions are satisfied:
1. The baseline project generated VMT per service population exceeds 15 percent below the
baseline County of San Bernardino VMT per service population, or;
2. The cumulative project generated VMT per service population exceeds 15 percent below
the baseline County of San Bernardino VMT per service population.
A significant cumulative impact would occur if the project is determined to be inconsistent with
the RTP/SCS and causes total daily VMT within the City to be higher than the no project
alternative under cumulative conditions. Although a GPA and ZC would be required for the
proposed Project, does not exceed the growth of 296 multi-family dwelling units assumed in the
TAZ where the proposed project is located (53739101). As such, the project is consistent with the
RTP/SCS and would not create a significant cumulative transportation impact.
As the project does not satisfy VMT screening criteria, a VMT analysis was conducted for the
project based on San Bernardino County Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) consistent with
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 151
the City of Fontana guidelines. For purposes of this VMT assessment the VMT per service
population has been compared to 15% below countywide average VMT, based on data provided
by SBCTA.
Table 24: VMT Thresholds
Threshold Option Countywide Average Threshold (15% below)
VMT per Service Population 32.7 27.8
As shown in Table 25: VMT Impact Evaluation, the project would meet the 15% below countywide
average threshold.
Project VMT
Project VMT was calculated using the most current version of SBTAM. Adjustments in socio-
economic data (76 multi-family homes and a population of 266) were made to the appropriate
traffic analysis zone (TAZ; 53739101) within the SBTAM model to reflect the project’s proposed
land use. The population of 266 was calculated based on a factor of 3.5 population per unit,
consistent with assumptions in the SBTAM TAZ. This provides a more conservative analysis on a
per capita basis compared to a population estimate of 306 that was used in other sections of this
IS/MND. For the purposes of this analysis, the project was isolated in a separate TAZ.
Project VMT per Service Population
The project VMT per service population is the total daily VMT (4,806) divided by the population
(266) derived from the SBTAM model (since there is no employment component to the project,
the service population is same as population). The Project VMT per service population calculated
based on SBTAM is 18.1. As shown in Table 25, the project’s VMT per service population would
meet the 15% below countywide average threshold. As such, the project’s transportation impact
is less-than-significant based on City of Fontana’s recommended thresholds.
Table 25: VMT Impact Evaluation
Threshold Option Threshold Project Potentially Significant
VMT per Service Population 27.8 18.1 No
The Project was evaluated based on the SBCTA VMT screening tool and was found to not meet
screening criteria based on VMT per service population metric. Consistent with the City of
Fontana Guidelines, a project level VMT analysis was performed with the SBTAM model for the
proposed residential use. As stated earlier, the proposed project (76 multi-family dwelling units)
does not exceed the growth of 296 multi-family dwelling units assumed in the TAZ where the
proposed project is located (53739101). As such, the project is consistent with the RTP/SCS and
would not create a significant cumulative transportation impact. The Project’s VMT was
therefore found to be less than significant based on City of Fontana’s recommended thresholds
based on VMT per service population. The Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 and less than significant impacts would occur.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 152
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact. The design features of the Project do not incorporate any hazardous or incompatible
features. The Project’s access points would not include sharp turns, but rather be designed to
allow safe egress and ingress to the Project site. The drive aisles/fire lanes within the Project site
have been designed to be both efficient and safe for vehicular traffic pursuant to City Standards
approved by the Fontana Fire Department.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would provide one main ingress and egress driveway
along Summit Avenue. The primary access driveway includes a gated entry and a gated exit with
planted dividers/median and a traffic circle. Ingress and egress entries would each be 20 feet in
width. In addition, the Project also proposes a 20-foot-wide emergency vehicle access (EVA)
along Summit Avenue in the southern portion of the site, to be utilized for emergency vehicles
exiting the site. All driveways would be constructed per City standard plans.
Additionally, construction of the proposed Project is not expected to require road closures or
otherwise adversely affect emergency access around the site perimeter. If any road closures
(complete or partial) were to occur, the Fontana Police and Fire Department will be notified of
the construction schedule and any required detours would allow emergency v ehicles to use
alternate routes for emergency response. The impact on emergency access would be less than
significant.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 153
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Project:
a) 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)?
X
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?
X
California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was enacted on July 1, 2015. AB 52 establishes that “[a] project
with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC §21084.2). It
also requires the lead agency to establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the
significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC §21084.3). In addition,
AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding tribal cultural
resources.
California Government Code §65352.3, pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill 18 [SB 18],
adopted in 2004, requires local governments to contact and consult with California Native
American tribes prior to deciding to adopt or amend a general or specific plan, or designate land
as open space. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local
government’s jurisdiction, and are identified, upon request, by the California Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC). The California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) provides
Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005) and explains that “[t]he intent of SB 18 is to provide
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 154
California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an
early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.”
Sacred Lands File Search
BCR Consulting conducted a Sacred Lands File search with the Native American heritage
Commission (NAHC). Findings were positive during the Sacred Lands File (SLF) search with the
NAHC. The NAHC has recommended contacting the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians –
Kizh Nation for more information regarding this finding. The City will initiate Senate Bill (SB) 18
and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Native American Consultation for the project. Since the City will initiate
and carry out the required Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not
provided in the BCR report.
Would the Project:
a) 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)?
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 su bdivision (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.
On March 15, 2022, the City sent notification letters with regards to the Project to all California
Native American tribal representatives that have requested Project notifications, pursuant to
SB 18 and are on file with the NAHC that may have an interest in the development of the Project
site. Responses are provided in Appendix C. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians received
notice and determined that no further consultation was required and deferred to the other tribes
of the area, ending the consultation. Similarly, Gabrieleño Tongva Indians of California provided
no comment on the Project. Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation received notice and
requested consultation with the City of Fontana, on March 16, 2022. The Tribe held consultation
on May 18, 2022 and requested mitigation measures be incorporated and ended consultation.
San Manual of Mission Indians received the required notices and requested mitigation measures
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 155
be incorporated. With the mitigation measures MM TCR 1 through MM TCR 5 as provided, no
impacts to Tribal Resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM TCR-1 Tribes shall be contacted, as detailed in CR-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-
era cultural resources which are related or bear significance to their tribe are
discovered during project implementation. Each relevant tribe shall be provided
information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide tribal input with
regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as
defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resource Monitoring and
Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with the
appropriate tribe, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan
shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents the appropriate tribe for
the remainder of the project, should the tribe elect to place a monitor on-site.
MM TCR-2 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 applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to the appropriate tribe. The
Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with the appropriate
tribe throughout the life of the project.
MM TCR-3 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing
Activities.
A. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American monitor from
(or approved by) the Consulting Tribes (the “Tribe”). The monitor shall be
retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for
the subject project, at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site
locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or
required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work).
“Ground-disturbing activity” includes, but is not limited to, pavement removal,
potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation,
drilling, and trenching.
B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be provided to the lead
agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing
activity for the project, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence
a ground-disturbing activity.
C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions
of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities
performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 156
related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of
significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered
TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical
artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural
resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral)
human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to
the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.
D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1)
written confirmation to the Tribe from a designated point of contact for the
project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases
that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in
connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written
notification by the Tribe to the project applicant/lead agency that no future,
planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the
project site possesses the potential to impact Tribe TCRs.
E. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity
of the discovery shall cease )i.e.., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) an d
shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Tribe
monitor and/or archeologist. The Tribe will recover and retain all discovered
TCRs in the form and/pr manner the Tribe deems appropriate.
MM TCR-4 Discovery of TCRs, Human Remains, and/or Grave Goods.
A. Upon the discovery of a TCR, all construction activities in the immediate
vicinity of the discovery (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) shall cease.
The Consulting Tribe, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation and
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) shall be immediately informed
of the discovery. An archaeologist that meets Secretary of Interior Professional
Qualifications, a Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist, and an SMBMI CRM
staff member will promptly report to the location of the discovery to evaluate
the TCR and advise the project manager regarding the matter, protocol, and
any mitigating requirements. No project construction activities shall resume in
the surrounding 50 feet of the discovered TCR unless and until the Consulting
Tribes and archaeologist have completed their
assessment/evaluation/treatment of the discovered TCR and surveyed the
surrounding area. Treatment protocols outlined in TCR-3 shall be followed for
all discoveries that do not include human remains.
B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or
recognized on the project site or at any off-site project location, then all
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 157
construction activities shall immediately cease. Native American “human
remains” are defined to include “an inhumation or cremation, and in any state
of decomposition or skeletal completeness.” (Pub. Res. Code § 5097.98 (d)(1).)
Funerary objects, referred to as “associated grave goods,” shall be treated in
the same manner and with the same dignity and respect as human remains.
(Pub. Res. Code § 5097.98 (a), d)(1) and (2).)
C. Any discoveries of human skeletal material or human remains shall be
immediately reported to the County Coroner (Health & Safety Code §
7050.5(c); 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064.5(e)(1)(B)), and all ground-disturbing
project ground-disturbing activities on-site and in any other area where the
presence of human remains and/or grave goods are suspected to be present,
shall immediately halt and remain halted until the coroner has determined the
nature of the remains. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064.5(e).) If the coroner
recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason
to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, within 24 hours,
the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98 shall be followed, which includes the NAHC identifying the
“Most Likely Descendant” (MLD). The landowner and MLD will then discuss
appropriate treatment of the human remains.
D. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a
minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or grave
goods, if the MLD determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction
activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager
express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation
measures the Tribal representatives and/or archaeologist deems necessary).
(14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064.5(f).)
E. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for
discovered human remains and/or grave goods.
F. Any discovery of human remains and/or grave goods discovered and/or
recovered shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
MM TCR 5 Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains.
In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human
remains are found, the County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the
discovery. The project lead/foreman shall designate an Environmentally Sensitive
Area (ESA) physical demarcation/barrier 100 feet around the resource and no
further excavation or disturbance of the site shall occur while the County Coroner
makes his/her assessment regarding the nature of the remains. If the remains are
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 158
determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify those
persons it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) from the deceased
Native American. The MLD shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of
being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative
will then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of
the human remains.
Reburial of human remains and/or funerary objects (those artifacts associated
with any human remains or funerary rites) shall be accomplished in compliance
with the California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (a) and (b). The MLD in
consultation with the landowner, shall make the final discretionary determination
regarding the appropriate disposition and treatment of human remains and
funerary objects. All parties are aware that the MLD may wish to rebury the
human remains and associated funerary objects on or near the site of their
discovery, in an area that shall not be subject to future subsurface disturbances.
The applicant/developer/landowner should accommodate on-site reburial in a
location mutually agreed upon by the Parties. It is understood by all Parties that
unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American
human remains or cultural artifacts shall not be disclosed and shall not be
governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act.
The Coroner, parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public
disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption
set forth in California Government Code § 6254 (r).
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 159
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. 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?
x
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
Project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
x
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?
x
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?
x
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
x
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Utilities necessary for the Project site are as follows:
• Electricity – Southern California Edison (SCE)
• Water – Fontana Water Company (FWC)
• Wastewater – Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) via City of Fontana
• Storm Drain – City of Fontana and San Bernardino Flood Control District
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 160
• Solid Waste – Burrtec Waste Industries
• Telecommunications – Verizon and Wiltel Fiber-Optic
• Gas – Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas)
The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) provides wastewater treatment service throughout the
City and would provide wastewater services to the Project site. The IEUA currently operates four
regional wastewater treatment facilities: Regional Plant (RP-) No. 1, RP-4, RP-5, and Carbon
Canyon Wastewater Reclamation Facility. RP-4 treats local wastewater generated by the City.
IEUA’s four RPs have a total combined design treatment capacity of approximately 86 million
gallons per day (MGD). Currently, all four reclamation facilities treat a total combined average
daily flow of about 60 MGD. This is done through a system of regional trunk and interceptor
sewers owned and operated by IEUA which transport wastewater to the RPs. Wastewater can be
diverted from one RP to another in order to avoid overloading at any one facility. Local sewer
systems are owned and operated by local agencies, in this case by the City of Fontana. The Project
area would be served by RP-4 facility, located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. RP-4 treats an
average flow of five MGD of wastewater and is operated in conjunction with RP-1 to provide
recycled water to users. RP-4 was recently expanded to a capacity of 14 MGD.
The Project would result in an increase in wastewater generation. The additional wastewater
generated by the Project would be approximately 2,413 gallons per day (GPD), based on
wastewater generation rates previously approved by IEUA (279 gallons per day per acre for
residential use). This would be an additional .02 percent of the wastewater treatment capacity
of the facility. The increase in the daily wastewater generated by this Project would lead to a less
than significant impact.
In order to provide service to the proposed 76 units of the Project, telecommunication, and
electrical service infrastructure would need to be expanded into the Project area. However, these
improvements would not necessitate the development of new or additional facilities.
The Project would receive adequate utility services from the service providers listed above.
Therefore, the Project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the Project would cause a less than significant impact.
b) 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. The Project would be served with potable water by FWC. Domestic
water supplies from this service provider are reliant on groundwater from the Chino Basin, Rialto-
Colton Basin, and No Man’s Land Basin. The FWC also relies on surface water sourced from Lytle
Creek and imported surface water from IEUA and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 161
Based on available information, FWC is projected to have a water production potential of 29,998
to 42,271 AFY (acre-feet) in a projected single dry year, and 37,757 to 53,204 AFY in projected
multiple dry years, while only utilizing approximately 62 to 72 percent of groundwater supplies.
FWC also receives surface water supplies, imported water supplies, and recycled water supplies
that could be used for projects not listed in FWC UWMP or not included in the City’s planned
uses. Therefore, the Project would have sufficient water supplies during the foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, there are sufficient wastewater treatment
facilities and capacity to service the Project. The Project would also be required to develop
appropriately sized water and wastewater conveyance facilities to and from the Project site.
Thus, less than significant impacts would occur.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less Than Significant Impact. Solid waste service for the City is provided by the Mid-Valley
Sanitary Landfill located in the northern portion of the City. This facility handles solid waste from
mixed municipal, construction/demolition, industrial, and tires. This landfill has a maximum
permitted capacity of approximately 101.3 million cubic yards, and the landfill has a remaining
capacity of approximately 67.52 million cubic yards. The anticipated life for the landfill at its
currently permitted capacity is 2033.53 The proposed Project is anticipated to generate solid
waste during the temporary, short-term construction phases, as well as the operational phase,
but it is not anticipated to result in inadequate landfill capacity. According to CalRecycles’s
Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, residential uses are estimated to produce 12.23 pounds
of waste per household per day.54 This equates to approximately 929 pounds or 0.46 tons of
waste per day, generated from the Project. That is approximately 0.0056 percent of the Mid-
Valley Sanitary Landfill’s maximum daily throughput of 8,280 tons per day. For these reasons, the
proposed Project’s solid waste disposal needs can be met by the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan goals,
policies, and actions based on solid waste handling. The Project is required to adhere to City
53 CalRecycle. 2021. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. Available at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662. Accessed on September 28, 2021
54 CalRecycle. 2006. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed on September 28, 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 162
ordinances with respect to waste reduction and recycling. As a result, no impacts related to State
and local statutes governing solid waste are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 163
WILDFIRE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
20. WILDFIRE. 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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
Wildfire Hazard
CAL FIRE’s VHFHSZ in Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) Map shows that a small portion of southern
Fontana, and northern portions of the City near the base of the San Bernardino Mountains are
listed as a VHFHSZ area.55 These areas or zones of transition between wildland (unoccupied land)
and human development are known as wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas, and are at high risk
of catastrophic wildfire, which can cause ecological disruption and result in the loss of life and
property. The remainder of the City is urbanized and generally built out with established
commercial, residential, and industrial development.56
Would the Project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted in Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Threshold
(g), the proposed Project is neither in a State or Federal Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
55 CAL Fire. (2008). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA; City of Fontana. Available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5943/fontana.pdf.
Accessed August 17, 2021.
56 City of Fontana. (2018). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Wildfire Hazards Profile. Available at https://fontana.org/3196/Local-Hazard-
Mitigation-Plan-LHMP. Accessed August 17, 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 164
(VHFHSZ), as designated in the VHFHSZ Map.57 The nearest VHFHSZ areas are located
approximately 0.6-miles north, at the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains. CALFIRE designates the
Project site to be located in a non-VHFHSZ within the LRA.58 Development on the Project site
would be subject to compliance with the latest CBC.
The proposed Project site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Citrus Avenue
and Summit Avenue, in the northern portion of the City of Fontana. Main ingress and egress to
the site is provided via Summit Avenue with a 20-foot-wide EVA along Summit Avenue in the
southern portion of the site. Construction would be short-term and adhere to a construction
management plan that would not cause construction activities to impede emergency response
access either through Citrus Avenue or Summit Avenue. The nearest Fire Station 78 is located
approximately 1.8 miles south and Fire Station 79 is located approximately 1 mile northwest of
the Project site. Lastly, the Project would be subject to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
(2017) which identifies mitigation goals, objectives, and projects to reduce wildfire hazards. Since
the Project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, impacts
would be less than significant.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Fontana is susceptible to strong Santa Ana winds
impacting the area. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, most of the wildfires in Fontana have
occurred in northwest Fontana due to its high chaparral vegetation, steep slopes, and winds
blowing down the Cajon Pass. The Project is located in a flat area that is classified as Non-VHFHSZ,
however it is located within the northwest portion of the City, which is more prone to wildland
fires. If a fire were to occur, the Project occupants would be exposed to pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire. The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017) identifies goals, objectives, and
actions to reduce wildfire hazards. The City is responsible for implementing these goals and
actions. In addition, the City of Fontana Fire Department will review plans for adequate fire
suppression, fire access, and emergency evacuation. With adherence to standard City General
Plan policies and Municipal Code regulations, compliance with the City’s LHMP, fire code
standards and the California Fire Code, impacts would be less than significant.
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?
57 CAL FIRE. (2008). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA; Fontana. Available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5943/fontana.pdf.
Accessed August 17, 2021.
58 CALFIRE. 2020. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Viewer. Available at https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ . Accessed on August 17, 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 165
Less Than Significant Impact. All Project components would be located within the boundaries of
the Project site, and impacts associated with the development of the Project within are analyzed
throughout this document. The Project does not propose off -site improvements on Summit or
Citrus Avenues that could exacerbate fire risks. Furthermore, the Fontana Fire Department would
review all plans for adequate fire suppression (California Fire Code Chapter 9), fire access
(California Fire Code Chapter 5), and emergency evacuation (California Fire Code Chapter 4) as
part of the City’s review process to ensure compliance with the California Fire Code, as adopted
by the City of Fontana.
The Project would also adhere to §30-243 - Public safety: (a) Emergency access of the Fontana
Municipal Code, which states that emergency vehicle access shall be incorporated into Project
design in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and (b) Fire hazards. The Project would also
adhere to the City’s Utilities Municipal Code which states that (1) Temporary overhead power
and telephone facilities are permitted only during construction and (2) All utilities including, but
not limited to drainage systems, sewers, gas lines, water lines, and electrical, telephone, and
communications wires and equipment shall be installed and maintained underground which is
expected to occur. Placement, location, and screening of utilities of any kind which would be
installed within the clustered single-family buildings for function and safety reasons require
written approval by the Director of Planning prior to any administrative or discretionary approval
as stated in the City’s Municipal Code. Adherence to standard City Municipal Code and California
Fire Code requirements would reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above in threshold b), the Project site is not in a
VHFHSZ nor located near steep slopes or hillsides. The Project would implement efficient
landscape maintenance practices to decrease the release of stormwater running off the site;
therefore, the Proposed project site would not expose people to downstream flooding or
landslides as a result of runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 166
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the Project:
a) 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?
X
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)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
Would the Project:
a) 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. All impacts to the environment, including impacts to habitat for
fish and wildlife species, fish and wildlife populations, plant and animal communities, rare and
endangered plants and animals, and historical and pre‐historical resources were evaluated as
part of this IS/MND in their respective sections. Where impacts were determined to be
potentially significant, mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce those impacts to less‐
than‐significant levels.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 167
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. As discussed throughout this IS/MND, implementation of the
proposed Project has the potential to result in effects to the environment that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable. In all instances where the proposed Project has the
potential to contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to the environment, mitigation
measures have been imposed to reduce potential effects to less-than significant levels. As such,
with incorporation of the mitigation measures imposed throughout this IS/MND, the Project
would not contribute to environmental effects that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable, and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could
adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly, has been discussed throughout this
IS/MND in each respective section. In instances where the Project has potential to result in direct
or indirect adverse effects to human beings, mitigation measures have been applied to reduce
the impact to below a level of significance. With required implementation of mitigation measures
identified in this IS/MND, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not involve
any activities that would result in environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. A less than significant impact is anticipated
to occur.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 168
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 169
4.0 REFERENCES
Technical Studies
BCR Consulting LLC. 2021. Cultural Resources Assessment; Methodology. Accessed
December 2021.
CAL FIRE FRAP (2021). Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available at
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed October 2021.
City of Fontana. 2019. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental
Impact Report. Available at https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015--
-2035. Accessed August 21, 2021.
City of Fontana . 2019. Chapter 30 – Zoning and Development Code. Available at
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH3
0ZODECO, accessed on January 14, 2021.
City of Fontana. 2021. General Plan Land Use Map.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General-Plan-Land-Use-Map-
3-2-2021?bidId= (accessed October 2021) and City of Fontana. 2021. Zoning District
Map. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/30623/Zoning-District-Map-3-2-
21?bidId=. Accessed October 2021.
City of Fontana. 2021. Zoning Map. https://www.Fontanaca.gov/sites/default/files/Fontana-
Files/Planning/Documents/Zoning%20Map/Zoning_20210212.pdf Accessed October 2021.
California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Available
at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed October, 2021.
California Department of Conservation. 2008. Mineral Land Classification. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mineralresources/. Accessed on May 3, 2022.
California Department of Finance. 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark.
CALFIRE. 2020. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Viewer. Available at https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
Accessed on October, 2021.
County of San Bernardino. 2010. Geologic Hazards Overlays. Available at
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH29C.pdf. Accessed October 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 170
County of San Bernardino. 2020. Countywide Plan - Policy Map Nr-4 Mineral Resource Zones.
Available at: https://countywideplan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/68/2021/02/NR-4-
Mineral-Resources-Zones-201027.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2022.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
06071C7915H. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=16183%20Milan%20Pl%2C%20font
ana#searchresultsanchor. Accessed May 3, 2022.
Fontana Water Company. (2015). Urban Water Management Plan; Page 3-2. Available at
https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/San-Gabriel-
Fontana_Amended-Final-December-2017-1.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2021.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency. (2015). IEUA Urban Water Management Plan 2015. Available at
https://www.ieua.org/download/urban-water-management-plan-2015/. Accessed
January 18, 2021.
Kimley-Horn and Associates. October 2021. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment.
Kimley-Horn and Associates. November 2021. Noise Assessment.
Kimley-Horn and Associates. January 2022. VMT Analysis.
Kimley-Horn and Associates. January 2021. Water Quality Management Plan.
State of California; Department of Toxic Substances Control (EnviroStor). (2021). Hazardous
Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). Available at
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?PAGE=3&CMD=search&ocieerp=
&business_name=&main_street_number=&main_street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&
branch=&status=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&site_type=CSITES%2CFUDS&cleanup_type=&n
pl=&funding=&reporttype=CORTESE&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANC
ES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29&federal_superfund=&state_response=&voluntary_clea
nup=&school_cleanup=&operating=&post_closure=&non_operating=&corrective_actio
n=&tiered_permit=&evaluation=&spec_prog=&national_priority_list=&senate=&congre
ss=&assembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&display_results=&school_di
strict=&pub=&hwmp=False&permitted=&pc_permitted=&inspections=&complaints=&c
ensustract=&cesdecile=&ORDERBY=city&next=Next+50. Accessed October, 2021.
Southern California Association of Governments. (August 2020). City of Fontana Local Housing
Data. Available at https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/fontana_he_0920.pdf?1603257841. Accessed October, 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 171
Southern California Association of Governments. 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Available at
http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx. Accessed on October, 2021.
United States Geological Survey. (2019). U.S. Quaternary Faults GIS Map. Available at
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a
9b0aadf88412fcf. Accessed October, 2021.
United States Department of Agriculture. 2020. Websoil Survey. Available at
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed
January 14, 2021.
Citrus East Project
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022 Page 172