HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative
Declaration
prepared for
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC
980 Roosevelt, Suite 110
Irvine, California 92620
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
August 2022
Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative
Declaration
prepared for
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC
980 Roosevelt, Suite 110
Irvine, California 92620
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
May 2022
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.
Table of Contents
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration i
Table of Contents
Initial Study .............................................................................................................................................1
1. Project Title .........................................................................................................................1
2. Lead Agency Name and Address .........................................................................................1
3. Contact Person and Phone Number ...................................................................................1
4. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address .................................................................................1
5. Project Location ..................................................................................................................1
6. Description of Project Site ..................................................................................................4
7. General Plan Designation ................................................................................................. 10
8. Zoning............................................................................................................................... 10
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ................................................................................. 10
10. Description of Project ...................................................................................................... 10
11. Required Approvals .......................................................................................................... 18
12. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ....................................................... 18
13. Tribal Consultation ........................................................................................................... 18
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................................ 21
Determination ..................................................................................................................................... 21
Environmental Checklist ...................................................................................................................... 23
1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 23
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................. 33
3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 35
4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 49
5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 55
6 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 59
7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 63
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................. 71
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... 81
10 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 87
11 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................... 95
12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 99
13 Noise .............................................................................................................................. 101
14 Population and Housing ................................................................................................. 117
15 Public Services ................................................................................................................ 119
16 Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 125
17 Transportation ............................................................................................................... 127
18 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 133
19 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................... 137
20 Wildfire .......................................................................................................................... 143
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................... 147
References ......................................................................................................................................... 151
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 151
List of Preparers ......................................................................................................................... 156
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
ii
Tables
Table 1 Project Summary .............................................................................................................. 12
Table 2 Consistency with the Fontana General Plan .................................................................... 25
Table 3 Health Effects Associated with Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants ............................... 36
Table 4 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds ..................................................................... 37
Table 5 SCAQMD LSTs for Construction in SRA 34 ....................................................................... 38
Table 6 Project Construction Emissions ....................................................................................... 41
Table 7 Project Operational Emissions ......................................................................................... 42
Table 8 Localized Project Construction Emissions ........................................................................ 43
Table 9 Health Risk ....................................................................................................................... 44
Table 10 Mitigated Health Risk ....................................................................................................... 47
Table 11 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Construction (gallons) ........................................... 60
Table 12 Estimated Project Annual Operational Energy Consumption .......................................... 61
Table 13 GHG Performance Threshold Determination .................................................................. 75
Table 14 Construction GHG Emissions ........................................................................................... 76
Table 15 Combined Annual Emissions ............................................................................................ 76
Table 16 Consistency with Applicable SCAG RTP/SCS GHG Emission Reduction Strategies .......... 77
Table 17 Project Consistency with the Applicable Fontana General Plan Policies ......................... 79
Table 18 Project Consistency with the Fontana General Plan ........................................................ 96
Table 19 AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage ........................................ 103
Table 20 Vibration Annoyance Potential (Maximum PPV in in/sec) ............................................ 104
Table 21 Project Site Vicinity Sound Level Monitoring Results .................................................... 105
Table 22 Sound Level Monitoring Traffic Counts ......................................................................... 105
Table 23 Project Site Noise Monitoring Results – 24-hour Long Term Measurement ................. 105
Table 24 Noise Standards ............................................................................................................. 110
Table 25 Parking Structure Noise Levels ....................................................................................... 112
Table 26 Off-site Traffic Volume and Noise Increases (Existing) .................................................. 113
Table 27 Opening Year 2030 and Opening Year 2003 + Project Traffic Noise Increases ............. 114
Table 28 Project Consistency with Fontana Circulation System Plans ......................................... 129
Table 29 Normal Year and Multiple Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison (acre-feet
per year [AFY]) ............................................................................................................... 140
Table 30 Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY) ..................................... 140
Table of Contents
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration iii
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................2
Figure 2 Project Location ..................................................................................................................3
Figure 3 Photograph Points Map ......................................................................................................5
Figure 4 Site Photos ..........................................................................................................................6
Figure 5 Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................................................ 13
Figure 6 Conceptual Wrap Building Sections ................................................................................. 14
Figure 7 Conceptual Big House Building Sections .......................................................................... 16
Figure 8 Conceptual Landscape Plan ............................................................................................. 17
Figure 9 Construction Phasing ....................................................................................................... 19
Figure 10 Project Renderings ........................................................................................................... 27
Figure 11 Maximum Impacted Receptor Location........................................................................... 45
Figure 12 Geology of Project Site ..................................................................................................... 69
Figure 12 Preliminary WQMP Site Plan ........................................................................................... 90
Figure 13 Noise Measurement Locations ...................................................................................... 106
Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study
Appendix B Biological Resources Due Diligence Report and Tree Memorandum
Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D Energy Use Calculations
Appendix E Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Appendix F Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix G Preliminary Hydrology Analysis and Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H Noise Study
Appendix I Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix J Confidential Tribal Cultural Resources
Appendix K Water Hydraulic Analysis, Sewer Hydraulic Analysis, and Utility Will-Serve Letters
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
iv
This page intentionally left blank.
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 1
Initial Study
1. Project Title
Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Fontana, Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner
squintanilla@fontana.org
(909) 350-6656
4. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC
980 Roosevelt, Suite 110
Irvine, California 92620
Contact: Rod Fermin, Vice President of Development and Construction
5. Project Location
The project site is located at the northwest corner of the Foothill Boulevard and Tokay Avenue
intersection in the City of Fontana, California. The project site encompasses approximately
10.2 acres and is identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 111-036-115, 111-036-116, 111-036-
122, and 111-036-123. Regional vehicular access to the project site is provided by Interstate 10
(I-10), Interstate 15 (I-15) and State Route 210 (SR-210). The project site is locally accessible by
Foothill Boulevard and Tokay Avenue. Regional mass transit service is provided by OmniTrans, with
the closest bus stops being at the intersection of Citrus Avenue and Foothill Boulevard serving
OmniTrans bus routes 66 and 10. Figure 1 shows the location of the project site in the region and
Figure 2 depicts the location of the site in its neighborhood context.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
2
Figure 1 Regional Location
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 3
Figure 2 Project Location
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
4
6. Description of Project Site
The project site is currently vacant and is in an urbanized area primarily developed with residential,
and commercial land uses. The project site is generally flat, with elevations ranging from 1,294 to
1,310 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and consists of vacant, nonnative grassland. Overhead
powerlines run across the project site, parallel to Foothill Boulevard, in the southern portion of the
site. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the project, the site
has been vacant since 1949 and may have formerly supported agricultural uses prior to 1949.
Figure 3 provides a map of locations where site photographs were recently taken and Figure 4
provides the photographs.
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 5
Figure 3 Photograph Points Map
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
6
Figure 4 Site Photos
Photograph 1. View of the project site from Tokay Avenue and Barbee Avenue looking southwest.
Photograph 2. View of the project site from Tokay Avenue looking west.
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 7
Photograph 3. View of the project site from the southeast corner of the Foothill Boulevard and Tokay
Avenue intersection looking northwest.
Photograph 4. View of the project site from Foothill Boulevard looking north.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
8
Photo 5. View of the project site from the southwest corner of the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and
Catawba Avenue looking northeast.
Photo 6. View of the northern project site boundary from the center of project site.
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 9
Photograph 7. View of the eastern project site boundary from the center of project site.
Photograph 8. View of the southern project site boundary from the center of project site.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
10
Photograph 9. View of the western project site boundary from the center of project site.
7. General Plan Designation
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Multi-Family High Residential (R-MFH),
which permits a residential density of 39.1-50 dwelling units per acre.
8. Zoning
The project site has a zoning designation of Multi-Family High Residential (R-5), which permits
densities of 39.1-50 dwelling units per acre.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project site is in an urban area and is surrounded by residential and commercial uses consisting
of a mobile home community to the north, Tokay Avenue and commercial uses beyond to the east,
Foothill Boulevard and commercial uses to the south, and vacant land to the west.
10. Description of Project
The Begonia Village at Route 66 Project (hereafter referred to as proposed project or project)
involves the construction of a 406-unit multi-family residential gated community with amenities
such as a pool, exercise facilities, spa, and walking paths. The project includes 13 two-story
structures that are designed to appear as a hybrid of apartment, townhome and single-family home
(referred to as a Big House), as well as one four-story wrap building. Each Big House would include
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 11
12 residences with a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. The project would also include
one large, four-story wrap building containing one- and two-bedroom units, with a total of
250 residences. The buildings would be constructed in the craftsman architectural style and would
include a neutral color palette with architectural elements such as stone and wood beam accents. A
four-story aboveground parking structure with 458 spaces would provide parking for the units
within the four-story wrap building, while individual parking garages and driveway spaces with
direct access would be provided for the units within the Big House structures. Approximately 28
surface parking spaces would also be provided. Eight to twelve parking spaces within the
aboveground parking garage would be equipped with Level Two electric vehicle (EV) chargers and all
of the Big House garages would be wired and EV capable.
The project would also provide approximately 182,914 square feet (sf) of common open space,
including a 1,665-sf fitness center a 822-sf indoor-outdoor recreation center, two pools (including a
rooftop pool and lounge area on the wrap building), courtyard, lounge area, fire pits, barbecue grills,
walking paths, and dog park. Each residential unit would also be equipped with balconies and/or
patios for private open space, each with a minimum of either 80 sf or 120 sf pursuant to the
requirements of Fontana Municipal Code (FMC) Section 30.447, for a total of 41,430 sf of private
open space. 114,998 sf of landscaping would be provided on the site, including 124 new trees
consisting of a mix of cork oak, eastern redbud, and Japanese privet, as well as ornamental shrubs.
The project also includes a 2,732-sf leasing office. Fencing and walls would be used throughout the
project site and along its border to define private and semi-private spaces and would serve as a
unifying design element. Fencing and walls would include a mix of six-foot block walls, tubular steel
fencing, and split face pilasters.
Infrastructure improvements associated with the proposed project include undergrounding of the
existing power lines running through the project site, installing eight-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
water mains connecting to the existing water lines in Tokay Avenue and Foothill Boulevard,
installing six- and eight-inch vitrified clay sewer mains and four-inch vitrified clay sewer laterals
throughout the site that would connect to the existing sewer main line in Foothill Boulevard, and
installing storm drain mains and underground retention chambers throughout the site. Fire mains
would also be installed throughout the site to provide fire suppression.
The project would be designed to achieve a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Silver rating. Sustainability components in the project design would include the following:
A rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) system would be installed in compliance with the 2019 Title
24 requirements
Energy efficient light emitting diode (LED) lighting
High efficiency (95 percent energy efficient) hot water boilers
High efficiency heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC) with a Seasonal Energy Efficiency Rating
(SEER) of 15
Energy-Star rated appliances
Water efficient, weather-based automatic in-ground irrigation system with a submeter for
monitoring irrigation system components
MERV 13 air filters
Water efficient plumbing fixtures
Energy-efficient insulation
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
12
The project site would be accessed by residents and visitors by a gated entrance on Tokay Avenue,
with an additional emergency access point on Foothill Boulevard and one on Tokay Avenue north of
the main entrance. The project would include the addition of a dedicated left turn lane and right
turn lane on Tokay Avenue for movements in and out of the community; other than restriping lanes
for the dedicated turn lanes, the project would not alter Tokay Avenue (e.g., no roadway widening
required). The primary entry would set back approximately 160 feet from the Tokay Avenue right-
of-way and would be defined by pedestrian entry portals, enhanced landscaping, accent paving, and
parkways and sidewalks on both sides. Behind the sidewalk, landscaping would soften the
appearance of community walls on either side of the entry, with taller palms and ornamental
landscaping along the main entry drive. Pedestrians would be able to access the project site via the
sidewalks along Tokay Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Table 1 provides the details of the proposed
buildings and Figure 5 shows the proposed conceptual site plan. Figure 6 and Figure 7 illustrate the
conceptual building sections. Figure 8 shows the proposed conceptual landscape plan for the project
site.
Table 1 Project Summary
Buildings
13 Big House Structures
Wrap Building
156 units
250 units
Total Housing Units 406
Density 39.3 dwelling units/acre
Lot Coverage 231,996 sf (52 percent)
Floor Area 384,968 sf
Floor Area Ratio 0.82:1
Building Heights and Setbacks
Big House Maximum Height 35’-0” (two-story)
Wrap Building Maximum Height 55’-0” (four-story)
Front Yard Minimum Setbacks 5’-0”
Rear Yard Minimum Setbacks 20’-0”
Side Yard Minimum Setbacks 20’-0”
Landscaping, Open Space, Parking, and Other Uses
Landscape area 114,998 sf
Common Open Space 182,914 sf
Private Open Space 41,430 sf
Total Open Space 224,698 sf
Big House Parking 258 spaces
Wrap Building Parking Structure 458 spaces
Surface Parking 28 spaces
Total Parking 744 spaces
Leasing office 2,732 sf
Recreation center 1,665 sf
sf = square feet
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 13
Figure 5 Conceptual Site Plan
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
14
Figure 6 Conceptual Wrap Building Sections
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 15
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
16
Figure 7 Conceptual Big House Building Sections
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 17
Figure 8 Conceptual Landscape Plan
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
18
Construction
Construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction, asphalt
paving, and architectural coating. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to occur in
three phases over an approximately five-year and eight-month period beginning in January 2024
and ending in September 2029. During Phase I, the entire site would be graded and stubbed out for
utilities and the wrap building would be constructed. Phase I of construction is anticipated to take
place between January 2024 and July 2026. Phase II is anticipated to occur from September 2026 to
January 2028 and would include the construction of seven big house structures in the western
portion of the project site. Phase III construction is anticipated to occur from March 2028 to
September 20290 and would include construction of six big house structures in the northern portion
of the project site. Figure 9 illustrates the construction phasing plans.
The project would include 11,400 cubic yards (cy) of cut soil which would be reused as fill on the
site, as well as the import of an additional 6,400 cy of fill. Maximum excavation depth for project
construction would be up to ten feet below grade. Grading would include an average of 10hauling
trips per day during the approximately 2.5-month grading phase for soil import. Construction would
occur Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and Saturdays between
the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. pursuant to the FMC construction standards. Construction
staging would occur within the project site boundaries. Occupancy for the wrap building is
anticipated to take place in 2027, while occupancy for Phase II and Phase III buildings are
anticipated to take place in 2028 and 2030, respectively.
11. Required Approvals
The proposed project would require approval of a Tentative Parcel Map, Design Review approval,
and approval of this IS-MND by the City of Fontana.
12. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
The City of Fontana is the lead agency for the proposed project and no approvals are required from
any other agency.
13. Tribal Consultation
Five tribes have requested notification of projects in Fontana: the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians,
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation), San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians. Pursuant
to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1, the City mailed consultation letters to these
tribes on September 22, 2021. The City received a response from the Kizh Nation on October 8,
2021 requesting consultation to discuss the proposed project in further detail. A consultation
meeting between Kizh Nation representatives and City Staff was held on December 2, 2021. In
addition, the City received a response from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on October 12,
2021. For further discussion of tribal cultural resources in this IS-MND please refer to Section 18,
Tribal Cultural Resources, and Section 5, Cultural Resources. The City of Fontana will continue to
comply with all applicable tribal consultation requirements of PRC Section 21080.3.1 and all other
applicable regulations as the proposed project moves through the required review and approval
process.
Initial Study
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 19
Figure 9 Construction Phasing
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
20
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 21
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least
one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
■ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Energy
■ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards and 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
Based on this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to 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 “less than
significant with mitigation incorporated” 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.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
22
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed Name
Environmental Checklist Aesthetics
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 23
Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? □ □ □ ■
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from a publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality? □ □ ■ □
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? □ □ ■ □
A scenic vista is defined as a public viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued
landscape for the benefit of the general public. Public views are those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point, such as a roadway or public park. The California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) manages the California State Scenic Highway Program, which designates
state scenic highways. Scenic highways are highways located in areas of natural beauty. A scenic
highway becomes officially designated when the local governing body applies to and is approved by
Caltrans for scenic highway designation and adopts a Corridor Protection Program that preserves
the scenic quality of the land that is visible from the highway right of way (Caltrans 2021).
The City of Fontana lies within a desert valley floor, with the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and
the Jurupa Hills to the south. Elevations range from approximately 1,700 feet amsl in the northern
portion of the valley and 1,000 feet amsl in the southern portion. The project site is in an urbanized
area that includes residential and commercial uses. The project site’s surroundings reflect 20th-
century suburban models of community design, characterized by separated land uses (City of
Fontana 2018a).
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
24
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
The San Gabriel Mountains are located north of the city, approximately 4.4 miles north of the
project site. These mountains are the city’s most prominent visual feature, rising above the
community with scenic views toward the mountains. The San Gabriel Mountains can primarily be
seen along roadway corridors and in breaks between development in the project area. Panoramic
views also exist from the base of the mountains toward Fontana. The Jurupa Hills are the highest
point in the city and offer scenic vistas of the San Gabriel Mountains and surrounding valleys,
particularly from Martin Tudor Jurupa Hills Regional Park, located approximately 4.4 miles south of
the project site. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, views of the San Gabriel Mountains and
Jurupa Hills are primarily available from the northernmost and southernmost portions of the city.
Other significant natural landforms in Fontana include Lytle Creek and other dry washes that have
intermittent water flow from the mountains and are visible from the I-15 corridor in the northern
portion of the city (City of Fontana 2018a).
The proposed project would change the appearance of the project site by constructing housing on
an undeveloped lot (refer to Figure 4 for photographs of the existing site conditions). However, the
project site is not within the vicinity of the scenic vista areas discussed in the City’s General Plan EIR,
such Martin Tudor Jurupa Hill Regional Park or the base of the San Gabriel Mountains. Views of the
project site are not readily available from these scenic vistas due to the distance and intervening
development between the project site and the scenic vistas. Therefore, the proposed project would
not result in a significant impact to the public views available at scenic vistas in the project vicinity.
Furthermore, the proposed project would not substantially obscure public views of the San Gabriel
Mountains or the Jurupa Hills from nearby roadways. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the
north of the project site would continue to be available by Tokay Avenue and other nearby north-
south corridors. Similarly, distant views of the Jurupa Hills, located to the south of the project site,
would continue to be available from Tokay Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project would not
significantly obstruct or affect scenic vistas and public views in the city. Impacts would be less than
significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
The project site is not within or adjacent to a designated state scenic highway, as identified by
Caltrans. The nearest designated state scenic highway is a portion of Angeles Crest Highway (State
Route 2 or SR-2), approximately 14 miles to the north of the project site (Caltrans 2018). Due to the
distance from the project site and intervening development, the project site is not visible from SR-2.
Furthermore, the project site does not contain any scenic resources such as natural habitats or rock
outcroppings, nor is it in proximity to any such resources. Additionally, as described in Section 5,
Cultural Resources, the project site does not contain any historic buildings. Therefore, there would
be no impacts related to scenic resources near a designated state scenic highway.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Aesthetics
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 25
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from a 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?
The project site is surrounded by residential and commercial development and is located in an
urbanized area of the city. The project would develop a currently vacant site with a gated multi-
family residential community with amenities such as walking paths and a recreation center. The
buildings would be constructed in the craftsman architecture style and would include a neutral color
palette with architectural elements such as stone and wood beam accents. Project renderings are
show in Figure 10 that illustrate the architectural elements and village-like quality of the proposed
development.
The project site is zoned Multi Family High Residential (which permits a residential density of 39.1-
50 dwelling units per acre), with a General Plan land use designation of Multi-Family High
Residential. The proposed uses are permitted under the existing land use and zoning designations.
Furthermore, the project would be designed to comply with all applicable development standards
regulating scenic quality within the FMC. These standards include building scale, frontage and site
layout, street scape, open space, parking, signage, lighting, landscaping and architecture. The
project would also align with Fontana General Plan policies related to aesthetics and visual quality,
as illustrated in Table 2 below.
Table 2 Consistency with the Fontana General Plan
Goal, Policy, or Action Project Consistency
Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Chapter
Goal 1. The Strategic Policy Map and Future Land Use
Map guide land-use decision making.
Consistent. Exhibit 15.7, Strategic Policy Map, identifies
the project site as within the i3 (Infill + Infrastructure +
Interconnection Neighborhoods) and Livable Corridors
policy areas. i3 areas are identified as those areas where
new infill housing and enhanced neighborhood
attractiveness is desired. Similarly, Livable Corridors are
areas along major corridors, including Foothill Boulevard,
that are characterized by underutilized and vacant lots
where new multi-family housing is desirable due to the
proximity to transit stops. The proposed project would
develop an attractive, village-like multi-family residential
development on a vacant lot, which aligns with the goals
established for the site in the Strategic Policy Map.
Goal 4, Action B. Encourage all new development along
corridors to front the street rather than parking lots.
Consistent. As illustrated in Figure 5, the proposed project
is designed with residential units fronting the adjacent
streets. The parking structure would be concealed from
view by the Wrap Building, while Big House parking would
be within attached garages. No large-scale surface parking
lots are included in the site design and parking would
generally not be visible from the adjacent corridors.
Goal 4, Action J. Promote the Route 66 heritage of
Foothill Boulevard through distinctive design guidelines
that blend with contemporary design approaches.
Consistent. The proposed project would reflect
contemporary architectural and landscaping design
approaches. Buildings would be constructed in the
craftsman architectural style and would include a neutral
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
26
Goal, Policy, or Action Project Consistency
Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Chapter
color palette with architectural elements such as stone and
wood beam accents. The mix of building types with unique
but complementary architectural treatment would create a
village-like community. The site would include defined
pedestrian and vehicle entry portals with enhanced
landscaping, accent paving, and parkways and sidewalks on
both sides. Behind the sidewalk, landscaping would soften
the appearance of community walls on either side of the
entries, with taller palms and ornamental landscaping
along the main entry drive.
Goal 7. Public and private development meets high
design standards.
Consistent. As described above under Goal 4, Action J, the
proposed project would be designed in a contemporary
style, with buildings reflecting a variety of scale, massing,
and complementary architectural treatments to create a
visually cohesive village-like community. The project design
would comply with City’s design standards, including
building scale, frontage and site layout, street scape, open
space, parking, signage, lighting, landscaping and
architecture.
Community and Neighborhoods Chapter
Goal 5, Policy 1. Support regulations that promote
creation of compact and walkable urban village-style
design in new developments.
Consistent. As described above, the proposed project
features a compact, village-style design with a mix of
building types, complementary architectural treatments,
and resident amenities such as playgrounds, courtyards,
and walking paths.
Source: Fontana 2018b
Environmental Checklist Aesthetics
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 27
Figure 10 Project Renderings
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
28
Environmental Checklist Aesthetics
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 29
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
30
Environmental Checklist Aesthetics
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 31
As illustrated in the above discussion and in Table 2, the proposed project would be consistent with
the applicable land use designation, zoning requirements, and City of Fontana General Plan policies
related to scenic quality. While development of the project would change the appearance and use
of the project site relative to its existing conditions, it would not degrade the visual character or
quality of the site. Rather, the project would change the existing vacant lot by developing a unified
community with high-quality visual features such as new shade trees and drought tolerant
landscaping and a mix of building sizes with complementary architectural treatment to create a
village-like quality. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other
regulations regarding scenic quality and would not significantly impact scenic quality in the area.
Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in the area?
The project is in an urban area of the city that is primarily developed with residential buildings and
commercial uses. The main sources of light and glare in the project area are streetlights and exterior
lighting associated with residential and commercial structures, as well as vehicle headlights on
nearby major roadways such as Tokay Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The development of the
project would increase the intensity of lighting on the project site, from that of the existing vacant
lot to the proposed multi-family residential community. New sources of light and glare from the
project include reflective windows, outdoor landscaping and safety lighting, and light and glare from
the increase in vehicles accessing the project site. All outdoor lighting would comply with the
development standards in the City’s Zoning and Development Code, Section 30-471 and Section 30-
476(5). The Zoning and Development Code requires low-level security lighting for all multi-family
residential parking areas and pedestrian walkways and that all outdoor lighting must be directed
and shielded to prevent light and glare from spilling over onto adjacent properties (thereby avoiding
an adverse effect). Therefore, with compliance with the City’s lighting regulations, the project would
have a less than significant impact related to light and glare in the area.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
32
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 33
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC
Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined
by PRC Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract?
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined
in PRC Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
34
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
The project site consists of a vacant lot, is not in use for agriculture, and contains seven trees. Based
on the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the site, the
property may have been used for farming in the early- to mid-1900s but has been vacant since at
least 1949 (Appendix F). The site has a land use designation of Multi-Family High Residential (R-
MFH), is zoned Multi-Family High Residential (R-5), and is in an urbanized area primarily developed
with residential and commercial land uses. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Department of Conservation (DOC) identifies the project site as Urban and Built-Up land
(DOC 2021). In addition, there is no nearby Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance (DOC 2021). Therefore, the project would not
conflict with any landed zoned for agricultural use, forest land, timberland, timberland zoned
Timberland Production or a Williamson Act contract. The project would not directly or indirectly
result in loss or conversion of forest land or farmland. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Air Quality
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 35
3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ ■ □
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard? □ □ ■ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? □ ■ □ □
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? □ □ ■ □
This section is based on the results of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Study
prepared for the project by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in July 2022 (see Appendix A).
Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The project site is in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which includes the non-desert portions of Los
Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County. The Basin is under the
jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As the local air quality
management agency, the SCAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that state
and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the
standards.
Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the Basin is classified as being in
“attainment” or “nonattainment.” Under state law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air
quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-compliance. The SCAQMD is in
non-attainment for the federal standards for ozone and PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5 microns or less
in size) and the state standards for ozone, PM10 (particulate matter 10 microns or less in size), and
PM2.5. The Los Angeles County portion of the Basin is also designated non-attainment for lead
(SCAQMD 2016). The Basin is designated unclassifiable or in attainment for all other federal and
state standards. The health effects associated with criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in non-
attainment are described in Table 3.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
36
Table 3 Health Effects Associated with Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Adverse Effects
Ozone (1) Short-term exposures: (a) pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in
humans and animals and (b) risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary
morphology and host defense in animals; (2) long-term exposures: risk to public health
implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in
animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically
exposed humans; (3) vegetation damage; and (4) property damage.
Suspended particulate
matter (PM2.5 and PM10)
(1) Excess deaths from short-term and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in
pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction;
(4) adverse birth outcomes including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality;
(6) increased respiratory symptoms in children such as cough and bronchitis; and
(7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease (including
asthma).1
Lead (1) Short-term overexposures: lead poisoning can cause (a) anemia, (b) weakness, (c)
kidney damage, and (d) brain damage; and (2) long-term exposures: long-term exposure to
lead increases risk for (a) high blood pressure, (b) heart disease, (c) kidney failure, and (d)
reduced fertility.
1 More detailed discussion on the health effects associated with exposure to suspended particulate matter can be found in the
following documents: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, October
2004.
Sources: USEPA 2021a, 2021b, and 2021c
Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the criteria pollutants described above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are a diverse
group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or serious illness, or
that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. One of the main sources of TACs in
California is diesel engine exhaust that contains solid material known as diesel particulate matter
(DPM). More than 90 percent of DPM is less than one micron in diameter (about 1/70th the
diameter of a human hair) and thus is a subset of PM2.5.
TACs are different than criteria pollutants because ambient air quality standards have not been
established for TACs. TACs occurring at extremely low levels may still cause health effects and it is
typically difficult to identify levels of exposure that do not produce adverse health effects. TAC
impacts are described by carcinogenic risk and by chronic (i.e., long duration) and acute (i.e., severe
but of short duration) adverse effects on human health.
Air Quality Management
Under state law, the SCAQMD is required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for
pollutants for which the Basin is in non-compliance. The SCAQMD administers the Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) for the Basin, which is a comprehensive document outlining an air
pollution control program for attaining all California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The most recently adopted AQMP is the 2016
AQMP (SCAQMD 2017), which was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on March 3, 2017.
The 2016 AQMP represents a new approach, focusing on available, proven, and cost-effective
alternatives to traditional strategies while seeking to achieve multiple goals in partnership with
other entities promoting reductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs) and toxic risk, as well as efficiencies
in energy use, transportation, and goods movement (SCAQMD 2017). The 2016 AQMP incorporates
new scientific data and notable regulatory actions that have occurred since adoption of the 2012
Environmental Checklist Air Quality
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 37
AQMP, including the approval of the new federal 8-hour ozone standard of 0.070 parts per million
(ppm) that was finalized in 2015.
The 2016 AQMP addresses several state and federal planning requirements and incorporates new
scientific information, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient
measurements, and meteorological air quality models. The Southern California Association of
Governments’ (SCAG) projections for socioeconomic data (e.g., population, housing, employment by
industry) and transportation activities from the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) are integrated into the 2016 AQMP. This Plan builds upon the
approaches taken in the 2012 AQMP for the attainment of federal PM and ozone standards and
highlights the significant amount of reductions to be achieved. It emphasizes the need for
interagency planning to identify additional strategies to achieve reductions within the timeframes
allowed under the federal Clean Air Act, especially in the area of mobile sources. The 2016 AQMP
also includes a discussion of emerging issues and opportunities, such as fugitive toxic particulate
emissions, zero-emission mobile source control strategies, and the interacting dynamics among
climate, energy, and air pollution. The Plan also demonstrates strategies for attainment of the new
federal eight-hour ozone standard and vehicle miles travelled (VMT) emissions offsets, pursuant to
recent USEPA requirements (SCAQMD 2017).
Air Emission Thresholds
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15064.7 provides that, when
available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make determinations of significance. These
thresholds are designed such that a project that would not exceed the adopted thresholds would
not have an individually or cumulatively significant impact on the Basin’s air quality. Therefore, a
project that does not exceed these SCAQMD thresholds would result in a less than significant
impact. This IS-MND conforms to the methodologies recommended in the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air
Quality Handbook (1993) and supplemental guidance provided by the SCAQMD, including
recommended thresholds for emissions associated with both construction and operation of the
project (SCAQMD 2019). Table 4 presents the significance thresholds for construction and
operational-related criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions being used for the purposes of this
analysis.
Table 4 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
75 pounds per day of VOC1
100 pounds per day of NOX
550 pounds per day of CO
150 pounds per day of SOX
150 pounds per day of PM10
55 pounds per day of PM2.5
55 pounds per day of VOC
55 pounds per day of NOX
550 pounds per day of CO
150 pounds per day of SOX
150 pounds per day of PM10
55 pounds per day of PM2.5
VOC: volatile organic compound; NOX: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOX: sulfur oxides; PM10: particulate matter measuring
10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5: particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns in diameter or less
1 California Air Resources Board (CARB) defines VOC and reactive organic gas (ROG) similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that
VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are
considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term VOC is used in this analysis.
Source: SCAQMD 2019
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
38
Localized Significance Thresholds
In addition to the above regional thresholds, the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significance
Thresholds (LSTs) in response to the Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement
Initiative (1-4), which was prepared to update the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). LSTs were
devised in response to concern regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local
communities and have been developed for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs represent the maximum
emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an air quality exceedance of the most
stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive receptor,
taking into consideration ambient concentrations in each source receptor area (SRA), distance to
the sensitive receptor, and project size. LSTs have been developed for emissions generated in
construction areas up to five acres in size. However, LSTs only apply to emissions in a fixed
stationary location and are not applicable to mobile sources, such as cars on a roadway
(SCAQMD 2008a). As such, LSTs are typically applied only to construction emissions because the
majority of operational emissions are associated with project-generated vehicle trips.
The project site is within SRA-34 (Central San Bernardino Valley). SCAQMD provides LST lookup
tables for project sites that measure one, two, or five acres. The project site is approximately ten
acres. Therefore, the LST analysis conservatively uses five-acre LSTs. LSTs are provided for receptors
at 82 to 1,640 feet from the project disturbance boundary to the sensitive receptors. The border of
construction activity would occur immediately adjacent to residences within the mobile home park
located to the north of the project site. According to the SCAQMD’s publication, Final LST
Methodology, projects with boundaries located closer than 82 feet to the nearest receptor should
use the LSTs for receptors located at 82 feet (SCAQMD 2008a). Therefore, the analysis below uses
the LST values for 82 feet. LSTs for construction in SRA 34 on a 5-acre site with a receptor 82 feet
away are shown in Table 5.
Table 5 SCAQMD LSTs for Construction in SRA 34
Pollutant
Allowable Emissions from a Five+-Acre Site for a Receptor 82 Feet Away
(lbs/day)
Gradual conversion of NOX to NO2 270
CO 1,746
PM10 14
PM2.5 8
lbs/day = pounds per day; NOx = nitrogen oxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a
diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns
Source: SCAQMD 2009
Toxic Air Contaminants and Health Risk Thresholds
The project would have a significant impact with regard to TACs if on-site construction activities
emit carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in
1 million or an acute or chronic hazard index (HI) of 1.0 (SCAQMD 2019). These thresholds are
designed to account for health preservation for all individuals.
Environmental Checklist Air Quality
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 39
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
A project may be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would generate population, housing, or
employment growth exceeding forecasts used in the development of the AQMP. The 2016 AQMP,
the most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, incorporates local city general plans and the
SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population, housing, and
employment growth (SCAG 2016).1
The project involves the development of 406 residential units. According to the DOF, the average
household in Fontana has 3.79 persons (DOF 2022). Based on this, if all of the project’s housing units
were filled by new residents of the city, the project would increase the city’s existing population by
approximately 1,539 people.2 SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS estimates that the City of Fontana’s population
would be 280,900 in 2040, which is an increase of 68,091 people from the city’s current population
of 212,809 residents (SCAG 2016; California Department of Finance [DOF] 2022). The project would
account for approximately two percent of the forecasted population growth between 2022 and
2040. Therefore, the project would not contribute to population growth in the city beyond what
was planned for by the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS and utilized in the 2016 AQMP. Similarly, the household
growth forecasts in SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS estimate that the total number of households in Fontana
would increase to 74,000 in 2040, for an increase of 18,631 households from 2020 estimates (SCAG
2016; U.S. Census 2020)3. The project would increase the number of households by 406, which
would account for approximately two percent of the forecasted increase between 2020 and 2040.
Therefore, the project’s contribution to housing in the city would be within SCAG growth
projections.
The AQMP also provides strategies and measures to reach attainment with the thresholds for
8-hour and 1-hour ozone and PM2.5. Table 7 summarizes the project’s operational emissions by
emission source (area, energy, mobile, and generator). As shown therein, the emissions generated
by operation of the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds for criteria
pollutants. Therefore, the project would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation, nor would it conflict with the AQMP.
Since the project would also be consistent with population and housing growth projections for the
city, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP, and impacts
would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the SCAQMD’s approach for assessing
cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards
in accordance with the requirements of the federal and State Clean Air Acts. If the project’s mass
regional emissions do not exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds, then the project’s criteria
pollutant emissions would not be cumulatively considerable.
1 On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council formally adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (titled Connect SoCal). However, the SIPs were
adopted prior to this date and relies on the demographic and growth forecasts of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS; therefore, these forecasts are
utilized in the analysis of the project’s consistency with the AQMP. 2 406 units x 3.79 persons per unit = 1,539 persons 3 74,000 households – 55,369 households = 18,631
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
40
As discussed under Air Quality Standards and Attainment, the Basin has been designated as a
federal nonattainment area for O3 and PM2.5 and a state nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and
PM2.5. The Los Angeles County portion of the Basin is also designated as a federal and state
nonattainment area for lead. However, the proposed project is not located within Los Angeles
County and does not include any stationary sources of lead emissions. Therefore, implementation of
the project would not result in substantial emissions of lead and this pollutant is not discussed
further in this analysis. The Basin is designated unclassifiable or in attainment for all other federal
and state standards.
The following analysis evaluates air pollutant emissions generated by project construction and
operation compared to the regional significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA
Air Quality Handbook (1993). Construction and operational air pollutant emissions were modeled
using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0. A detailed description
of the modeling methodology and the CalEEMod modeling results are available in Appendix A of this
document.
Construction Emissions
Project construction would primarily generate temporary criteria pollutant emissions from the
operation of construction equipment on-site, construction worker and vendor vehicle trips to and
from the site, and haul trips for import of materials on-site. Construction emissions were modeled
based on applicant-provided information regarding the construction phasing and grading, as well as
CalEEMod defaults for construction equipment inventories. . The analysis assessed maximum daily
emissions from individual construction activities, including demolition, site preparation, grading,
building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Grading, excavation, hauling, and site
preparation would involve the greatest use of heavy equipment and generation of fugitive dust.
Table 6 summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions of pollutants associated with
construction of the proposed project. Emissions modeling accounts for compliance with the
SCAQMD Rule 403, which regulates fugitive dust emissions during the project’s demolition, grading,
and construction activities to minimize emissions of PM10 and PM2.5, and SCAQMD Rule 1113, which
regulates the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of architectural coatings to minimize VOC
emissions during construction activities.
As shown in Table 6, VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed SCAQMD
regional thresholds. Because air pollutant emissions generated by project construction would not
exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds, project construction would not result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in
non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant.
Environmental Checklist Air Quality
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 41
Table 6 Project Construction Emissions
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
Phase VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase I 16 34 50 <1 10 6
Phase II 7 22 33 <1 2 1
Phase III 7 21 30 <1 2 1
Phase I & Phase II Overlap 19 50 82 0 9 4
Phase II & Phase III Overlap 10 42 61 0 4 2
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 19 50 82 <1 10 6
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter
with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide
Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix A for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up
due to rounding. Fugitive dust emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulatory
compliance measures. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.
Operational Emissions
Development of the project would result in long-term air pollutant emissions over the course of
operations. Emissions include area sources, energy sources, and mobile emissions. Area sources
include use of consumer products, use of gas-powered landscaping equipment, and re-application
of architectural coating (re-painting). Energy sources include natural gas for uses such as space and
water heating and appliances. Mobile sources consist of vehicle trips (including residents, deliveries,
and visitors). Vehicle trip rates for the proposed land uses on the project site were based on the
Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project (see Appendix I). A detailed description of emissions
sources and modeling methodology is provided in the Air Quality and GHG Emissions Study
(Appendix A).
Table 7 summarizes the project’s operational emissions by emission source (area, energy, mobile,
and generator). As shown below, the emissions generated by operation of the proposed project
would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, the project would
not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. In addition, because
criteria pollutant emissions and regional thresholds are cumulative in nature, the project would not
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
42
Table 7 Project Operational Emissions
Emission Source
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 10 <1 34 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 2 1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile 8 10 76 <1 20 5
Total Project Emissions 18 12 110 <1 20 6
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter
with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide
Notes: Area, energy, and mobile emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod; see Appendix A for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are those individuals more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the
population at large. People most likely to be affected by air pollution include children, the elderly,
and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. According to the SCAQMD,
sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term
healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes (SCAQMD
1993). Off-site sensitive receptors nearest to the project site consist of mobile home residences
located immediately north of the project site. Sensitive receptors at further distances include single-
family residential homes approximately 75 feet northeast of the project site across Tokay Avenue
and Tokay Elementary School approximately 680 feet north of the project site. In addition, the
proposed project would introduce new sensitive receptors to the project site.
Local Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO ambient air quality standard.
Localized CO hotspots can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots
can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the local CO
concentration exceeds the federal one-hour standard of 35.0 parts per million (ppm) or the federal
and state eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm (CARB 2016).
The entire Basin is in conformance with state and federal CO standards. The highest reported 1-hour
and 8-hour concentrations of CO at the air monitoring station nearest to the project site between
2018 and 2020 were 2.7 ppm and 1.2 ppm, respectively (SCAQMD 2022). These are well below the
respective 1-hour and 8-hour thresholds of 20 ppm and 9 ppm, respectively. Given the ambient
concentrations, which includes mobile as well as stationary sources, a project in SCAB would need
to emit CO concentrations over seven times the hourly or 8-hour maximum ambient emissions
Environmental Checklist Air Quality
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 43
before project emissions would exceed the applicable standards. Typical development projects,
including the proposed project would not emit the levels of CO necessary to result in a localized hot
spot. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Criteria Pollutants
Table 8 summarizes the estimated onsite maximum daily emissions of criteria pollutants associated
with construction of the proposed project. As shown below, VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5
emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LSTs. Because air pollutant emissions generated by project
construction would not exceed SCAQMD’s LSTs, project construction would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be less than
significant.
Table 8 Localized Project Construction Emissions
Maximum Emissions (lbs./day)
Year VOC NOx PM10 PM2.5
Phase I 32 33 10 6
Phase II 21 30 1 1
Phase III 21 27 1 1
Phase I & Phase II Overlap 44 61 2 2
Phase II & Phase III Overlap 41 56 2 2
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 44 61 10 6
SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds
(LSTs)
270 1,746 14 8
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
lbs/day = pounds per day; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10
microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns.
Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix A for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Fugitive emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulatory compliance measures. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions. Maximum on-site emissions are the
highest emissions that would occur on the project site from on-site sources such as heavy construction equipment and architectural
coatings and excludes off-site emissions from sources such as construction worker vehicle trips and haul truck trips.
Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are defined by California law as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to
human health. The following subsections discuss the proposed project’s potential to result in
impacts related to TAC emissions during construction and operation.
Health risks are associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors to carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic compounds. Carcinogenic risks can be defined in terms of the excess probability of
developing cancer from exposure to a chemical at a given concentration based on a given
population. Non-Carcinogenic risk is the potential of experiencing an adverse effect from exposure
to TACs at a given concentration.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
44
Construction
A Health Risk Assessment was prepared for the proposed project. Table 9 shows the total
unmitigated risk for the proposed project for each of the receptor locations. As a conservative
estimate of emissions, the school location was modeled as a residential location. Additionally, future
residents of units on the site that would be occupied while construction of later phases of the
project are ongoing were modeled for informational purposes. As shown, the off-site residential and
school locations would exceed the regulatory threshold of 10 in one million and would be significant
without mitigation. Figure 11 shows the location of the receptor for maximum impact (maximally
exposed individual or “MEI”) for each receptor type.
Table 9 Health Risk
Receptor Cancer Risk Per Million Hazard Index (Acute Risk)
Off-Site Residential (#319) 152.9 0.4
Off-site School (#818) 28.3 0.1
Phase I (#1,244) 17.38 0.5
Phase II (#1,039) 6.9 0.2
SCAQMD Thresholds 10 1
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No
lbs/day = pounds per day; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10
microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns.
Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix A for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Fugitive emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulatory compliance measures. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions. Maximum on-site emissions are the
highest emissions that would occur on the project site from on-site sources such as area and energy sources.
Environmental Checklist Air Quality
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 45
Figure 11 Maximum Impacted Receptor Location
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
46
Operation
Industrial manufacturing processes, warehousing, ports, rail yards, refineries, chrome platers,
gasoline dispensing facilities, automotive repair facilities, and dry-cleaning facilities are the typical
land uses that result in exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs. The proposed project is a residential
development that would not include any of these potential sources, although minimal emissions
may result from the use of consumer products. The proposed project would generate minor
amounts of diesel fuel emissions from infrequent delivery trucks and incidental maintenance
activities. Proposed project operations would only result in minimal emissions of air toxics from
maintenance or other ongoing activities, such as from the use of architectural coatings and other
products. It is not anticipated that an emergency back-up generator would be part of the proposed
project development. If a generator was installed, it would be used only during emergencies and for
maintenance and inspection purposes. Emergency back-up generators are subject to SCAQMD
regulatory requirements, which limit the allowable emissions to a level below that which would
result in a significant impact. The periodic operation of a backup generator would not, therefore,
expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial TAC emissions. Given the land use type and
activities anticipated, proposed project operations are not considered a substantial source of TACs
or health risk. Therefore, impacts with respect to operational TACs would be less than significant.
CARB further suggests that an operational health risk assessment be conducted for new
developments resulting in sensitive receptors being placed within 500 feet of an existing high-
volume roadway. A high-volume roadway is defined as an urban roadway with more than 100,000
vehicles per day. The closest freeway is the U.S. 210 approximately 10,000 feet north of the
proposed project site, therefore the proposed project would not place new sensitive receptors
within 500 feet of a high-volume roadway. In addition, the Title 24 standards require new residential
units to include MERV 13 standard air filtration (at a minimum), which would reduce PM10 exhaust
concentrations in indoor air by at least 70 percent. Therefore, new residents are not anticipated to
be adversely affected by exposure to vehicle exhaust long term.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would be required to reduce health risks to offsite
receptors from construction activities.
AQ-1 Diesel Particulate Matter Reduction
The project Applicant shall ensure that the following requirements shall be incorporated into
applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts with construction contractors:
Mobile off-road construction equipment (wheeled or tracked) greater than 50 horsepower used
during construction of the project shall meet the U.S. EPA Tier 4 final standards, either as
original equipment or equipment retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 final emission standards. In the
event of specialized equipment use where Tier 4 equipment is not commercially available, then
the equipment shall, at a minimum, meet the Tier 3 standard. Zero-emissions construction
equipment may be incorporated in lieu of Tier 4 Final equipment. A copy of each unit’s certified
tier specification or model year specification shall be available upon request at the time of
mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.
Mobile off-road construction equipment less than 50 horsepower used during construction of
the proposed project, shall be electric or other alternative fuel type. A copy of each unit’s
Environmental Checklist Air Quality
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 47
certified tier specification or model year specification shall be available upon request at the time
of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.
Electric hook-ups to the power grid shall be used rather than temporary diesel- or gasoline-
powered generators for electric construction tools whenever feasible. If generators need to be
used to reach remote portions of the site, non-diesel generators shall be used.
Project construction contractors shall demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction
equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities.
Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, exhaust emissions of PM10 and PM2.5, including
DPM, would be reduced from the that of a standard construction fleet. With the use of Tier 4 and
alternative-fuel construction equipment, as required by Mitigation Measure AQ-1, cancer and non-
carcinogenic risk to nearby sensitive receptors would be reduced to less than significant levels, as
shown in Table 10.
Table 10 Mitigated Health Risk
Receptor Cancer Risk Per Million
Off-Site Residential (#319) 8.8
Off-site School (#818) 1.6
Phase I (#1,244) 1.1
Phase II (#1,039) 0.3
SCAQMD Thresholds 10
Threshold Exceeded? No
lbs/day = pounds per day; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10
microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns.
Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix A for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up
due to rounding. Fugitive emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulatory compliance
measures. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions. Maximum on-site emissions are the highest emissions that would occur on the project site from on-site sources such as area and energy sources.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting
a substantial number of people?
The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depends on numerous factors. The nature,
frequency, and intensity of the source; the wind speeds and direction; and the sensitivity of the
receiving location each contribute to the intensity of the impact. Although offensive odors seldom
cause physical harm, they can be annoying and cause distress among the public and generate citizen
complaints.
Odors would be potentially generated from vehicles and equipment exhaust emissions during
construction of the project, which would be attributable to concentrations of unburned
hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment, and architectural coatings. Such odors
would disperse rapidly from the project site, generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
48
substantial numbers of people and would be limited to the construction period. Furthermore,
construction would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which regulates nuisance odors.
Impacts associated with odors during construction would be temporary and less than significant.
With respect to operation, the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) identifies land uses
associated with odor complaints as agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, chemical and
food processing plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. Residential
uses are not identified on this list. In addition, solid waste generated by the proposed on-site uses
would be properly stored in lidded dumpsters and/or trash cans and collected by a contracted waste
hauler, ensuring that on-site waste would be managed and collected in a manner to prevent the
proliferation of odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate other emissions such as
those leading to odors affecting a substantial number of people, and no operational impact would
occur.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Biological Resources
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 49
4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ □ ■
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? □ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? □ □ □ ■
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? □ □ □ ■
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
50
A Biological Due Diligence Memorandum (Appendix B) was prepared by ELMT Consultants for the
proposed project, which included a field investigation and a literature review. In addition, Rincon
Consultants completed a tree survey and memorandum outlining existing trees present on the
project site and replacement criteria pursuant to the FMC (Appendix B). The information contained
in this section is partially based on the results of the Biological Due Diligence Memorandum and
Tree Memorandum, as well as searches of pertinent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and
other agency databases.
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The undeveloped project site encompasses 10.2 acres and is in an urbanized area of the city
primarily developed with residential and commercial land uses. The literature review identified
16 special status plants, 47 special status wildlife species, and one special status plant community
within the site vicinity. During the field investigation, no special status plant or wildlife species were
observed, and no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern were
observed onsite. The site supports one plant community, non-native grassland, and is classified as
disturbed. Refer to Figure 4 for representative photographs of the project site.
According to the results of the Biological Due Diligence Memorandum, the project site has low
potential to provide minimal foraging habitat for Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) and California
horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actua) but does not provide suitable nesting habitat for either.
Additionally, the project site does not provide suitable habitat for any of the other special status
plants or wildlife species. No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during
the field survey. Although heavily disturbed, the project has the potential to provide minimal
foraging and nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating
songbirds that could occur in the area that are adapted to disturbed areas and urban environments.
Additionally, portions of the site have potential to support ground-nesting birds such as killdeer
(Charadrius vociferus).
Migratory or other common nesting birds, while not designated as special-status species, are
protected by the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and
may nest in the trees, shrubs, and grasses on-site. Therefore, construction of the project has the
potential to directly (by destroying a nest) or indirectly (by creating construction noise, dust, and
other human disturbances that may cause a nest to fail) impact nesting birds protected under the
CFGC and MBTA.
Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 Nesting Bird Avoidance
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following measures shall be implemented:
To avoid disturbance of nesting birds, including raptorial species protected by the MBTA and
CFGC, construction activities related to the project, including, but not limited to, vegetation
removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird
breeding season (February 1 through August 31). If construction must begin during the breeding
season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than seven days
prior to initiation of construction activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be
Environmental Checklist Biological Resources
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 51
conducted on foot inside the project site, including a 100-foot buffer, and in inaccessible areas
(e.g., private lands) from afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to
occur in Southern California.
If nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be demarcated by a qualified biologist with bright
orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary.
All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid
entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No parking, storage of materials, or
construction activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that
breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the
buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist.
A survey report by the qualified biologist documenting and verifying compliance with the
mitigation and with applicable state and federal regulations protecting birds shall be submitted
to the City. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods
when construction activities would occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent
impacts on these nests would occur.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure compliance with the CFGC Section 3503
and the MBTA with respect to nesting birds and would reduce the potential impact through pre-
construction nesting bird surveys and avoidance of active nests. Furthermore, the site would include
trees as part of the project’s landscaping and would continue to provide nesting sites in an urban
residential neighborhood, consistent with existing conditions. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Plant communities are considered sensitive biological resources if they have limited distributions,
have high wildlife value, including sensitive species, or are particularly susceptible to disturbance.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) ranks sensitive communities as “threatened” or
“very threatened”. The project is in a developed urban area and is not located within a vegetated or
open space area. The project site is defined by a non-native grassland community dominated by
non-native brome grasses (Bromus spp.) and other weedy/early successional plant species. Plant
species observed during the field investigations include telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora),
red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarum), long beaked filaree (Erodium botrys), gum tree
(Eucalyptus sp.), chinaberry tree (Melia azedarach), bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), and short-
podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). These existing shrubs and grasses do not constitute a
sensitive natural community. Additionally, there is no riparian habitat on or near the project site
(USFWS 2021b). Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities as none exist on the site or in nearby areas.
No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
52
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
No riparian habitats, wetlands, or other water features have been identified on or adjacent to the
project site. The nearest mapped wetlands are located approximately three miles west of the
project site (USFWS 2020b). Furthermore, the project site does not include any discernable drainage
courses, inundated areas, wetland vegetation, or hydric soils. As a result, no state or federally
protected wetlands or other waters that may be considered jurisdictional by the CDFW, United
States Army Corps of Engineers, or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) occur on or
adjacent to the project site and regulatory approvals would not be required. Therefore, the
proposed project would not directly or indirectly have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands or other jurisdictional waters. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Wildlife corridors are generally defined as connections between habitat areas that allow for physical
and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages may serve a
local purpose, such as between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature,
allowing movement across the landscape. Some habitat linkages may serve as migration corridors,
wherein animals periodically move away from an area and then subsequently return. Examples of
barriers or impediments to movement include housing and other urban development, roads,
fencing, or open areas with little vegetative cover.
As discussed above, the project site is in an urban area of the city surrounded by roads, residential
neighborhoods, and commercial development. The site is located approximately six miles from the
nearest open space and is separated from open space areas by existing development and roadways.
The project site does not contain any natural communities or habitat that would be expected to
support native wildlife nurseries or the movement of species. While the project site is undeveloped,
it consists of nonnative grass- and shrub land of low habitat quality and does not form a natural
community or constitute a habitat area, nor does the site provide connections to any nearby habitat
areas, such as Rosena Ranch Recreation Area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in
impacts to the movement of native or migratory species or the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
NO IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Article III, Section 28 of the FMC regulates the preservation, protection, and removal of trees on
public and private property in the city. The FMC provides permitting requirements for removals of
significant trees, heritage trees, and specimen trees. Significant trees in the City of Fontana include
Southern California black walnut, coast live oak, deodora cedar, California sycamore, and London
plane. A heritage tree is a tree located on private or public property that meets the following
requirements:
Is of historical value because of its association with a place, building, natural feature or event of
local, regional or national historical significance as identified by city council resolution; or
Environmental Checklist Biological Resources
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 53
Is representative of a significant period of the city's growth or development (windrow tree,
European Olive tree); or
Is a protected or endangered species as specified by federal or state statute; or
Is deemed historically or culturally significant by the city manager or his or her designee because
of size, condition, location, or aesthetic qualities.
Specimen tree is defined as a mature tree (which is not a heritage or significant tree) which is an
excellent example of its species in structure and aesthetics and warrants preservation, relocation, or
replacement. For removal of trees that are not considered significant, heritage, or specimen trees,
the FMC requires tree replacement or payment of a cash equivalent to the City’s tree fund.
Based on the results of the field survey, the project site contains one gum tree (Eucalyptus sp.) and
six chinaberry trees (Melia azedarach) in the northwestern corner of the project site which would be
removed by the proposed project. These trees are not included in the City’s list of significant trees,
nor do any of the trees on the project site qualify as a heritage tree or specimen tree. As required by
FMC Section 28, the project would provide replacement trees onsite for the tree removals, including
124 new trees as part of the landscaping plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict
with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and there would be no impact.
NO IMPACT
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
The project site is not located within or near an area subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other approved habitat conservation plan at the
local, regional, or state level (CDFW 2019). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with
the provisions of any adopted habitat conservation plans.
NO IMPACT
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
54
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 55
5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5? □ ■ □ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ ■ □
CEQA requires a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on
historical resources (PRC Section 21084.1) and Tribal cultural resources (PRC Section 21074
[a][1][A]-[B]). Tribal cultural resources are discussed in Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this
IS-MND.
A historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California
Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); a resource included in a local register of historical
resources; or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead
agency determines to be historically significant (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[a][1-3]).
A resource shall be considered historically significant if it:
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage;
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition, if it can be demonstrated that a project would cause damage to a unique archaeological
resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these
resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources
cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Section 21083.2[a], [b]).
PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an 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:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is
a demonstrable public interest in that information;
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
56
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available
example of its type; or
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person.
Rincon prepared a Cultural Resources Technical Study to evaluate project impacts to historical and
archaeological resources. The Cultural Resources Technical Study includes a cultural resources
records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center, historical imagery review, archival
research, and a field survey of the property, setting, and surroundings. The following analysis is
based on the Cultural Resources Study, which is provided in full as Appendix C.
Rincon conducted a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS)
at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University,
Fullerton on April 5, 2021. The purpose of the records search was to identify previously conducted
cultural resources studies and previously recorded cultural resources within the project site and a
0.5-mile radius. The CHRIS search included a review of the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP), CRHR, the Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory, the California
Inventory of Historic Resources, and the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list.
The SCCIC records search identified five previously conducted cultural resources studies performed
within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site and eight previously recorded cultural resources within a
0.5-mile radius of the project site. A single previous cultural resources study from 1992 included the
project site and it did not identify any historic resources. Although cultural resources were identified
in the vicinity of the project site, the search results did not identify any historic resources on the
project site itself.
Rincon conducted a field survey of the project site on May 28, 2021. The project site was intensively
surveyed using transects spaced five to ten meters apart and oriented north to south Areas of
exposed ground were inspected for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris,
stone milling tools, ceramics, fire-affected rock), ecofacts (marine shell and bone), soil discoloration
that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, and features indicative of
the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations)
or historic debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Ground disturbances such as burrows and drainages
were also visually inspected.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The records search revealed no resources have been previously recorded within the current project
site. The pedestrian survey and imagery review also show that no built resources are present within
the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to historical resources.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The results of the cultural resources records search and field survey failed to identify archaeological
resources on or immediately adjacent to the project site. Although no archaeological resources
were identified during the background research or pedestrian survey effort, there remains the
potential to encounter unanticipated archaeological resources during ground-disturbing activities
Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 57
associated with project construction. Construction activities may result in the destruction, damage,
or loss of undiscovered scientifically important archaeological resources. Therefore, impacts to
archaeological resources would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are required to avoid or reduce the project’s potentially
significant impacts to any archaeological resources that may be found during ground disturbing
activities.
CR-1 Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program
A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP) training on archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel prior to the
commencement of any ground-disturbing activities. The training shall be conducted by an
archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards
for archaeology (National Park Service [NPS] 1983). Archaeological sensitivity training shall include a
description of the types of cultural material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, the
regulatory environment, and the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a
find. A sign in sheet indicating that all construction personnel have received this training shall be
kept on file by the project applicate, construction crews, and the City.
CR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources and Qualified
Archaeological Monitors
If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities at any time during
construction, all work in the immediate vicinity shall be halted, and the City of Fontana Community
Development Department shall be immediately informed. A qualified archaeologist shall be retained
by the project applicant to determine if the find is classified as a significant cultural resource.
Furthermore, if and only if, an unanticipated discovery is determined by the qualified archaeologist
to be Tribal in nature, then any consulting Native American Tribe(s) should be informed of the find
and their input requested for the treatment of said find. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 may also be
applicable if the resource is Tribal in nature.
If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource”
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to
PRC Section 21083.2(g), the qualified archaeologist shall coordinate with the applicant and the City
to develop a formal treatment plan that would serve to reduce impacts to the resources. The
treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(f) for historical resources and PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.
Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place
is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations
to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. The final
recommendations on the treatment and disposition of the finding shall be developed in accordance
with all applicable provisions of the PRC Section 21083.2, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5 and
15126.4, and Mitigation Measure TCR-1 and shall be reviewed by the City prior to implementation.
The final recommendations shall be implemented, and the City shall be provided with a final report
on the treatment and disposition of the finding prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
When possible, any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be
curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
58
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees
to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be donated to
a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
The qualified archaeologist shall also determine if monitoring during further ground-disturbing
activities is needed or not. If monitoring does occur, the qualified archaeological monitor shall
complete monitoring logs on a daily basis that provide descriptions of the daily activities, including
construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring
shall end when the construction-related ground disturbance activities are completed, or when
qualified archaeological monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological
resources. If the material culture is Tribal in nature, the end of monitoring will be determined in
consultation with the Native American monitor(s).
Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training
prior to commencement of any ground-disturbing activities. Mitigation Measure CR-2 provides for
the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources. The measure stipulates that if
unanticipated cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, an
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards for
archaeology (National Park Service [NPS] 1983; qualified archaeologist) will evaluate the find and
determine if the resource requires evaluation for listing on the CRHR. In the event of an
unanticipated discovery of cultural resources, appropriate treatment measures would be developed
pursuant to these mitigation measures and implemented to reduce any significant impact to a less
than significant level.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
The project site is not part of a formal cemetery and is not known to have been used for disposal of
historic or prehistoric human remains. There are no known human remains on the site. Therefore,
human remains are not expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed project. In
the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during project construction, State Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires ground disturbance in the area of the find to halt until the
County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains
pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the proposed
project would not result in significant impacts due to disturbing human remains, and impacts would
be less than significant. Analysis of potential discovery of Native American human remains is
contained in Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, which includes Mitigation Measure TCR-2 to
address potential impacts to Native American human remains.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Energy
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 59
6 Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
The proposed project would use nonrenewable resources for construction and operation activities.
Energy resources that would be utilized by the project include petroleum-based fuels and
renewable energy resources for the operation of construction equipment during project
construction and for resident and visitor vehicle use and operation of the proposed buildings
including lighting, appliances, water conveyance, landscaping maintenance and other typical energy
uses associated with residential developments. The anticipated use of these resources is detailed in
the following subsections. As supported by the discussion below, the proposed project would not
result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources that would result
in a significant environmental impact.
Construction Energy Demand
During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of petroleum-based fuels used
to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker
travel to and from the project site, and vehicles used to deliver materials to the site and export soil
and demolition material from the site. Project construction would require site preparation, grading,
pavement and asphalt installation, building construction, architectural coating, and landscaping and
hardscaping. As shown in Table 11, project construction would require approximately 118,153
gallons of gasoline and approximately 259,458 gallons of diesel fuel. These construction energy
estimates are conservative because they assume that the construction equipment used in each
phase of construction is operating every day of construction.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
60
Table 11 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Construction (gallons)
Source Gasoline Diesel
Construction Equipment & Hauling Trips − 259,458
Construction Worker Vehicle Trips 118,153 −
See Appendix D for energy calculation sheets
Energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used
would be typical of similar-sized construction projects in the region. In addition, construction
contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-
road diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel
consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the USEPA Construction Equipment Fuel
Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel
consumption. Furthermore, per applicable regulatory requirements such as California’s Green
Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR, Title 24, Part 11), the project would comply with
construction waste management practices to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction and
demolition debris. These practices would result in efficient use of energy necessary to construct the
project. In the interest of cost-efficiency, construction contractors also would not utilize fuel in a
manner that is wasteful or unnecessary. Therefore, the project would not involve the inefficient,
wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy during construction, and the construction-phase impact
related to energy consumption would be less than significant.
Operational Energy Demand
Natural gas for the proposed project would be provided by Southern California Gas Company (SoCal
Gas) through the existing lines within the right-of-way of Tokay Avenue. Electric service for the
proposed project would be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) through existing lines in
Tokay Avenue. Operation of the proposed residential units would increase area energy demand
from greater electricity, natural gas, and gasoline consumption compared to current conditions on
the undeveloped site. Natural gas and electricity would be used for heating and cooling systems,
lighting, appliances, water use, and the overall operation of the project buildings. Gasoline and
diesel fuel consumption would be used for motor vehicle travel to and from the project site.
Table 12 summarizes estimated operational energy consumption for the proposed project and
existing uses on the site. As shown therein, project operation would require approximately
786,209 gallons of gasoline and 164,961 gallons of diesel for transportation fuels per year. The
project would require 2.77 GWh of electricity per year. Natural gas use for appliances, outdoor gas
fireplaces, and HVAC systems would require approximately 74,076 U.S. therms per year. Residential
vehicle trips would represent the greatest operational use of energy associated with the proposed
project.
Environmental Checklist Energy
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 61
Table 12 Estimated Project Annual Operational Energy Consumption
Source Energy Consumption1
Transportation Fuels2
Gasoline 876,287 gallons 86,315 MMBtu
Diesel 154,860 gallons 21,026 MMBtu
Electricity 2.77 GWh 9,439 MMBtu
Natural Gas Usage 74,076 U.S. therms 6,887 MMBtu
Total Energy Consumption 123,667 MMBtu
MMBtu = million metric British thermal units; GWh = Gigawatt hours
1 Energy consumption is converted to MMBtu for each source
2 The estimated number of average daily trips associated with the project is used to determine the energy consumption associated with
fuel use from operation of the project. According to CalEEMod calculations (see Appendix A), the project would result in approximately
9,350,831 annual VMT.
Source: Appendices A and D
The project would be required to comply with the standards established in the CCR Title 24, which
would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during
operation. CALGreen (CCR Title 24, Part 11) requires implementation of energy efficient light
fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects. Furthermore, the 2019
Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24, Part 6) requires newly constructed buildings to
meet energy performance standards set by the California Energy Commission (CEC). These
standards are specifically crafted for new buildings to result in energy efficient performance so that
the buildings do not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.
To help achieve Title 24 reduction targets, the project applicant proposes to incorporate several
energy efficient features into overall project design. The proposed project would be designed to
achieve LEED Silver rating. Energy efficient design features include energy efficient LED lighting,
HVAC systems, appliances, and building materials. In addition, the project would include a rooftop
solar PV system to provide renewable energy on the site. Furthermore, the project would continue
to reduce its use of nonrenewable energy resources as the electricity generated by renewable
resources provided by SCE increases to comply with state requirements through Senate Bill (SB) 100,
which requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy
resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.
Therefore, the proposed project would not lead to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
New development on the project site would result in increased energy consumption through
electricity to power facilities, natural gas for heating and cooking, and petroleum use from motor
vehicles used by residents. The City has not adopted any local plans for renewable energy or energy
conservation; however, the General Plan Infrastructure and Green Systems element includes the
following applicable goals, policies and actions related to sustainability and energy efficiency:
Goal 7: Fontana is an energy efficient community.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
62
Policy: 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 A: Promote participation in renewable energy programs.
Action B: Regional and state programs provide a wide range of programs to assist homeowners,
other property owners, and businesses access renewable energy.
Action C: Promote state and regional retrofit programs for property owners.
Action D: Encourage customer participation in renewable energy programs offered by Southern
California Edison, such as Green Tariff and Enhanced Community Renewables (ECR).
The project would also be subject to state requirements for energy efficiency, including the
mandatory measures for residential development contained in the 2019 CALGreen and Title 24
Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The proposed project would comply with Title 24 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards by including measures such as energy efficient LED indoor and outdoor
lighting, efficient HVAC systems, EnergyStar rated appliances, and EV charging spaces. The project
would also generate renewable energy onsite by including a rooftop solar PV system and would be
LEED Silver certified. Additionally, the project would include water-efficient appliances and fixtures
in every residential unit, as well as drought tolerant landscaping and water efficient irrigation
systems, in accordance with the CALGreen standards, which would reduce the project’s water use
and energy needed to provide water to the project. These sustainability features align with the
energy efficiency goals established in the General Plan Infrastructure and Green Systems Element.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency, and there would be no impact.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 63
7 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1. 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? □ □ ■ □
2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □
3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ □ ■ □
4. Landslides? □ □ ■ □
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? □ □ ■ □
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse? □ □ ■ □
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property? □ □ ■ □
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? □ ■ □ □
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
64
A Preliminary Geotechnical Report was prepared for the project site by GeoSoils Inc. in January 2021
to analyze the geotechnical factors that may impact the development of the site. The report
included review of relevant United States Geological Survey (USGS), United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and California Geological Survey (CGS) maps for the site and surrounding area;
geological field investigation to evaluate subsurface conditions; laboratory testing on selected soil
samples to evaluate physical, engineering, and chemical properties of on-site soil soils; evaluation of
geologic and seismic hazards (i.e., seismicity, surface fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction);
and evaluation of design parameters in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC). The
report concluded that the project is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, provided
that the recommendations presented in the report are adhered to during planning and construction
of the project, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Division. The following analysis is based on
the information contained in this project-specific Preliminary Geotechnical Report (see Appendix E).
a.1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
The project site is in a seismically active area of Southern California, and, therefore, could
experience strong ground shaking from local and regional faults. A fault that has ruptured in the last
11,700 years is considered to have a higher potential of future seismicity and is considered an active
fault by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Faults with evidence of longer earthquake
frequency events are considered to have a lower potential of future seismicity. According to CGS,
the project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (CGS 2021). However, the site is
situated in a region subject to strong earthquakes occurring along active faults. These faults include,
but are not limited to the San Jose, the San Andreas, the Cucamonga, the San Jacinto, and the
Elsinore, Whittier, and Chino Hills Blind Thrust fault zones.
The closest known active faults to the site are the San Jacinto-San Bernardino fault which is located
at a distance of approximately five miles from the site, the Cucamonga fault which is located at a
distance of approximately 6.5 miles from the site, and the San Andreas-San Bernardino fault which
is located at a distance of approximately 9.6 miles from the site. The closest fault, San Jacinto-San
Bernardino fault zone is a “B” fault and is capable of producing a maximum magnitude 6.7
earthquake, while the Cucamonga fault is an “A” fault and is capable of producing a maximum
magnitude 6.9 earthquake. However, the San Andreas-San Bernardino fault (“A” fault) is capable of
producing a maximum magnitude 7.5 earthquake and is considered the “design fault” for this site.
The possibility of ground acceleration, or shaking at the site, may be considered as approximately
similar to the Southern California region as a whole.
To reduce geologic and seismic impacts, the City regulates development through the requirements
of the CBC. The purpose of the CBC is to establish minimum standards to safeguard the public
health, safety, and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress, and general
stability by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and
occupancy, location, and maintenance of all building and structures within its jurisdiction. The
earthquake design requirements of the CBC consider the occupancy category of the structure, site
class, soil classifications, and various seismic coefficients. The CBC provides standards for various
aspects of construction, including but not limited to excavation, grading, earthwork, construction,
Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 65
preparation of the site prior to fill placement, specification of fill materials, fill compaction and field
testing, retaining wall design and construction, foundation design and construction, and seismic
requirements. It includes provisions to address issues such as (but not limited to) ground shaking. In
accordance with California law, project design and construction would be required to comply with
provisions of the CBC. Because the project would comply with the CBC and recommendations of the
Preliminary Geotechnical Report and because the project would not exacerbate existing ground
shaking hazards, impacts related to seismically induced ground shaking and fault rupture would be
less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Liquefaction is a process whereby soil is temporarily transformed to fluid form during intense and
prolonged ground shaking or because of a sudden shock or strain. Typically, liquefaction occurs in
areas where there are loose soils and the depth to groundwater is less than 50 feet from the
surface. Likewise, earthquakes can cause landslides in areas with unstable slopes and terrain. The
project site is not located within in a mapped liquefaction or landslide area identified in the San
Bernardino County General Plan (County of San Bernardino 2010). Due to the relatively flat
topography of the site and surrounding areas, the project site is not at risk of landslides.
Additionally, according to the Preliminary Geotechnical Report, the susceptibility of the project site
to experience damaging deformations from seismically-induced liquefaction is low due to the
generally medium dense to dense nature of the young alluvial fan deposits that underlie the site at
depth and the depth to the regional groundwater table. To further reduce the potential for
liquefaction, the project would include re-compaction of near surface soils on the project site, in
accordance with the recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report.
Furthermore, design and construction of the project would conform to the current seismic design
provisions of the CBC, which incorporates the latest seismic design standards for structural loads
and materials, as well as provisions from the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, to
mitigate losses from an earthquake, including liquefaction, and provide for the latest in earthquake
safety. While the project would be susceptible to seismic activity given its location within a
seismically active area, the project site is not susceptible to liquefaction or landslides and would be
required to minimize this risk through the incorporation of applicable CBC standards. Therefore, the
project would not result in substantial adverse impacts related to liquefaction or landslides, and
impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The proposed project involves the construction of a new multi-family residential gated community
on a project site that is currently vacant. Construction activities have the potential to result in soil
erosion, particularly during grading and excavation activities. Soil erosion caused by strong wind
and/or earth-moving operations during construction would be minimized through compliance with
SCAQMD Rule 403, which prohibits visible particulate matter from crossing property lines. Standard
practices to control fugitive dust emissions include watering of active grading sites, covering soil
stockpiles with plastic sheeting, and covering soils in haul trucks with secured tarps. In addition, the
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
66
potential for project construction activities to result in increased erosion and sediment transport by
stormwater to surface waters would be minimized because the project would be required to comply
with a Construction General Permit, which is issued by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB). The Construction General Permit requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which outlines best management practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and
topsoil loss from stormwater runoff (also refer to the discussion in Section 10, Hydrology and Water
Quality). Compliance with the Construction General Permit would ensure that BMPs are
implemented during construction and minimize substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Upon
completion of construction, the project site would be stabilized with landscaping and paving, and
operational activities would not result in soil erosion. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Lateral spreading is the horizontal movement or spreading of soil toward an open face. Lateral
spreading may occur when soils liquefy during an earthquake event, and the liquefied soils with
overlying soils move laterally to unconfined spaces. Subsidence is the sudden sinking or gradual
downward settling of the earth’s surface with little or no horizontal movement. Subsidence is
caused by a variety of activities that include, but are not limited to, withdrawal of groundwater,
pumping of oil and gas from underground, the collapse of underground mines, liquefaction, and
hydrocompaction. Collapse potential refers to the potential settlement of a soil under existing
stresses upon being wetted.
As discussed under Impact 7.a.1 through 7.a.4, although the proposed project is in a seismically
active area, the project site is not located on unstable soils or a geologic unit at risk for liquefaction
or landslides. The project site consists of compact, relatively flat land that is surrounded by
developed land with no significant slopes that would present a landslide hazard. Furthermore,
construction and operation of the project would not involve activities known to cause or trigger
subsidence and are not anticipated to adversely affect soil stability or increase the potential for local
or regional landslides, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The project would comply with CBC
requirements and recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report. Because the project
would not create or exacerbate conditions related to unstable soils, impacts would be less than
significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Expansive soils are highly compressible, clay-based soils that tend to expand as they absorb water
and shrink as water is drawn away. According to the Preliminary Geological Report, field
explorations performed at the site indicated that onsite soils are generally very low in expansion
potential. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a substantial direct or indirect risk to
life or property due to expansive soils and impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 67
e. Would the project 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?
The project would be served by the city’s existing sewer system and no septic tanks are proposed
for the project. Therefore, there is no potential for adverse effects due to soil incompatibility with
septic tanks. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
The paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units underlying the project site was evaluated based
on a desktop review of existing data, including geologic maps, published literature, and online fossil
locality and collections databases. Fossil collections records from the Paleobiology Database and
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) online database were reviewed for known
fossil localities in San Bernardino County (Paleobiology Database 2021; UCMP 2021). Based on the
available information contained within existing scientific literature and the UCMP database,
paleontological sensitivities were assigned to the geologic units underlying the project site. The
potential for impacts to significant paleontological resources is based on the potential for ground
disturbance to directly impact paleontologically sensitive geologic units.
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has developed a system for assessing paleontological
sensitivity and describes sedimentary rock units as having high, low, undetermined, or no potential
for containing significant nonrenewable paleontological resources (SVP 2010). This criterion is based
on rock units within which vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils have been determined by
previous studies to be present or likely to be present.
The project site is situated in the Pomona Valley within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province
of California (California Geological Survey 2002). As shown in Figure 12, the surface geology of the
project site is entirely mapped as Quaternary young (Holocene to late Pleistocene) alluvial-fan
deposits (Qyfl), consisting of unconsolidated, gray, cobbly and boulder alluvium of the Lytle Creek
fan. Alluvial-fan sediments in the southern extent are relatively fine-grained and become coarse-
grained northward. In addition, Holocene alluvial-fan deposits (Qyfl) form broad channels west and
north of Crestmore (Morton 2003). Based on the findings of the site-specific Preliminary
Geotechnical Report, a thin layer of colluvium and discontinuous deposits of undocumented fill
overlie Quaternary young (Holocene to late Pleistocene) alluvial-fan deposits (Qyfl) to depths of
approximately three feet below ground surface within the project site.
Due to the disturbed nature of undocumented fill, these fill sediments are determined to have a low
paleontological sensitivity. Quaternary young (Holocene) alluvial sediments within the project site
(e.g., Qyfl) are typically too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to preserve paleontological
resources and are also determined to have a low paleontological sensitivity at or near the surface, in
accordance with SVP guidelines (SVP 2010). However, Quaternary young (Holocene) alluvial fan
deposits may grade downward into older Quaternary (Pleistocene) alluvial deposits with the
potential to preserve paleontological resources at moderate or unknown depths.
A review of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) online database resulted in
two Pleistocene vertebrate fossil localities (-791 &- 646) from Fontana or surrounding areas (UCMP
2021). UCMP localities -791 and -646 produced fossil specimens of coyote (Canis latrans), bighorn
sheep (Ovis canadensis), elephant (Elephas), camel (Camelops), bird (Aves), and fish (Osteichthyes).
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
68
A supplemental review of the Paleobiology Database resulted in one Pleistocene vertebrate fossil
locality less than 15 miles northeast of the project site near Redlands. Locality SBCM 1.114.7 yielded
a fossil specimen of mammoth (Mammuthus sp.) within Quaternary old (middle to late Pleistocene)
alluvium at an unknown depth (Paleobiology Database 2021). Therefore, Quaternary old
(Pleistocene) alluvial deposits are assigned a high paleontological sensitivity.
Quaternary old (Pleistocene) alluvial deposits would be expected to occur at shallow depths near
the margins of the basin; however, the depth at which Quaternary old (Pleistocene) alluvial deposits
occurs may vary throughout a basin, ranging from shallow to more than 100 feet depending on the
local topography. In the absence of some form of radiometric dating or fossil analysis, the depth to
Quaternary old (Pleistocene) alluvial deposits cannot be reliably estimated; however, sensitive older
alluvial deposits are unlikely to occur at depths of less than 15 to 20 feet within the project site
based on the location of the project site within the basin. In addition, the site-specific geotechnical
report did not report any major changes in lithology during subsurface explorations, suggesting that
older (Pleistocene) deposits were not encountered within depths less than 10 feet.
Based on the paleontological locality searches, literature review, and geotechnical evaluation
prepared for the project, the mapped geologic unit within the project site (i.e., Quaternary young
alluvial-fan deposits [Qyfl]) was assigned a low paleontological sensitivity at or near the surface,
increasing to high below depths of 15 to 20 feet (Paleobiology Database 2021; UCMP 2021; SVP
2010).
As proposed, project ground disturbance would reach a maximum depth of approximately ten feet
below ground surface for excavations. Given the nature of the proposed improvements and existing
site conditions, project-related ground disturbance (i.e., excavations) is not anticipated to include
ground disturbance of greater than ten feet in previously undisturbed areas of younger Quaternary
(Holocene) alluvial fan deposits and is thus unlikely to impact fossiliferous deposits. Although
project implementation is not expected to uncover paleontological resources, a remote possibility
for such resources to be uncovered exists.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is recommended to avoid impacts to paleontological resources in the
case of unanticipated fossil discoveries. This measure would apply to all phases of project
construction and would reduce the potential for impacts to unanticipated fossils present on-site by
providing for the recovery, identification, and curation of paleontological resources.
Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources
In the event an unanticipated fossil discovery is made during the course of project development,
construction activity shall be halted within a 50-foot radius of the fossil, and a qualified professional
paleontologist shall be notified and retained to evaluate the discovery, determine its significance,
and determine if additional mitigation or treatment is warranted. Work in the area of the discovery
shall resume once the find is properly documented and authorization is given to resume
construction work. Any significant paleontological resources found during construction monitoring
shall be prepared, identified, analyzed, and permanently curated in an approved regional museum
repository under the oversight of the qualified paleontologist.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 69
Figure 12 Geology of Project Site
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
70
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 71
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? □ □ ■ □
This section is based on the results of the Air Quality and GHG Emissions Study prepared for the
project by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in October 2021 (see Appendix A).
Overview of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and
oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and
storms) over an extended period of time. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative
sources of GHG emissions contributing to the “greenhouse effect,” a natural occurrence which takes
place in Earth’s atmosphere and helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of
radiation from the sun hits Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface, in turn, radiates heat back
towards the atmosphere in the form of infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap
and prevent some of this heat from escaping into space and re-radiate it in all directions.
GHG emissions occur both naturally and as a result of human activities, such as fossil fuel burning,
decomposition of landfill wastes, raising livestock, deforestation, and some agricultural practices.
GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Different types of GHGs have
varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to
trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb
different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat
absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e),
which is the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of
one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is 30 times greater
than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2021).4
Anthropogenic activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years
ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the concentration of GHGs in the
4 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2021) Sixth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 30. However, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, this analysis utilizes a GWP of 25.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
72
atmosphere that trap heat. Since the late 1700s, estimated concentrations of CO2, methane, and
nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased by over 43 percent, 156 percent, and 17 percent,
respectively, primarily due to human activity (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2020).
Emissions resulting from human activities are thereby contributing to an average increase in Earth’s
temperature. Potential climate change impacts in California may include loss of snowpack, sea level
rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more
drought years (State of California 2018).
Regulatory Framework
State and Regional Regulations
In response to climate change, California implemented Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the “California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 required the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990
emissions levels (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels) by 2020 and the
adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-
effective GHG emissions reductions. On September 8, 2016, the Governor signed SB 32 into law,
extending AB 32 by requiring the state to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990
levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, the CARB
adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The
2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such
as the Cap-and-Trade Program and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and implementation of recently
adopted policies and legislation, such as SB 1383 (aimed at reducing short-lived climate pollutants
including methane, hydrofluorocarbon gases, and anthropogenic black carbon) and SB 100
(discussed further below). The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation,
adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013
Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use
development. Instead, it recommends local governments adopt policies and locally-appropriate
quantitative thresholds consistent with a statewide per capita goal of six metric tons (MT) of CO2e
by 2030 and two MT of CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017b).
Other relevant state laws and regulations include:
SB 375: The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), signed in
August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing the CARB to develop
regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and
2035. Metropolitan Planning Organizations are required to adopt a Sustainable Communities
Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for
reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. SCAG was assigned targets of an 8
percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction in
GHGs from transportation sources by 2035. SCAG adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS in September
2020, which meets the requirements of SB 375.
SB 100: Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from
the electricity sector by accelerating the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. SB 100
requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources
to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.
California Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24): The California Building Standards Code
consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes related to building construction
Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 73
including plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy efficiency, and handicap accessibility for
persons with physical and sensory disabilities. The current iteration is the 2019 Title 24
standards. Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which establishes energy-efficiency
standards for residential and non-residential buildings in order to reduce California’s energy
demand. Part 12 is the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which includes
mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction
of residential and non-residential structures.
Local Regulations
CITY OF FONTANA GENERAL PLAN
The City of Fontana’s General Plan (2018) does not have a specific GHG element. However, the
following policies from the Infrastructure and Green Systems and the Sustainability and Resilience
Elements would be applicable:
Infrastructure and Green Systems Element
Goal 2 Policy: Encourage use of processed water from the IEUA systems using recycled water
for all non-drinking water purposes.
Goal 3 Policy: Support landscaping in public and private spaces with drought-resistant plants.
Goal 5 Policy: Support incorporation of greywater systems in new developments
Goal 7 Policy: 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.
Goal 8 Policy: Continue to maximize landfill capacity by supporting recycling innovations, such
as organic waste recycling for compost
Sustainability and Resilience Element
Goal 3 Policy: Promote renewable energy programs for government, Fontana business, and
Fontana residences.
Goal 5 Policy: Promote green building through guidelines, awards, and nonfinancial incentives.
Goal 6 Policy: Promote energy-efficient development in Fontana
Goal 6 Policy: Meet or exceed state goals for energy-efficient new construction.
Goal 7 Policy: Continue to promote and implement best practices to conserve water.
CITY OF FONTANA MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 30 of the FMC requires new development in the city to be constructed in accordance with
the 2019 CCR Title 24, CALGreen standards, 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and
mandatory measures for new developments that support overall state and local goals for energy
efficiency, which aim to reduce GHG emissions.
Methodology
GHG emissions associated with project construction and operation were estimated using CalEEMod,
version 2020.4.0, with the assumptions described under Section 3, Air Quality, and in the Air Quality
and GHG Emissions Report (Appendix A) in addition to the following:
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
74
Amortization of Construction Emissions. In accordance with SCAQMD’s recommendation, GHG
emissions from construction of the proposed project were amortized over a 30-year period and
added to annual operational emissions to determine the project’s total annual GHG emissions
(SCAQMD 2008b).
Service Population. The project’s per person GHG emissions were calculated by dividing total
GHG emissions by the project’s service population (residents). Average household size varies
throughout California; therefore, the service population attributed to this project is based on
the DOF estimate of 3.79 persons per residential unit in Fontana. The model predicted a
residential population of 1.539 residents (DOF 2022).
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to GHG emissions from the project
would be significant if the project would:
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment; and/or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.
The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to directly
influence climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute
incrementally to significant cumulative effects, even if individual changes resulting from a project
are limited. As a result, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a
project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future
projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][1]).
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, project analysis can tier off of a qualified GHG
reduction plan, which allows for project-level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison
of the project’s consistency with the GHG reduction policies included in a qualified GHG reduction
plan.). However, the City of Fontana has not published a qualified GHG reduction plan. The City of
Fontana Climate Action Plan published in August 2015 was only a draft and never formally adopted.
In addition, the document did not address SB 32. Thus, this approach is not currently feasible for
this analysis.
In the absence of a qualified GHG reduction plan, guidance from the 2017 Scoping Plan is used to
develop a service population threshold that is applicable on a local-level. Per-service population
GHG emissions reflect average GHG emissions taking into account population density. As discussed
in the 2017 Scoping Plan goals, local jurisdictions may demonstrate consistency with Scoping Plan
goals (i.e., SB 32’s emission reduction target) by establishing communitywide emissions targets tied
to the statewide per capita goals of 6 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT of CO2e) per
capita by 2030. Based on SCAG Regional Growth Forecasts, the City of Fontana is anticipated to have
a population of approximately 247,196 persons and 65,619 jobs in 2030 (SCAG 2020). As shown in
Table 13, the communitywide emissions target of 6.0 MT of CO2e may be equated to approximately
4.7 MT of CO2e per service population (SP) in the year 2030.
Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 75
Table 13 GHG Performance Threshold Determination
Metric Quantity
Service Population
2030 Population 247,196 persons
2030 Employment 65,619 jobs
2030 Service Population 312,815 SP
2030 Communitywide Target Derivation
Per Capita Target 6.0 MT of CO2e per capita
Mass Emissions Target1 1,483,176 MT of CO2e
Service Population Target2 4.7 MT of CO2e/SP
MT of CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; SP = service population
1 6.0 MT of CO2e per capita * 247,196 persons = 1,483,176 MT of CO2e
2 1,483,176 MT of CO2e/312,815 SP = 4.7 MT of CO2e/SP
Source: SCAG 2020
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Construction and operation of the project would generate GHG emissions. This analysis considers
the combined impact of GHG emissions from both construction and operation. Calculations of CO2,
CH4, and N2O emissions are provided to identify the magnitude of potential project effects.
GHG Emissions Quantification
Construction Emissions
Construction facilitated by the project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily from the
operation of construction equipment on-site, as well as from vehicles transporting construction
workers to and from the project site and heavy trucks to transport building materials and soil
export. As shown in Table 14, construction associated with the project would generate 3,364 MT of
CO2e. Amortized over a 30-year period pursuant to SCAQMD guidance, construction associated with
the project would generate 112 MT of CO2e per year.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
76
Table 14 Construction GHG Emissions
Construction Phase Year Project Emissions (MT of CO2e)
Phase I 2024 992
2025 1,151
2026 144
Phase II 2026 458
2027 108
Phase III 2027 358
2028 152
Total 3,364
Total Amortized over 30 years 112
MT of CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Source: Appendix A
Operational and Total Project Emissions
Operation of the project would generate GHG emissions associated with area sources (e.g.,
landscape maintenance), energy and water usage, vehicle trips, and wastewater and solid waste
generation. Annual operational emissions resulting from the project are summarized in Table 15.The
annual operational GHG emissions are combined with the amortized construction emissions.
Table 15 Combined Annual Emissions
Phase
Annual MT CO2e
Area Energy Mobile Waste Water Total
Phase I 5 548 1,837 43 57 2,491
Phase II 1 170 604 15 19 809
Phase III 1 146 507 12 17 683
Operational Total 3,983
Amortized Construction 112
Project Annual Emissions 4,095
Service Population 1,539
Emissions per service population 2.7
Per SP Threshold 4.7
Threshold Exceeded? No
MT of CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Source: Appendix A
Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 77
The project would generate approximately 4,095 MT of CO2e per year. The emissions would be
2.7 MT of CO2e/year/SP. These emissions would be below the 4.7 MT of CO2e/year/SP threshold,
which was developed to demonstrate consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan. Therefore, the
project would be consistent with the statewide GHG reduction targets. Impacts would be less than
significant
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
As discussed under Regulatory Setting, plans and policies have been adopted to reduce GHG
emissions in the Southern California region, including the state’s 2017 Scoping Plan and SCAG’s
2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The project’s consistency with these plans and applicable policies in the City’s
General Plan is discussed in the following subsections. As discussed herein, the project would not
conflict with plans and policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions.
2017 Scoping Plan
The principal state plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,
and the follow up, SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020 and the goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Pursuant to the SB 32 goal, the 2017 Scoping Plan was created to outline goals and measures for the
state to achieve the reductions. The 2017 Scoping Plan’s goals include reducing fossil fuel use and
energy demand and maximizing recycling and diversion from landfills. The project would be
consistent with these goals through project design, which includes complying with the latest Title 24
Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards, designing the project to be LEED
Silver certified, and installing PV solar panels, energy-efficient LED lighting, water-efficient faucets
and toilets, water efficient landscaping and irrigation, and EV charging parking spaces. The project’s
water consumption would be minimized through the use of low-flow plumbing fixtures, installation
of water-conserving appliances, and use of drought-tolerant native and adaptive plants as part of
the landscape design. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan.
SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
SB 375, signed in August 2008, directs each of the state’s 18 major MPOs to prepare a SCS that
contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the RTP. SCAG’s 2020-
2045 RTP/SCS includes a commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources by
promoting compact and infill development to comply with SB 375. The proposed residential project
would not conflict with any of the SCAG’s RTP/SCS goals, as outlined in Table 16.
Table 16 Consistency with Applicable SCAG RTP/SCS GHG Emission Reduction Strategies
Strategy/Action Project Consistency
Focus Growth Near Destinations & Mobility Options
Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate multimodal access to
work, educational and other destinations
Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance to reduce commute
times and distances and expand job opportunities near transit
and along center-focused main streets
Consistent. The project is an infill development
and would involve the construction of 406
multi-family residential units, open area, and
associated road and parking. The proposed
project would be within walking and biking
distance of existing residential, commercial,
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
78
Strategy/Action Project Consistency
Plan for growth near transit investments and support
implementation of first/last mile strategies.
Prioritize infill and redevelopment of underutilized land to
accommodate new growth, increase amenities and connectivity
in existing neighborhoods
Encourage design and transportation options that reduce the reliance on and number of solo car trips (this could include mixed uses or locating and orienting close to existing destinations)
Identify ways to “right size” parking requirements and promote alternative parking strategies (e.g., shared parking or smart parking)
and recreational uses. In addition, the project
is located adjacent to Foothill Boulevard and
Tokay Avenue which are serviced by Omnitrans
bus routes 10 and 66. The nearest bus stop for
Omnitrans bus route 66 is immediately
adjacent to the project site at the intersection
of Catawba Avenue and Foothill Boulevard,
and the nearest stops for Omnitrans bus route
10 is approximately 750 feet east of the project
site at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard
and Citrus Avenue. These features would
incentivize the use of public transit, active
transportation, and fuel-efficient vehicles for
traveling to and from the site. Therefore, the
proposed project would focus growth near
destinations and mobility options.
Leverage Technology Innovations
Promote low emission technologies such as neighborhood electric
vehicles, shared rides hailing, car sharing, bike sharing and
scooters by providing supportive and safe infrastructure such as dedicated lanes, charging and parking/drop-off space
Identify ways to incorporate “micro-power grids” in communities,
for example solar energy, hydrogen fuel cell power storage and power generation
Consistent. The project would incorporate all
applicable measures of the 2020 CALGreen
Building Standards, which are comparable and
more stringent in certain categories than LEED
standards. The project would include a solar PV
system, high efficiency insulation, tankless
water heaters, energy efficient LED lighting
fixtures, high-efficiency temperature control
systems, and water-efficient appliances and
fixtures. Proposed buildings would be
equipped for electricity and natural gas use.
Promote a Green Region
Support local policies for renewable energy production, reduction
of urban heat islands and carbon sequestration
Promote more resource efficient development focused on
conservation, recycling and reclamation
Preserve, enhance and restore regional wildlife connectivity
Reduce consumption of resource areas, including agricultural land
Identify ways to improve access to public park space
Consistent. The project is an infill development
and would involve the construction of 406
multi-family residential units, an open space
area, and associated parking and would
therefore not interfere with regional wildlife
connectivity or convert agricultural land. The
project would comply with applicable
conservation policies such as the City’s General
Plan, Title 24, and CALGreen, and would be
designed to achieve LEED Silver certification.
The project’s water consumption would be
minimized through the use of low-flow
plumbing fixtures, installation of with water-
conserving appliances, and use of drought-
tolerant native and adaptive plants as part of
the landscape design. Furthermore, the project
would include a solar PV system and the
residences would be equipped with Energy
Star appliances and energy efficient LED
lighting and HVAC systems. Therefore, the
project would support development of a green
region.
Source: SCAG 2020
Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 79
City of Fontana General Plan
The City’s General Plan Sustainability and Resilience, Infrastructure and Green Systems, and Land
Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Chapters contain several goals and policies that would reduce
citywide levels of GHG emissions. Table 17 shows the project’s consistency with these relevant goals
and policies of the City’s General Plan.
Table 17 Project Consistency with the Applicable Fontana General Plan Policies
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Chapter 10: Infrastructure and Green Systems
Goal 7: Fontana is an energy-efficient
community.
Policy: 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 incorporate all applicable measures of
the 2020 CALGreen Building Standards and would be LEED Silver
certified. The project would include a solar PV system, high efficiency
insulation, tankless water heaters, energy efficient LED lighting
fixtures, high-efficiency temperature control systems, and water-
efficient appliances and fixtures. Proposed buildings would be
equipped for electricity and natural gas use.
Chapter 12: Sustainability and Resilience
Goal 3: Renewable sources of energy,
including solar and wind, and other energy-
conservation strategies are available to city
households and businesses.
Policy: Promote renewable energy programs
for government, Fontana business, and
Fontana residences.
Goal 5: Green building techniques are used in
new development and retrofits.
Policy: Promote green building through
guidelines, awards, and nonfinancial
incentives.
Goal 6: Fontana is a leader energy-efficient
development and retrofits.
Policy: Meet or exceed state goals for energy-
efficient new construction.
Consistent. The project would incorporate all applicable measures of
the 2020 CALGreen Building Standards and would be LEED Silver
certified. The project would also be designed and operated to meet the
applicable requirements of CALGreen. The project would be consistent
with Title 24 and the latest CALGreen requirements. The project would
include a solar PV system, high efficiency insulation, tankless water
heaters, energy efficient LED lighting fixtures, high-efficiency
temperature control systems, and water-efficient appliances and
fixtures. Proposed buildings would be equipped for electricity and
natural gas use. Therefore, the project would comply with Goal 3, Goal
5 and Goal 6 Policy.
Goal 7: Conservation of water resources with
best practices such as drought-tolerant plant
species, recycled water, greywater systems,
has become a way of life in Fontana.
Policy: Continue to promote and implement
best practices to conserve water
Consistent. The project is an infill development and would involve the
construction of 406 multi-family residential units, an open area, and
associated parking and would comply with the City of Fontana’s low
water usage irrigation system and use of drip system and water-
efficient appliances. Therefore, the project would support Goal 7
policy.
Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design
Goal 2: Fontana development patterns
support a high quality of life and economic
prosperity.
Policy: Locate multi-family development in
mixed-use centers, preferably where there is
nearby access to retail, services, and public
transportation.
Consistent. The proposed project would construct multi-family housing
on a site adjacent to a mix of residential, retail, and commercial uses.
In addition, the project site is adjacent to Foothill Boulevard, which is a
major corridor served by several public transit routes. The project site
is within walking distance of bus stops for Omnitrans routes 10 and 66.
Therefore, the proposed project would align with this goal and policy
and supports sustainable land use development patterns.
Source: City of Fontana 2018b
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
80
As illustrated above, the project would be consistent with statewide, regional, and local strategies to
reduce GHG emissions, as detailed in Table 16 and Table 17. Therefore, the project would have a
less than significant impact.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 81
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ □ ■ □
b. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment? □ □ ■ □
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school? □ □ ■ □
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? □ □ ■ □
e. For a project located in an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area? □ □ □ ■
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? □ □ □ ■
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires? □ □ □ ■
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
82
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared a Phase I ESA for the project site in December 2020 to evaluate
present and historical land uses on the site in order to identify any potential recognized
environmental conditions (RECs).5 The full Phase I ESA is available in Appendix F. The below analysis
is based on the results of the Phase I ESA.
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Project construction would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials such as vehicle fuels
and fluids that could be released should an accidental leak or spill occur. However, standard
construction BMPs for the use and handling of such materials, such as the use of secondary
containment, would be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the project SWPPP to
avoid or reduce the potential for such conditions to occur. Furthermore, any use of potentially
hazardous materials during construction of the proposed project would be subject to all local, state,
and federal regulations regarding the handling of potentially hazardous materials. The transport,
use, and storage of hazardous materials during construction of the project would be subject to all
applicable state and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and the CCR
Title 22. Therefore, project construction would not create a significant hazard to the public and
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Operation of the proposed project would likely involve the use of common materials in the regular
maintenance of homes and landscaping, such as cleaning and degreasing solvents, fertilizers, and
pesticides. In addition, chemicals, such as chlorine, for the maintenance of the community pool
would potentially be stored on-site in minor quantities in a secured enclosure. However, these
maintenance activities would only require minor quantities of such products and would not involve
the use of extremely hazardous substances. Use of these materials would be subject to compliance
with existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the federal, state, and local
agencies related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. The transport, use, and
storage of hazardous materials during operation of the project would be subject to all applicable
state and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and the CCR Title 22. Other
than small quantities of materials used in the maintenance of the residential community, operation
of the proposed project would not involve the use or storage of substantial quantities of hazardous
materials, nor would the project generate large quantities of hazardous waste. Therefore, operation
of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environmental
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and impacts would be less
than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
5 REC is defined as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances of petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to
any release to the environment, (2) under conditions indicative of release to the environment, or (3) under conditions that pose a
material threat of a future release to the environment. The REC term does not include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment, and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.
Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 83
b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
As described above, construction of the project would involve the use of potentially hazardous
materials such as vehicle fuels and fluids that could be released should an accidental leak or spill
occur. However, as further discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the SWPPP for the
proposed project would include standard construction BMPs for the use and handling of such
materials to avoid or reduce the potential for such conditions to occur. Typical construction BMPs
include secondary containment and special storage for hazardous materials used onsite, the use of
drip pans under vehicles and equipment, and provisioning of spill kits and cleanup plans in the event
of an accidental spill. The transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during the construction
of the project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws, such as
the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, California
Hazardous Material Management Act, and CCR Title 22. In addition, as discussed under Impact 9.d,
the project site does not have a history of contamination, and on-site soil conditions would not pose
a risk to the public or construction workers from upset or accident hazardous materials release
during ground disturbing construction activities. Therefore, project construction would not create a
significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Operation of the residential community would not involve the use or storage of significant
quantities of hazardous materials and any pool chemicals stored onsite would be kept in a locked,
protective cabinet or closet. Therefore, project operation is not anticipated to create a significant
hazard to the public or environment through the accidental release of hazardous materials. Impacts
would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?
The nearest schools are Tokay Elementary School located approximately 0.13-mile to the north of
the project site and Almeria Middle School, located approximately 0.26-mile northwest. During
construction of the proposed project, hazardous and potentially hazardous materials would be
utilized for the transport and operation of vehicles and machinery. Construction equipment and
materials hauling would generally be directed along Foothill Boulevard and from there connect to
I-15 and/or I-10, avoiding Tokay Elementary School and Almeria Middle School. In addition, as
discussed above, the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during the construction of
the project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws, such as the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California
Hazardous Material Management Act, and the CCR Title 22. Compliance with these regulations
would reduce the potential of accidental spills or hazardous emissions during construction.
Furthermore, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would primarily involve the use
of common cleaning and landscape maintenance materials comparable to those materials already in
use in the project site vicinity. Although Tokay Elementary School is located within 0.25 mile of the
project site, the project would not regularly store or use significant quantities of hazardous
materials, nor would it generate large quantities of hazardous waste. Therefore, the project would
not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials that could result
in significant impacts to nearby schools. Impacts would be less than significant.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
84
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material 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?
A Phase I ESA and site reconnaissance were performed for the project site in December 2020.
During the site visit, no large-scale use of hazardous materials was noted and there were no
transformers, hydraulic equipment, or other uses identified on the project site that could pose a risk
to future site occupants or the environment. Historical sources reviewed as part of the Phase I ESA
include aerial photographs and topographic maps. According to the historical topographic maps
reviewed, a vineyard is depicted on the subject property in 1967, 1973, and 1980. However,
according to the historical aerial photographs reviewed, the subject property appears to have been
vacant land or agricultural land (dry farming) in 1938, and vacant land from 1949 to present day.
Based on the lack of evidence supporting the former presence of vineyards on the subject property
in the historical aerial photographs, it appears that dry farming, and not vineyards, were previously
present onsite. Because dry farming does not typically involve the use of pesticides, the former
agricultural (dry farming) use of the subject property is considered de minimis.
Based on the results of the database search conducted for the Phase I ESA, there are no RECs
associated with the project site, including historical RECs and controlled RECs. Likewise, the Phase I
ESA determined that no properties in the vicinity of the project site (within a one-mile radius) pose a
potential threat to the project site due to hazardous materials use. There is one property, a gas
station located approximately 0.13 mile east of the project site on Citrus Avenue and Foothill
Boulevard, that is included in a list of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cases. The two LUST
cases associated with the gas station were closed in October 1990, and according to the Phase I ESA,
the soils-only nature of the releases, low or undetectable concentrations of petroleum product in
soils, and the distance of the gas station from the project site indicate that this facility does not pose
a likely environmental concern for the project site. Therefore, the project site is not included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and does
not have a history of hazardous materials contamination. The proposed project would not create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment and impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
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?
The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or within an airport land use plan.
The airports nearest to the project site are the Ontario International Airport located approximately
nine miles to the southwest and the Riverside Municipal Airport located approximately nine miles to
the southeast. Furthermore, there are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site.
Therefore, the project would not result in safety hazards related to airports for people residing or
working at the project site and its vicinity. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 85
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed project would involve the construction of a new residential community with
406 multi-family housing units. During construction, temporary and occasional lane closures on
Tokay Avenue and Foothill Boulevard may be required, but two-way traffic would be maintained on
these roadways and at construction entry points. The City, as part of its requirements for obtaining
an excavation and traffic control permit, would require the contractor to submit a construction work
site traffic control plan for any street/lane closures to the City for review and approval prior to the
commencement of construction activities (City of Fontana 2021b). The submittal and approval of
the construction traffic control plan would ensure that construction would not interfere with local
traffic or emergency response and evacuation procedures.
Vehicles, including emergency response vehicles, would be able to access the project site via the
main entrance off Tokay Avenue and the secondary emergency access entrances off Foothill
Boulevard and Tokay Avenue. The proposed project would not modify Foothill Boulevard, other
than by adding the emergency access entrance. The project’s main entrance off Tokay Avenue
would include the addition of a dedicated left turn lane and right turn lane on Tokay Avenue for safe
turning movements in and out of the community. Other than restriping lanes for the dedicated turn
lanes, the project would not alter Tokay Avenue (e.g., no roadway widening required).
Implementation of the proposed project would not create new obstructions to an emergency
response plan or evacuation plan. In addition, the project would not result in inadequate emergency
access because it would be subject to Fire Department review of site plans, site construction, and
the actual structures prior to occupancy to ensure that required fire protection safety features,
including building sprinklers and emergency access, are implemented. Therefore, the proposed
project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response or evacuation plan. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The project site is in an urban area of the City of Fontana. Undeveloped wildland areas are not
located in proximity to the project site. As further discussed in Section 20, Wildfire, the project site
is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) or Very High Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) for
wildland fires (CALFIRE 2021). The nearest VHFHSZ is located approximately 3.2 miles northwest of
the project site on the opposite side of I-15. Therefore, the project would not expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
86
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 87
10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality? □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin? □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or □ □ ■ □
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ ■ □
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation? □ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan? □ □ ■ □
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
88
A Preliminary Hydrology Analysis and Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) were
prepared for the project site by Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. in August 2021 to analyze the
hydrological factors that may impact the development of the site. The reports identify drainage
patterns and hydrologic conditions of the site, evaluate post-development stormwater runoff
conditions, identify pollutants of concern, select BMPs for the management of stormwater, and
establish maintenance plans and responsibilities for the BMPs. The following analysis is based on
the information contained in these project-specific reports (see Appendix G).
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Construction of the proposed project could result in soil erosion due to earth-moving activities such
as excavation, grading, and soil stockpiling, and the generation of water pollutants, including trash,
construction materials, and equipment fluids. Prior to initiation of construction, the project would
be required to obtain coverage under a Construction General Permit to comply with Clean Water
Act National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, administered by the
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). In addition, the project would be
required to comply with the SARWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program.
Under the conditions of the Construction General Permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water
Quality Control Program, the developer would be required to eliminate or reduce non-storm water
discharges, develop and implement a SWPPP for the project construction activities, and perform
inspections of the storm water pollution prevention measures and control practices to ensure
conformance with the site SWPPP. The Construction General Permit prohibits the discharge of
materials other than stormwater discharges and prohibits all discharges that contain a hazardous
substance in excess of reportable quantities established in 40 CFR 117.3 and 40 CFR 302.4. The
General Permit also specifies that construction activities must meet all applicable provisions of
Sections 30 and 402 of the Clean Water Act. Compliance with the permit would require the
development and implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs during project construction.
The BMPs would include measures such as silt fences, gravel bag berms, and inlet protection that
would be implemented to prevent discharge of eroded soils from the construction-site and
sedimentation of surface waters offsite. The BMPs would also include measures to quickly contain
and clean up any minor spills or leaks of fluids from construction equipment. Conformance with
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and the Construction General Permit would ensure that
construction of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements.
Under existing conditions, the project site is entirely pervious, and stormwater flows in a
southeasterly direction across the site to storm drains within Foothill Boulevard. The proposed
project would decrease pervious area on the project site to 20 percent and would result in increased
stormwater flow, which can carry pollutants to downstream water bodies and adversely affect
water quality. Common pollutants associated with residential development include sediment,
nutrients, pesticides, metals, pathogens, trash, and oil and grease. However, in accordance with the
requirements of FMC Chapter 23 and the NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program Permit for San
Bernardino County (MS4 Permit), the project would prepare and implement a WQMP, which is a
program designed to minimize stormwater runoff and water pollutants through the installation and
long-term maintenance of BMPs. The Preliminary WQMP for the project identifies structural source
control BMPs consisting of catch basins throughout the site that would direct flows to an
underground modular wetland system for pretreatment and an underground vault capable of
holding 40,007 cubic feet of water that is designed to capture ten-year storm flows. Stormwater
Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 89
collected in the vault would be infiltrated into the ground, with any excess stormwater directed to
storm drains in Foothill Boulevard, similar to existing conditions. The Preliminary WQMP also
includes non-structural source control BMPs, such as storm drain system stenciling and signage,
provisioning of trash and waste storage areas, and water conservation features. The Preliminary
WQMP site plan is shown in Figure 12. The BMPs proposed in the Preliminary WQMP are designed
to reduce and appropriately treat stormwater before it is infiltrated into the ground or discharged
into the City’s storm drain system. With implementation of the Preliminary WQMP, stormwater
flows would be adequately retained on the project site and offsite stormwater runoff would be
minimized.
Compliance with the WQMP, including maintenance of the selected BMPs, would be required as a
condition of approval for the project. The WQMP would be subject to review and approval by the
City. The requirements of the applicable City ordinances and MS4 permit is intended to protect
water quality and support attainment of water quality standards in downstream receiving water
bodies. Therefore, operation of the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, nor would it otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impacts would
be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
90
Figure 13 Preliminary WQMP Site Plan
Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 91
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
The project site receives its water service from Fontana Water Company, which is operated by the
San Gabriel Valley Water Company (SGVWC). SGVWC primarily sources its water supply from
31 wells located in the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin and from four wells located in the
Central Groundwater Basin. The company also delivers imported water through a connection with
the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan), as well as emergency
interconnections with several surrounding water agencies to ensure the reliability of its water
supply (SGVWC 2021a). As discussed in Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed
project’s water demand would not substantially affect the SGVWC’s supplies. According to its 2020
Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency (UWMP), SGCWC would be able
to provide reliable water supplies for an average year, single dry year, and multiple dry years for its
existing and planned supplies through 2045 (SGVWC 2021b). In addition, both the Main San Gabriel
Groundwater Basin and Central Groundwater Basin are adjudicated basins, which limits the
allowable annual extraction of groundwater and provides oversight and protection of groundwater
quantity and quality within the basins. Therefore, operational water use associated with the
proposed project would not significantly deplete groundwater supplies or impede sustainable
groundwater management of the Main San Gabriel and Central Groundwater Basins.
The project site lies above the Chino Subbasin of the Upper Santa Anna Valley Groundwater Basin.
The Chino Subbasin was adjudicated in 1978, and the project does not propose any groundwater
extraction from the Subbasin (California Department of Water Resources 2021). Though the project
would increase the amount of impervious surface on the site compared to existing conditions, the
incorporation of the biofiltration system and underground vault would ensure stormwater is
captured and treated on the project site, from which it would be infiltrated into the ground.
According to the Preliminary WQMP, the infiltration BMPs proposed on the site would be capable of
retaining and infiltrating the ten-year stormwater flows, similar to existing infiltration rates on the
site. Therefore, the project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge in the
Chino Subbasin. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
c.(ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff
in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
c.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
92
c.(iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows?
The project would not alter the course of a stream or river as the project site and its vicinity contain
no water bodies. However, the project would alter internal site drainage through the addition of
approximately eight acres of impervious surface, which could increase stormwater runoff volume
and flow. As detailed under Impact 10a., new drainage features would be constructed on-site to
minimize potential flooding and offsite stormwater flows, in accordance with the requirements of
the FMC and the MS4 Permit. The applicable provisions of the FMC and MS4 Permit are intended to
protect water quality and support attainment of water quality standards in downstream receiving
water bodies. Compliance with the FMC and MS4 Permit requires preparation of a WQMP that
illustrates the capabilities of onsite BMPs to capture and treat flows from a ten-year storm event.
Furthermore, the WQMP includes an assessment of whether drainage alterations would create a
Hydrologic Condition of Concern (HCOC) due to hydromodification, such as changes in watershed
hydrologic processes and runoff that result in increased streamflow and sediment transport. As part
of the project’s final design review, the project would be required to submit a WQMP
demonstrating adequate stormwater retention using BMPs.
The project’s Preliminary WQMP proposes catch basins through the site that would collect and
convey runoff to a modular wetland system for treatment. Treated stormwater would then be
stored in a belowground vault, which would be infiltrated into the ground. The proposed system
would serve to treat water quality and to mitigate for a ten-year storm event. Flows in excess of the
ten-year storm would flow across the site to city storm drains in Foothill Boulevard, similar to
existing conditions. The proposed BMPs would slow the velocity of water and allow sediment and
debris to settle out of the water column, as well as capture stormwater on the site, thereby
minimizing the potential for downstream flooding, erosion/siltation, pollution, or exceedances of
stormwater drainage system capacity. In addition, the Preliminary WQMP determined that the
project would not result in a HCOC.
The project would implement BMPs to capture and retain stormwater on-site, as described above,
in compliance with the FMC and MS4 Permit requirements. Given that the project would not result
in a HCOC and would capture and treat all on-site stormwater runoff, alteration of drainage patterns
on the project site would not result in substantial erosion or siltation off-site, provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff, result in on or offsite flooding, or impede or redirect flood
flows. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
The project site is designated Zone X on the most recent FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, indicating
it is within an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2008). The project site is approximately 43 miles
from the Pacific Ocean and not subject to tsunami. The nearest inland water body subject to seiche
is the Live Oak Reservoir, located approximately 17 miles northwest of project site. The project site
is not located in the inundation zone for the Live Oak Reservoir (California Department of Water
Resources 2015). Therefore, the project site is at minimal risk of flooding. Furthermore, the project
does not involve storage or processing of pollutants, other than minor quantities of typical
household hazardous materials such as cleaning agents and landscaping maintenance materials,
Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 93
that would be released due to inundation should such an event occur. The project would result in no
impact related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation.
NO IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
As discussed under Impact 10a. above, project construction and operational activities would be
required to comply with the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan, NPDES Construction
General Permit, and MS4 Permit by preparing and adhering to a SWPPP and WQMP. With
implementation of the required SWPPP and WQMP, the proposed project would adequately treat,
detain, and control stormwater flows on the project site and would not conflict with or obstruct the
Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan.
As discussed under Impact 10b., the project would receive water from the Main San Gabriel Basin
and Central Basin through service provided by Fontana Water Company/SGVWC. These basins are
adjudicated, and water demand generated by the proposed project would not conflict with or
obstruct the sustainable management of these basins. The project site lies above the Chino
Subbasin, which was adjudicated in 1978 and is controlled by a court-mandated water management
plan to ensure its long-term sustainability. The proposed residential uses on the project site would
not be point source generators of water pollutants that could affect the Chino Subbasin, and the
project does not propose ground water extraction. Furthermore, as discussed under Impacts 10.a
and 10b., the proposed project would include a biofiltration system that would ensure stormwater
is captured and treated on the project site and then infiltrated into the groundwater, thereby aiding
in groundwater replenishment. Therefore, project construction and operation would not conflict
with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
94
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Land Use and Planning
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 95
11 Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ ■ □
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project physically divide an established community?
The project site is currently vacant and is enclosed by a chain link fence on the south side of the
property along Foothill Boulevard, the east side along Tokay Avenue, and the north side of the
project site. Primary vehicular access to the project would be by a gated entrance on Tokay Avenue
with secondary emergency access points on Foothill Boulevard and on Tokay Avenue to the north of
the primary entrance. Pedestrians would be able to access the project site via the sidewalks along
Tokay Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. As the project site is already fenced, the proposed project
would not substantially alter access in and around the project site or divide an established
community. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
The proposed project involves the construction of a residential community on a site with a zoning
designation of R-5 and General Plan land use designation of R-MFH, which permit densities of 39.1-
50 dwelling units per acre. The current zoning and land use designations permit the land use and
density of 39.3 dwelling units per acre proposed by the project. The City created the R-5 zoning
district allowing 50 units per acre and established the zone in the Fontana General Plan for locations
along Foothill Boulevard to meet Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) housing needs within
the city. The proposed project would be consistent with the intent of the General Plan to meet
RHNA housing needs by creating a high-density housing development on a vacant site, thereby
adding to the housing stock within the city. In addition, the project would be consistent with
Fontana’s General Plan goals and polices such as Goal 2 of Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban
Design, that states the City will revitalize the central part of the city—the area between Foothill
Boulevard and I-10— and City’s policy is to encourage infill on vacant and underutilized parcels (City
of Fontana 2018b). In addition to aligning with the City’s General Plan goals and policies related to
housing and land use, the proposed project would broadly align with General Plan goals and policies
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation environmental effects, as illustrated in Table 18.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
96
Table 18 Project Consistency with the Fontana General Plan
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Chapter 4: Community and Neighborhoods
Goal 1: The integrity and character of historic
structures, cultural resources sites and overall
historic character of the city of Fontana is
maintained and enhanced.
Policies:
Coordinate city programs and policies to
support preservation goals.
Collaborate with the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) and local
tribal organizations about land
development that may affect Native
American cultural resources and artifacts.
Consistent. The project site does not contain historic structures and
would not affect the historic character of Fontana. As described in
Section 5, Cultural Resources, the proposed project would implement
programs during construction to ensure that previously undiscovered
cultural resources on the site, if encountered, are preserved. In
addition, as described in Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, the City
has coordinated with the NAHC and local tribal organizations to
determine mitigation measures that would apply during project
construction to protect Native American cultural resources and
artifacts.
Goal 3: Cultural and archaeological resources are
protected and preserved.
Policy: Collaborate with state agencies to protect cultural and archaeological resources.
Consistent. As described in Section 5, Cultural Resources, and Section
18, Tribal Cultural Resources, the City has coordinated with the NAHC
and local tribes regarding the proposed project, and mitigation
measures have been identified to ensure that the project would not
have significant impacts to archaeological resources.
Chapter 7: Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails
Goal 3: Fontana has a healthy, drought
resistant urban forest.
Policies:
Support tree conservation and planting that
enhances shade and drought resistance.
Expand Fontana’s tree canopy.
Consistent. The project site currently contains seven trees. As detailed
in Section 4, Biological Resources, the proposed project plant 124
drought-tolerant trees on the site, increasing Fontana’s tree canopy
and urban forest.
Goal 5: All Fontana residents live within
walking or biking distance of a public park,
and there are sufficient public parks to serve
all areas of the city.
Consistent. As described in Section 15, Public Services, and Section 16,
Recreation, the project site is within walking distance of two
community parks, Northgate Park and Bill Martin Park. In addition, the
proposed project would include a variety of recreational amenities for
residents on-site, include walking paths, a swimming pool,
barbeque/picnic areas, and a fitness center.
Chapter 11: Noise and Safety
Goal 3: the City of Fontana is a community
that implements proactive fire hazard
abatement strategies, and as a result, is
minimally impacted by wildland and urban
fires.
Policy: Require residential, commercial, and
industrial structures to adhere to applicable fire codes for buildings and structures, fire access, and other standards in accordance with Fire Hazard Overlay District, California Fire Code, and City of Fontana Municipal Code.
Consistent. As described in Section 20, Wildfire, the project site is not
subject to wildland fire risk. The risk of urban fire at the site would be
minimized through compliance with the applicable fire and safety
codes, including building materials, site access, and automatic fire
suppression systems.
Environmental Checklist Land Use and Planning
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 97
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Goal 5: The City shall continue to ensure that
current geologic knowledge and peer (third
party) review are incorporated into the
design, planning, and construction stages of a
project and that site-specific data are applied
to each project.
Policies:
Require adherence to the latest California
Building Code regulations, update codes
and ordinances periodically for latest
advances.
The Building Official shall require
development proposals to include a
geotechnical hazard analysis as applicable.
Consistent. As detailed in Section 7, Geology and Soils, a Preliminary
Geotechnical Report was prepared to assess site-specific geologic
hazards and evaluation of design parameters in accordance with the
latest CBC. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in
accordance with the CBC and recommendations contained in the
Preliminary Geotechnical Report.
Goal 7: The City Shall discourage new development in flood-hazard areas and implement mitigation measures to reduce the hazard to existing developments located within the 100- and 500-year flood zones.
Consistent. The project site is not within a 100- or 500-year flood zone
and would therefore be consistent with the City’s goal to minimize new
development in areas subject to flooding risk.
Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design
Goal 1: The Strategic Policy Map and the
Future Land Use Map guide land-use decision making.
Consistent. Exhibit 15.7, Strategic Policy Map, identifies the project site
as within the i3 (Infill + Infrastructure + Interconnection
Neighborhoods) and Livable Corridors policy areas. i3 areas are
identified as those areas where new infill housing and enhanced
neighborhood attractiveness is desired. Similarly, Livable Corridors are
areas along major corridors, including Foothill Boulevard, that are
characterized by underutilized and vacant lots where new multi-family
housing is desirable due to the proximity to transit stops. The proposed
project would develop an attractive, village-like multi-family residential
development on a vacant lot, which aligns with the goals established
for the site in the Strategic Policy Map.
Goal 2: Fontana development patterns
support a high quality of life and economic
prosperity.
Policy: Locate multi-family development in
mixed-use centers, preferably where there is
nearby access to retail, services, and public
transportation.
Consistent. The proposed project would construct multi-family housing
on a site adjacent to a mix of residential, retail, and commercial uses.
In addition, the project site is adjacent to Foothill Boulevard, which is a
major corridor served by several public transit routes. The project site
is within walking distance of bus stops for Omnitrans routes 10 and 66.
Therefore, the proposed project would align with this goal and policy
and supports sustainable land use development patterns.
Source: City of Fontana 2018b
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
98
In addition, as described in Section 1, Aesthetics, Section 3, Air Quality, Section 6, Energy, Section 8,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 13, Noise, and Section 17, Transportation, the proposed project
would be consistent with the goals and policies of the AQMP, General Plan, SCAG’s 2020-2045
RTP/SCS, and the City’s Noise Ordinance as they relate to those individual environmental issue
areas. The proposed development would comply with all applicable policies contained in the
General Plan and the development standards for the R-5 zone. Accordingly, the proposed project
would not conflict with the City’s General Plan or zoning standards, nor would it conflict with other
applicable agency plans such as the AQMP and 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed project
would not conflict with land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Mineral Resources
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 99
12 Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 was enacted to promote conservation
and protection of significant mineral deposits. According to the California Department of
Conservation Mineral Land Classification Maps, the project site is located in an area classified as
Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-2, which indicates that the project area contains identified mineral
resources (DOC 1994). Though the project site is in an area with identified mineral resources, the
project site has not historically been used for mineral resource recovery and is in an urbanized area
primarily developed with residential and commercial land uses. The project site and its vicinity are
therefore not used for or compatible with mineral deposit recovery. In addition, according to the
California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), there are no active oil extraction-sites in
the vicinity of the project (CalGEM 2021). Given the existing conditions of the project site and its
surroundings, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource, and there would be no impact.
NO IMPACT
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
100
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Noise
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 101
13 Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? □ □ ■ □
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ ■ □
c. For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? □ □ □ ■
This section is based on the results of the project Noise Study prepared by Rincon Consultants in July
2022 (see Appendix H).
Fundamentals of Noise
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being
detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or
undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise
on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep
disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (Caltrans 2013).
Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level
(dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are
consistent with the human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around
4,000 Hertz and less sensitive to frequencies around and below 100 Hertz (Kinsler et al. 1999).
Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to
the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise
source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; dividing the
energy in half would result in a 3 dB decrease (Crocker 2007).
Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is
not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as
one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA,
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
102
increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible
(8 times the sound energy); and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud
(Crocker 2007).
Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver.
The most obvious change is the decrease in level as the distance from the source increases. The
manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g.,
point or line, the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions). Noise levels from a
point source typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance (e.g.,
construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units). Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway,
pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013). The
propagation of noise is also affected by the intervening ground, known as ground absorption. A hard
site, such as a parking lot or smooth body of water, receives no additional ground attenuation and
the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) result from simply the geometric spreading
of the source. An additional ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance applies to
a soft site (e.g., soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels may also
be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding”
depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features
such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features such as buildings and walls, can significantly
alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a
5-dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA]
2011). Structures can substantially reduce exposure to interior noise as well. The FHWA’s guidelines
indicate that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-interior noise level
reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows.
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs, and the
duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for
more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors
have been developed. One of the most frequently used noise metrics is the equivalent noise level
(Leq); it considers both duration and sound power level. Leq is defined as the single steady A-
weighted level equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating
levels over time.
Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that occurring during the day.
Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24-hour
average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.) hours. It is also measured using CNEL, which is the 24-hour average noise level with a
+5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise
occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL
usually differ by about 1 dBA. The relationship between the peak-hour Leq value and the Ldn/CNEL
depends on the distribution of traffic during the day, evening, and night.
Fundamentals of Vibration
Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that
move from a source through the ground to adjacent structures. The number of cycles per second of
oscillation makes up the vibration frequency, described in terms of hertz (Hz). The frequency of a
vibrating object describes how rapidly it oscillates. The normal frequency range of most
groundborne vibration that can be felt by the human body starts from a low frequency of less than
1 Hz and goes to a high of about 200 Hz (Crocker 2007).
Environmental Checklist Noise
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 103
While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general people are
most sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction
activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration of building
components can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, referred to as
groundborne noise. Groundborne noise is usually only a problem when the originating vibration
spectrum is dominated by frequencies in the upper end of the range (60 to 200 Hz), or when
foundations or utilities, such as sewer and water pipes, physically connect the structure and the
vibration source (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018). Although groundborne vibration is
sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are
outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building
occupants and vibration-sensitive land uses.
Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or RMS vibration velocity.
The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second (in./sec.). PPV is defined as
the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used in
monitoring of blasting vibration because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by
buildings (Caltrans 2020).
Vibration associated with construction of the project has the potential to be an annoyance to
nearby land uses. Vibration limits used in this analysis to determine a potential impact to local land
uses from construction activities are based on information contained in Caltrans’ Transportation and
Construction Vibration Guidance Manual and the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment Manual (Caltrans 2013; FTA 2018). Maximum recommended vibration limits by the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) are identified in
Table 19.
Table 19 AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage
Building Type Limiting Velocity (in/sec)
Historic sites or other critical locations 0.1
Residential buildings, plastered walls 0.2–0.3
Residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls 0.4–0.5
Engineered structures, without plaster 1.0–1.5
in/sec = inches per second
Source: Caltrans 2020
Based on AASHTO recommendations, limiting vibration levels to below 0.2 in/sec PPV at residential
structures would prevent structural damage regardless of building construction type. These limits
are applicable regardless of the frequency of the source. However, as shown in Table 20, potential
human annoyance associated with vibration is usually different if it is generated by a steady state or
a transient vibration source.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
104
Table 20 Vibration Annoyance Potential (Maximum PPV in in/sec)
Human Response Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources
Severe/Disturbing 2.00 0.70
Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10
Distinctly perceptible 0.240 0.035
Barely perceptible 0.035 0.012
Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls (i.e., a loose steel ball that is dropped onto structures or rock to reduce them to a manageable size). Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.
Source: Caltrans 2020
As shown in Table 20, the vibration level threshold at which transient vibration sources (such as
construction equipment) are considered to be distinctly perceptible is 0.24 in/sec PPV. This analysis
uses the distinctly perceptible threshold for purposes of assessing vibration impacts.
Sensitive Receivers
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated
with those uses. Sensitive land uses are generally defined as locations where people reside or where
the presence of noise could adversely affect the use of the land. The City of Fontana General Plan
list of noise sensitive uses includes residential uses; hospitals; rest homes; long term care facilities;
mental care facilities; schools; libraries; places of worship; and passive recreation uses (City of
Fontana 2018). Sensitive receivers in the area include the single-family residences located adjacent
to and north of the project site (Tokay Manor Mobile Home Park) and single-family residential
homes approximately 75 feet northeast of the project site across Tokay Avenue.
Vibration sensitive receivers are similar to noise sensitive receivers, such as residences and
institutional uses (e.g., schools, libraries, and religious facilities). The General Plan does not identify
vibration sensitive receivers; however, concert halls, hospitals, libraries, research operations,
residential areas, schools, and offices would also be considered vibration sensitive uses. Vibration
sensitive receivers also include buildings where vibrations may interfere with vibration-sensitive
equipment, affected by levels that may be well below those associated with human annoyance (FTA
2018; Caltrans 2013). Vibration sensitive receivers near the project site include the mobile homes
and single-family residential homes discussed above.
Project Noise Setting
The most common source of noise in the project site vicinity is vehicular traffic from Foothill
Boulevard and to a lesser extent, Tokay Avenue. To characterize ambient sound levels at and near
the project site, two short term 15-minute and one long term 24-hour noise level measurements
were conducted on June 15, 2021. Noise Measurement (NM) 1 was conducted at the northeastern
edge of the project site to capture noise levels attributable to Tokay Avenue. NM2 was conducted
near southern portion of the project site approximately 75 feet from the centerline of Foothill
Boulevard to capture ambient noise levels near the center of the project site. Additionally, the long-
term noise measurement was conducted near the center of the project site approximately 240 feet
from the centerline of Foothill Boulevard to capture ambient noise levels near the center of the
project site. Table 21 summarizes the results of the short-term noise measurements, Table 22 shows
the recorded traffic volumes during short term noise measurements, Table 23 summarizes the
results of the long-term noise measurements, and Figure 13 shows noise measurement locations.
Environmental Checklist Noise
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 105
Table 21 Project Site Vicinity Sound Level Monitoring Results
Measurement
Location
Measurement
Location Sample Times
Approximate Distance
to Primary Noise
Source
Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
NM1 Northeastern property
boundary, adjacent
Tokay Avenue
9:41 – 9:56 a.m. Approximately 55 feet to
Tokay Avenue centerline
51 38 69
NM2 Southern property
boundary, adjacent
to Foothill Boulevard
10:21 – 10:35 a.m. Approximately 75 feet
to Foothill Boulevard
centerline
62 45 84
dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent noise level; Lmin = minimum noise level, Lmax = maximum noise level
Source: Noise Study (Appendix H)
Table 22 Sound Level Monitoring Traffic Counts
Measurement Roadway Traffic Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks
NM1 Tokay Avenue 15-minute count 74 0 0
One-hour equivalent 296 0 0
NM2 Foothill Boulevard 15-minute count 283 4 3
One-hour equivalent 1,132 16 9
Percent 98.3% 1.1% 0.6%
Source: Noise Study (Appendix H)
Table 23 Project Site Noise Monitoring Results – 24-hour Long Term Measurement
Sample Time dBA Leq Sample Time dBA Leq
11:25 a.m. 50 11:25 p.m. 51
12:25 p.m. 46 12:25 a.m. 48
1:25 p.m. 51 1:25 a.m. 49
2:25 p.m. 49 2:25 a.m. 43
3:25 p.m. 55 3:25 a.m. 53
4:25 p.m. 55 4:25 a.m. 57
5:25 p.m. 49 5:25 a.m. 60
6:25 p.m. 49 6:25 a.m. 54
7:25 p.m. 51 7:25 a.m. 52
8:25 p.m. 50 8:25 a.m. 63
9:25 p.m. 51 9:25 a.m. 48
10:25 p.m. 56 10:25 a.m. 52
24-hour Noise Level (dBA
CNEL) 60
dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent noise level; CNEL = community noise equivalent level
Source: Noise Study (Appendix H)
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
106
Figure 14 Noise Measurement Locations
Environmental Checklist Noise
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 107
Regulatory Setting
Federal
FTA TRANSIT AND NOISE VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT MANUAL
The FTA provides reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise impacts based on the potential
for adverse community reaction in their Transit and Noise Vibration Impact Assessment Manual
(FTA 2018). For residential, commercial, and industrial uses, the daytime noise threshold is 80 dBA
Leq, 85 dBA Leq, and 90 dBA Leq for an 8-hour period, respectively.
State
California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational
noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use
compatibility. State law requires each county and city to adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise
Element prepared pursuant to guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research. The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive
noise levels. CEQA requires all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including
environmental noise impacts.
CALIFORNIA NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1973
California Health and Safety Code Sections 46000 through 46080, known as the California Noise
Control Act, find that excessive noise is a serious hazard to public health and welfare and that
exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage.
The act also finds that there is a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in urban,
suburban, and rural areas. The California Noise Control Act declares that the State of California has a
responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and
abatement of noise. It is the policy of the state to provide an environment for all Californians that is
free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
CCR Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, and the California Building Code codify
the state noise insulation standards. These noise standards apply to new construction in California
to control interior noise levels as they are affected by exterior noise sources. The regulations specify
that interior noise levels for residential and school land uses should not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
City of Fontana Noise Standards
CITY OF FONTANA GENERAL PLAN NOISE AND SAFETY ELEMENT
The City maintains the health and welfare of its residents with respect to noise through abatement
ordinances and land use planning. The City’s General Plan includes goals and policies with the intent
to reduce excessive noise impacts.
Goal 8: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent planning
through 2035.
Policies:
New sensitive land uses shall be prohibited in incompatible areas.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
108
Noise-tolerant land uses shall be guided into areas irrevocably committed to land uses that
are noise-producing, such as transportation corridors.
Where sensitive uses are to be placed along transportation routes, mitigation shall be
provided to ensure compliance with state-mandated noise levels.
Noise spillover or encroachment from commercial, industrial and educational land uses
shall be minimized into adjoining residential neighborhoods or noise-sensitive uses.
Actions:
A. The following uses shall be considered noise-sensitive and discouraged in areas in
excess of 65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): Residential Uses;
Hospitals; Rest Homes; Long Term Care Facilities; and Mental Care Facilities.
B. The following uses shall be considered noise-sensitive and discouraged in areas in
excess of 65 Leq (12) (Equivalent Continuous Sound Level): Schools; Libraries;
Places of Worship; and Passive Recreation Uses.
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.
Policies:
All noise section of the State Motor Vehicle Code shall be enforced.
Roads shall be maintained such that the paving is in good condition and free of cracks,
bumps, and potholes.
Noise mitigation measures shall be included in the design of new roadway projects in the
city.
Actions:
A. On-road trucking activities shall continue to be regulated in the City to ensure noise
impacts are minimized, including, including the implementation of truck-routes
based on traffic studies.
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.
C. Noise mitigation practices shall be employed when designing all future streets and
highways, and when improvements occur along existing highway segments.
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:
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.
Actions:
A. Projects located in commercial areas shall not exceed stationary- source noise
standards at the property line of proximate residential or commercial uses.
Environmental Checklist Noise
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 109
B. Industrial uses shall not exceed commercial or residential stationary source noise
standards at the most proximate land uses.
C. Non-transportation noise shall be considered in land use planning decisions.
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
Chapter 18, Article II (Noise) and Chapter 30 Articles V (Residential Zoning Districts) and VII
(Industrial Zoning Districts) of the FMC seeks to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise
and vibration. The following sections would be applicable to the proposed project:
Section 18-63(b)(6), Loading, unloading or opening boxes. The creation of a loud, excessive,
impulsive or intrusive and excessive noise in connection with loading or unloading of any vehicle or
the opening and destruction of bales, boxes, crates and containers within 50 feet or more from the
edge of the property.
Section 18-63(b)(7), Construction or repairing of buildings or structures. Construction activity is
limited 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. Project construction
noise levels are, therefore, considered exempt from municipal regulation if activities occur within
the hours specified in FMC Section 18-63(7) of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. However, if activity occurs outside of these hours, the
City of Fontana stationary-source (operational) noise level standards of 70 dBA Leq during the
daytime hours, and 65 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours shall apply.
Section 18-63(b)(8), Noise near schools, courts, place of worship or hospitals. The creation of any
loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive noise on any street adjacent to any school, institution of
learning, places of worship or court while the premises are in use, or adjacent to any hospital which
unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution or which disturbs or unduly annoys
patients in the hospital; provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such streets indicating that the
street is a school, hospital or court street.
Section 18-63(b)(10), Piledrivers, hammers, etc. The operation between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. of any piledriver, steamshovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric hoist or
other appliance, the use of which is attended by loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive noise.
Section 18-63(b)(11), Blowers. The operation of any noise-creating blower or power fan or any
internal combustion engine other than from the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on a weekday and
the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on a Saturday, the operation of which causes noise due to the
explosion of operating gases or fluids, unless the noise from such blower or fan is muffled and such
engine is equipped with a muffler device sufficient to deaden such noise.
Section 30-469, Noise. States that no use shall create or cause to be created any sound that exceeds
the ambient noise standards in Table 24 in residential zones.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
110
Table 24 Noise Standards
Location Maximum Allowable Noise Level (Day)
Maximum Allowable Noise Level
(Night)
All Zoning Districts 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m.
Interior 45 dBA 45 dBA
Exterior 65 dBA 65 dBA
dBA=A-weighted decibels
Source: Table 30-469 of the FMC
FMC Section 30-470, Vibration. States that no use shall create or cause to be created any activity
that causes a vibration that can be felt beyond the property line with or without the aid of an
instrument.
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
The project involves the construction of a 406-unit multi-family residential gated community with
amenities such as pools, exercise facilities, and jogging/walking paths. Noise-sensitive receivers,
consisting of single- and multi-family residences, may be subject to both temporary construction
noise and long-term operational noise. The following discussions address construction and
operational noise associated with the project and are based on the results of the Noise Study
(Appendix H).
Construction Noise
Construction activity would result in temporary increases in ambient noise in the project site vicinity
on an intermittent basis and, as such, would expose surrounding noise sensitive receivers to
increased noise. Construction noise was estimated using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise
Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2006). RCNM predicts construction noise levels for a variety of construction
operations based on empirical data and the application of acoustical propagation formulas. Using
RCNM, construction noise levels were estimated at noise sensitive receivers near the project site.
RCNM provides reference noise levels for standard construction equipment, with an attenuation
rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance for stationary equipment.
Variation in power imposes additional complexity in characterizing the noise source level from
construction equipment. Power variation is accounted for by describing the noise at a reference
distance from the equipment operating at full power and adjusting it based on the duty cycle of the
activity to determine the Leq of the operation (FHWA 2006). Each phase of construction has a
specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be accomplished during that phase. Each phase
also has its own noise characteristics; some will have higher continuous noise levels than others,
and some have high-impact noise levels.
Construction activity would result in temporary noise in the project site vicinity, exposing
surrounding nearby receivers to increased noise levels. Construction noise would typically be higher
during the heavier periods of initial construction (i.e., site preparation and grading) and would be
lower during the later construction phases (i.e., building construction and paving). Typical heavy
construction equipment during project grading could include dozers, loaders, graders, and dump
trucks. It is assumed that diesel engines would power all construction equipment. Construction
Environmental Checklist Noise
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 111
equipment would not all operate at the same time or location. In addition, construction equipment
would not be in constant use during the 8-hour operating day.
During Phase I of project construction, the nearest sensitive receivers would be mobile home
residences to the north of the project site (Tokay Manor Mobile Home Park). During Phase II of the
project, the nearest sensitive receivers would be residences in the project Wrap Building, which
would be occupied while Phase II and Phase II of construction occur. During construction of Phase III
of the project, the nearest sensitive receivers would be residences in the Tokay Manor Mobile Home
Park. Over the course of a typical construction day, construction equipment would be located as
close as 25 feet to sensitive receivers but would typically be located at an average distance farther
away due to the nature of construction and the size of the project. Therefore, it is assumed that
over the course of a typical construction day the construction equipment would operate at an
average distance of 350 feet from the nearest sensitive receivers (mobile home residences to the
north) during Phase I of construction, 80 feet from sensitive receivers in the project Wrap Building
during construction of Phase II of the project, and 160 feet from the mobile home residences to the
north of the project site during construction of Phase III.
Construction noise is typically loudest during activities that involve excavation and moving soil, such
as site preparation and grading. A potential high-intensity construction scenario includes a dozer
and scraper working during grading to excavate and move soil. As described above, construction
equipment would operate at an average distance of 80 feet to 350 feet from the nearest sensitive
receiver, depending on the construction phase. At a distance of 80 feet, a dozer and scraper would
generate a noise level of 78 dBA Leq (8-hour; RCNM calculations are included in Appendix H). This
would be below the FTA threshold of 80 dBA Leq (8-hour) for construction activity. In addition,
construction activities would be required to 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 Saturday pursuant to the City’s
Noise Ordinance, FMC Section 18-63(b)(7). Therefore, noise impacts from construction activities
would be less than significant.
On-Site Operational Noise
The proposed project would require periodic trash hauling and package delivery services. However,
the project site is located in an urban area and is surrounded by existing residential and commercial
uses that require similar trash hauling and delivery services. Therefore, because trash and delivery
trucks are already a common occurrence in the project vicinity, trash and delivery services would
not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without
the project. Additional on-site noise sources such as landscape maintenance, low-speed traffic on
internal roadways, conversations, pool and spa activities, and park activities also would be typical of
noise generated by neighboring land uses and limited to the daytime, outside of noise-sensitive
hours of sleep. Therefore, noise from these sources would not substantially contribute to overall
ambient noise levels.
Parking Structure Noise
The project proposes one new above-grade four-level parking structure at the Wrapped Building
southeast of the project site. The parking structure would provide 468 parking spots and is located
approximately 350 feet from the nearest residential use south of Foothill Boulevard along Mission
Street. Noise associated with parking structures typically includes vehicular circulation, screeching
tires, engines, door slams, car alarms, and human voices. As discussed above, parking structure
noise levels were calculated with the CREATE noise model that is based on the FTA General Transit
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
112
Noise Assessment methodology by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson (HMMH 2006). Estimated noise
levels are summarized in Table 25. Noise modeling data is included in Appendix H.
Table 25 Parking Structure Noise Levels
Description Distance Modeled Noise Level (dBA Leq 1-hour) City Threshold (dBA Leq) Exceed Threshold?1
Mission Street Residences 350 26 65 No
dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent noise level
1 The applicable threshold is the existing ambient noise level with adjustments (dBA Leq) at residential properties.
Source: Noise Study (Appendix H)
As shown in Table 25, future noise levels attributable to the operation of the new parking structure
north of the Mission Street residences would be 26 dBA Leq during peak hour parking activities.
Therefore, operational noise impacts associated with the parking structure would be less than
significant.
Mechanical Equipment Noise
Rooftop mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC units) would be located as close as 100 feet from the
sensitive receivers immediately to the north of the project site. The project would include 24 HVAC
units for each of the Big House buildings, including those located in the northern portion of the
project site, closest to sensitive receivers. HVAC units are considered continuous noise sources.
Pursuant to FMC Section 30-469, project impacts would be significant if exterior noise levels exceed
65 dBA Leq in exterior areas or 45 dBA Leq in interior areas. Combined Noise levels generated by
rooftop HVACs would be approximately 49 dBA Leq at 100 feet, which would not exceed exterior
daytime and nighttime noise standards of 65 dBA Leq. Standard residential construction (wood or
stucco siding, door weatherstripping, exterior wall insulation, composition plywood roof), results in
an exterior to interior noise reduction of 25 dBA with windows closed. Combined noise levels
generated by rooftop HVACs would be approximately 24 dBA Leq at 100 feet when accounting for
exterior to interior noise reductions, which would not exceed interior daytime and nighttime noise
standards of 45 dBA Leq. Therefore, impacts related to HVAC equipment noise would be less than
significant.
Other Operational Noise Sources
The proposed project would require periodic trash hauling and package delivery services. However,
the project site is located in an urban area and is surrounded by existing residential and commercial
uses that require similar trash hauling and delivery services. Therefore, because trash and delivery
trucks are already a common occurrence in the project vicinity, trash and delivery services would
not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without
the project. Additional on-site noise sources such as landscape maintenance, low-speed traffic on
internal roadways, conversations, pool and spa activities, and park activities also would be typical of
noise generated by neighboring land uses and limited to the daytime, outside of noise-sensitive
hours of sleep. Therefore, noise from these sources would not substantially contribute to overall
ambient noise levels.
Off-site Traffic Noise Increases
The project would generate new vehicle trips that would increase noise levels on nearby roadways.
As discussed in the project Traffic Impact Analysis, the project is anticipated to generate 2,736 daily
Environmental Checklist Noise
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 113
vehicle trips. The Traffic Impact Analysis study area includes roadway segments of Foothill
Boulevard, Tokay Avenue, and Citrus Avenue (TJW Engineering Inc. 2022). The project would not
make substantial alterations to roadway alignments6 or substantially change the vehicle
classifications mix on local roadways. Therefore, the primary factor affecting off-site noise levels
would be increased traffic volumes.
Roadway segment volumes and noise levels with and without project-generated traffic are shown in
Table 26 and Table 27.
Table 26 Off-site Traffic Volume and Noise Increases (Existing)
Roadway Segment
Speed
(mph)
Existing
Volume1
(ADT)
Existing +
Project
Volume2
(ADT)
Existing
Noise
Level1
(dBA)
Existing +
Project
Noise Level2
(dBA)
Noise
Level
Increase
(dBA)
Almeria
Avenue
Foothill Boulevard to Barbee
Avenue (North) 25 3,350 3,454 64.7 64.8 0.1
Foothill
Boulevard
Almeria Avenue to Catawba
Avenue (East) 45 19,540 20,265 69.7 69.9 0.2
Foothill
Boulevard
Almeria Avenue to Sultana
Avenue (West) 45 19,400 20,021 69.7 69.8 0.1
Almeria
avenue
Foothill Boulevard to Arrow
Boulevard (South) 25 1,550 1,654 61.4 61.6 0.3
Tokay Avenue Foothill Boulevard to Barbee
Avenue (North) 35 2,480 2,584 63.5 63.7 0.2
Foothill
Boulevard
Tokay Avenue to Citrus
Avenue (East) 35 19,640 20,675 68.5 68.7 0.2
Foothill
Boulevard
Tokay Avenue to Catawba
Avenue (West) 45 13,570 14,605 68.2 68.5 0.3
Tokay Avenue Foothill Boulevard to
Mission Avenue (South) 35 3,440 3,544 64.9 65.0 0.1
Citrus Avenue Foothill Boulevard to Barbee
Avenue (North) 40 11,920 12,231 69.9 70.0 0.1
Foothill
Boulevard
Citrus Avenue to Oleander
Avenue 45 11,670 12,084 67.5 67.7 0.2
Foothill
Boulevard
Citrus Avenue to Tokay
Avenue 45 16,830 12,505 67.4 66.4 0
Citrus Avenue Foothill Boulevard to Ivy
Avenue 25 14,120 12,891 69.5 70.9 1.0
dBA = A-weighted decibels; ADT = average daily trips; mph = miles per hour
1 Traffic Impact Analysis Existing PM Peak hour trips
2 Traffic Impact Analysis Project Trip Distribution
Sources: Appendix H, TJW Engineering Inc. 2022
6 The project would include the addition of a dedicated left turn lane and right turn lane on Tokay Avenue for movements in and out of the community; other than restriping lanes for the dedicated turn lanes, the project would not alter Tokay Avenue (e.g., no roadway widening required).
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
114
Table 27 Opening Year 2030 and Opening Year 2003 + Project Traffic Noise Increases
Roadway Segment
Speed
(mph)
OY
Volume1
(ADT)
OYP
Volume2
(ADT)
OY
Noise
Level1
(dBA)
OYP
Noise Level2
(dBA)
Noise
Level
Increase
(dBA)
Almeria
Avenue
Foothill Boulevard to Barbee
Avenue (North) 25 4,750 4,050 66.2 65.4 0
Foothill
Boulevard
Almeria Avenue to Catawba
Avenue (East) 45 23,480 26,140 70.5 70.9 0.5
Foothill
Boulevard
Almeria Avenue to Sultana
Avenue (West) 45 23,210 23,370 70.5 70.4 0
Almeria
Avenue
Foothill Boulevard to Arrow
Boulevard (South) 25 1,820 1,820 62.1 61.9 0
Tokay Avenue Foothill Boulevard to Barbee
Avenue (North) 35 2,940 4,790 64.2 66.2 2.1
Foothill
Boulevard
Tokay Avenue to Citrus
Avenue (East) 35 23,500 24,070 69.3 69.2 0
Foothill
Boulevard
Tokay Avenue to Catawba
Avenue (West) 45 23,730 23,890 70.6 70.5 0
Tokay Avenue Foothill Boulevard to
Mission Avenue (South) 35 4,130 3,950 65.7 65.4 0
Citrus Avenue Foothill Boulevard to Barbee
Avenue (North) 40 14,020 14,180 70.6 70.5 0
Foothill
Boulevard
Citrus Avenue to Oleander
Avenue 45 13,970 14,100 68.3 68.2 0
Foothill
Boulevard
Citrus Avenue to Tokay
Avenue 45 13,930 14,500 68.3 67.1 0
Citrus Avenue Foothill Boulevard to Ivy
Avenue 25 15,000 15,060 70.2 71.6 1.4
dBA = A-weighted decibels; ADT = average daily trips; mph = miles per hour; OY = opening year; OYP = opening year with project
1 Traffic Impact Analysis OY PM Peak hour trips.
2 Traffic Impact Analysis Project Trip Distribution based on total ADT.
Sources: Appendix H, TJW Engineering Inc. 2022
As shown in Table 26 and Table 27, traffic noise increases would be up to 2 dBA, which would not
exceed the 3 dBA criterion for off-site traffic noise impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Operation of the project would not include stationary sources of significant vibration, such as heavy
equipment operations. Rather, construction activities have the greatest potential to generate
groundborne vibration affecting nearby receivers. The City has not adopted specific standards for
vibration impacts during construction. Therefore, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction
Vibration Guidance Manual (2020) is used to evaluate potential construction vibration impacts
related to both potential building damage and human annoyance. Based on the Caltrans criteria
shown in Table 19 and Table 20, construction vibration impacts would be significant if vibration
Environmental Checklist Noise
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 115
levels exceed 0.4 in./sec. PPV for residential structures, which is the limit where minor cosmetic
(i.e., non-structural) damage may occur to these buildings. In addition, construction vibration
impacts would cause human annoyance at nearby receivers if vibration levels exceed 0.24 in./sec.
PPV, which is the limit above which temporary vibration activities become distinctly perceptible.
Vibration impacts were modeled based on the distance from the location of vibration-intensive
construction activities, conservatively assumed to be at edge of the project site, to the edge of
nearby off-site structures. Based on the distance from the project site to nearby residential
structures, equipment was modeled at 25 feet from the mobile home residences to the north.
Construction activities known to generate excessive ground-borne vibration, such as pile driving,
would not be conducted to implement the project. The greatest anticipated source of vibration
during general project construction activities would be from a dozer (large bulldozer used as proxy),
which would be used during grading activities. A dozer would create approximately 0.089 in./sec.
PPV at a distance of 25 feet (Caltrans 2020).7 Vibration calculations are included in Appendix H.
Construction-related vibration would be lower than what is considered a distinctly perceptible
impact for humans of 0.24 in./sec. PPV, and the structural damage impact to residential structures
threshold of 0.4 in./sec. PPV. Therefore, temporary vibration impacts associated with the dozer (and
other potential construction equipment) would be less than significant.
The project does not include substantial vibration sources associated with operation. Therefore,
operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
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?
As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is not located within
two miles of a public airport or within an airport land use plan. The airports nearest to the project
site are the Ontario International Airport located approximately nine miles to the southwest, and
the Riverside Municipal Airport located approximately nine miles to the southeast. Furthermore,
there are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site. Although the project site would
potentially be subject to occasional aircraft overflight noise, such occurrences would be intermittent
and temporary. Therefore, the project would not expose people working in the project area to
excessive noise levels associated with airports or airstrips and the project would not exacerbate
existing noise conditions related to airports or airstrips. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
7 PPVequipment = PPVref(25/D)n (in/sec) where PPVref is the reference PPV at 25 feet (0.210 in/sec for rollers), D is the distance from equipment to the receiver in feet, and n is 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through ground) (Caltrans 2013).
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
116
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Population and Housing
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 117
14 Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ ■ □
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The City has an estimated population of 212,809 (DOF 2022). According to SCAG’s 2020-2045
RTP/SCS, the City of Fontana is anticipated to have a population of 286,700 by the year 2045 (SCAG
2020). Therefore, the city’s population is anticipated to increase by 73,891 persons by the year
2045. The proposed project involves the construction of a 406-unit multi-family residential
community. According to the DOF, the average household in Fontana has 3.79 persons (DOF 2022).
Based on this, if all of the project’s housing units were filled by new residents of the City, the project
would increase the city’s existing population by approximately 1,539 people.8 The project would
increase the city’s population by approximately 0.72 percent, to 214,348, which would be within
SCAG’s 2045 population forecast of 286,700 residents (SCAG 2021). Therefore, population growth
generated by the proposed project would be within SCAG forecasts for the city and the project
would not induce substantial unplanned population growth. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site is currently vacant; therefore, the project would not displace existing housing or
people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact
would occur.
NO IMPACT
8 406 units x 3.79 persons per unit = 1,539 persons
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
118
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Public Services
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 119
15 Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1 Fire protection? □ □ ■ □
2 Police protection? □ □ ■ □
3 Schools? □ □ ■ □
4 Parks? □ □ ■ □
5 Other public facilities? □ □ ■ □
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives?
The Fontana Fire District (FFD) of the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) provides fire
protection and paramedic emergency services to residents and businesses within the city. The
closest fire station to the project site is San Bernardino County Fire Station No. 71, which is located
1.8 driving miles to the southeast at 16980 Arrow Boulevard. Station No. 71 is staffed with two
captains, two engineers, three firefighter medics, and one firefighter. Station No. 71 currently has
one medic engine, one medic truck and one squad vehicle (City of Fontana 2021a). Station No. 71
responds to about 6,000 incidents per year. The District's Strategic Plan lists the Fire District goals
for performance standards as follows (City of Fontana 2018c):
Dispatch - The performance goal of the Dispatch Center is to provide alarm processing within
one-minute 90 percent of the time.
Turn Out Time - The performance goal of the Fontana Fire District is to don turnouts for all units
for priority calls within one-minute 90 percent of the time.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
120
Distribution Reliability - The response goal of the Fontana Fire District is to provide a first-unit
response time of five minutes 90 percent of the time to moderate risk structural fires and core
life threatening emergencies.
In addition, the City of Fontana 2015-2035 General plan, Chapter 11, Noise and Safety, Goal 9 states
that the City maintains regulations, plans, protocols, and emergency training to reduce hazards and
risks and to meet state and federal requirements for emergency assistance. The policies formed
under Goal 7 are stated as follows: Keep hazard mitigation and emergency services programs up to
date and continue to provide hazard and risk mitigation and emergency training to public
employees and the public at large (City of Fontana 2018b).
In July 2021, the FFD was contacted with information regarding the proposed project and the FFD
indicated that the proposed project would be adequately served by existing fire stations in the
vicinity of the project site (FFD 2021). In addition, during the project application process, the City of
Fontana provided the application materials to the FFD for review. The FFD provides technical review
of all building construction plans within the City of Fontana and would review the proposed project
to ensure the buildings meet the City’s adopted 2019 California Fire Code, 2019 CBC, and California
Health and Safety Code prior to construction. The project would implement fire prevention and
suppression, including fire hydrants, fire alarms, and building sprinkler systems, to reduce the
potential for fires at the site and demand for fire services.
Though the proposed project would add new development and residents to the city, the project
would not require new or expanded facilities to support fire protection and emergency response
providers. Furthermore, consistent with the City’s General Plan policies and actions, developers in
the city are required to pay development impact fees that go toward public facilities such as fire
facilities. The District's Strategic Plan action item No. 2, Fire Facility Development Fee review, states
that in order to offset the capital costs for constructing new facilities, Development Impact Fees
(DIFs) are charged during the building permit process for all new development (City of
Fontana 2018c). The proposed project would pay the required DIFs for fire services, which would
offset the project’s incremental demand for fire services. Accordingly, the project’s potential
impacts to fire services and facilities would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives?
The Fontana Police Department (FPD) provides police protection services to residents and
businesses within the city. The closest station to the project site is the City of Fontana Police
Department located 1.4 miles to the southeast at 17005 Upland Avenue. The FPD currently has
188 sworn officers and operates out of the central police station downtown. Crime statistics and the
Police Department indicate that Fontana does not have any ongoing serious crime problems. In
recent decades the city has become one of the safest in the region (City of Fontana 2018b). The DOF
estimates that there are currently 212,809 residents in Fontana (DOF 2022). Therefore, FDP
currently operates with 0.88 officers per 1,000 residents.
The project would incrementally increase demand for police protection services by adding up to
approximately 1,539 residents to the city; however, the ratio of police officers to residents would
Environmental Checklist Public Services
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 121
remain at 0.88 officers per 1,000 residents with buildout of the proposed project. Furthermore,
during the application process, the City provided the application materials to the FPD for review and
feedback. The FPD did not indicate that development of the proposed project would require new or
expanded police facilities. Therefore, though the project would incrementally increase demand for
police services, the project would not result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities. In addition, the City requires the
payment of DIFs for the provisioning of police protection services. Consistent with the requirements
of FMC Section 21-122, the proposed project would pay the required DIFs to the FPD to offset the
incremental increase in demand for police services (City of Fontana 2019). Therefore, the project
would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities that could have
an environmental impact, and impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?
There are two public school districts that serve the majority of students in the City of Fontana:
Fontana Unified School District (FUSD) and the Etiwanda School District (pre-K to 8). The project site
is within the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD). FUSD serves most of the city and had an
enrollment of 36,685 students in the 2020-2021 academic year (Ed-data 2022). There are also
approximately 15 private schools in Fontana offer elementary, middle, and/or high school education
and 12 additional private schools for pre-kindergarten and kindergarten education (City of Fontana
2018b).
The need for new school facilities is typically associated with a population increase that generates
an increase in enrollment large enough to cause new schools to be constructed. The project involves
the construction of a 406-unit multi-family residential development. Households in Fontana, on
average, generate 0.7 schoolchildren (City of Fontana 2018a). Therefore, the proposed project
would be anticipated to result in approximately 285 new students in the FUSD, which would
increase enrollment by less than one percent.
The project would result in a relatively minor increase in students in the city. Nonetheless, the
project applicant would be required to pay state-mandated school impact fees that would
contribute to the funds available for development of new school facilities. Pursuant to Section
65995 (3)(h) of the California Government Code (SB 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), the payment of
statutory fees “...is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or
adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real
property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization.” Therefore, with the
payment of the required school impact fees, the project would not increase student enrollment at
serving school districts or lead to the need for new or physically altered school facilities. Impacts
would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
122
a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?
Fontana’s park to resident ratio minimum standard is 5 acres of public parkland per 1,000 persons,
and the General Plan includes goals for no net loss of public parkland and for all residents to live
within walking or biking distance of a public park (City of Fontana 2018b). The City of Fontana
General Plan indicates that the City owns 34 public parks comprised of a total of 1,195 acres.
According to the DOF, the city has an estimated population of 212,809 (DOF 2022). Therefore, the
city’s existing parkland ratio is 5.62 acres per 1000 residents, which meets the established General
Plan parkland ratio goal. As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the proposed project
could result in the addition of up to 1,539 new residents in the city, which would bring the city’s
population to 214,348. With the proposed project, the parkland ratio would be 5.58 acres per 1,000
residents, indicating that the city has sufficient existing parkland available to serve the proposed
project.
The nearest park to the project site is Northgate Park located 0.6-mile northeast of the project site.
Northgate Park is a small community park that includes a basketball court, playground, picnic areas
with barbecue grills, and restrooms. The project site is also one mile southwest of Bill Martin Park, a
larger community park, which includes ball fields, barbecue areas, basketball courts, picnic shelters,
picnic tables, playgrounds, restrooms, tennis courts and a snack bar. Therefore, future residents of
the proposed project would be able to walk or bike to nearby public parks, in conformance with the
goals of the General Plan. Additionally, the project would include onsite recreational amenities that
residents would be expected to utilize, including a recreation center, pools, fitness center, and
common open space areas with facilities such as barbeque and lounge areas, walking paths, and a
dog park. The project would also be required to pay the City’s Quimby Fees for future park
maintenance and development. The proposed project would therefore not create the need for new
or expanded park facilities and impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of other new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for other new or physically
altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives?
The project site in an urban area already served by public services and facilities, such as utilities and
public libraries. Development of the project would result in incremental impacts to the City’s public
services and facilities such as storm drain usage, solid-waste disposal, water usage, and wastewater
disposal. These impacts are analyzed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 19,
Utilities and Service Systems. The project’s contribution would be offset through project-specific
features described in the individual resource section analyses indicated above.
The City of Fontana is served by several public libraries, the closest of which to the project site is the
Lewis Library and Technology Center, located 1.7 miles to the southeast. As discussed in Section 14,
Population and Housing, the proposed project could potentially increase the city’s population by up
to 1,539 residents, which would be an increase of approximately 0.72 percent. Increased population
generated by the proposed project would incrementally increase demand on local public libraries in
the vicinity, such as the Lewis Library. However, the project would be subject to Fontana’s DIFs for
Environmental Checklist Public Services
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 123
library facilities. As a result, the proposed project would contribute to the financing of library
services through impact fees and property taxes, which would mitigate the need for new or
physically altered government facilities that support library use. Therefore, the project would not
substantially affect existing governmental facilities or require the need for new or altered
governmental facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
124
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Recreation
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 125
16 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ ■ □
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
According to the General Plan, the City owns and operates 34 public parks with a total of
1,195 acres of land for public use (City of Fontana 2018b). The City’s current service ratio is
5.62 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. As discussed in Section 15, Public Services, the potential
population increase associated with the proposed project would not substantially decrease the
existing parkland-to-resident ratio, and the City would still meet its goal of five acres of parkland per
1,000 residents established in the General Plan (City of Fontana 2018b). Additionally, the project site
is within walking or biking distance of two public parks, and the project would include amenities
such as a pool, recreation center, fitness center, picnic and barbecue area, and walking paths, which
would help serve the recreational needs of future residents. Additionally, the City currently collects
three acres of parkland or in-lieu fees from new residential subdivisions for every 1,000 residents in
accordance with California Government Code Section 66477 (Quimby Act). The project will be
required to pay the City’s Quimby Fees for future park maintenance and development. Therefore,
impacts related to recreational facilities would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
126
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Transportation
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 127
17 Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ ■ □
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ ■ □
TJW Engineering, Inc. prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) in June 2022 to evaluate the traffic
operations for the proposed project, identify potential impacts to the circulation system, and
recommend improvements. The following analysis is based on the findings of the TIA, which is
included as Appendix I.
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Regional access to the project site is provide by I-15, which is approximately three miles west of the
project site, and SR-210 located approximately two miles north of the project site. Local access to
the site is provided by Foothill Boulevard and Tokay Avenue. In addition, regional mass transit
service is provided by OmniTrans. The site is currently served by Omnitrans bus routes 10 and 66
along Foothill Boulevard and Tokay Avenue. The nearest bus stop for Omnitrans bus route 66 is
immediately adjacent to the project site at the intersection of Catawba Avenue and Foothill
Boulevard, and the nearest stops for Omnitrans bus route 10 is approximately 750 feet east of the
project site at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Citrus Avenue. Sidewalks are provided
along all roadways abutting the project site for pedestrian access. There are currently no bicycle
lanes along any of these roadways. Class II on-street bicycle lanes are proposed on Foothill
Boulevard from Cherry Avenue to Cedar Avenue, including the area along the project frontage,
according to the Fontana Active Transportation Plan (City of Fontana 2017).
Project Construction
Construction of the project would generate traffic for deliveries of equipment and materials to the
project site and construction worker traffic. Construction-related vehicles would travel to, and
access, the project site via Foothill Boulevard and Tokay Avenue. Construction worker trips were
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
128
estimated based on default values provided by the CalEEMod (see Appendix A). The project would
generate a maximum of 383 construction worker trips per day; this would occur during construction
of the Wrap Building, with reduced construction worker trips throughout the rest of the
construction period. Construction would also require approximately 10 hauling trips per day during
the approximately 2.5-month grading phase for soil import. Construction worker and hauling traffic
may result in increased traffic in the vicinity of the project site; however, these impacts would be
temporary and minimal.
Construction of the proposed project would not involve any vehicle or equipment staging on Foothill
Boulevard or Tokay Avenue. Construction vehicles and equipment would be staged on the project
site. Temporary lane closures on Foothill Boulevard and Tokay Avenue may be required during site
entrance construction and dedicated turn lane striping, but access to these roadways would be
maintained throughout the construction period. Construction also would not require any temporary
closures or alterations to the bus stops located nearby to the project site, and Omnitrans bus routes
10 and 66 would be able to continue operating at this location.
To further lessen the potential impact of construction traffic, the project would be required to
comply with all local and state standard conditions pertaining to construction including work hours,
traffic control plan, haul route, access, oversized-vehicle transportation permit, site security, noise,
vehicle emissions, and dust control. Whenever possible, construction-related trips would be
restricted to off-peak hours. Transportation of heavy construction equipment and or materials
requiring the use of oversized vehicles would require the appropriate transportation permit. In
addition, pursuant City of Fontana regulations, since the work will impact the public right-of-way,
the construction contractor would be required to submit a Construction Work Site Traffic Control
Plan to the City for review and approval prior to the start of any construction work that would
impact the public right-of-way. The plan would be required to demonstrate the location of any
roadway, sidewalk, bike route, bus stop or driveway closures, traffic detours, haul routes, hours of
operation, protective devices, warning signs and access to abutting properties. Temporary traffic
controls used around the construction area would be required to adhere to the standards set forth
in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and construction activities would be
required to adhere to applicable City ordinances. Therefore, construction would not conflict with
any programs, plans, or ordinances addressing the circulation system.
Project Operation
Operation of the project would generate new vehicle trips from residents accessing the site.
According to the TIA, the proposed project would generate 6.74 daily trips, 0.40 AM peak hour trips,
and 0.51 PM peak hour trips per dwelling unit. Therefore, the proposed project would be
anticipated to generate approximately 2,736 daily trips, with 162 AM peak hour and 207 PM peak
hour trips. As further described under Impact 17b., the City of Fontana, consistent with the updated
CEQA Guidelines adopted in December 2018, is required to use VMT as the primary metric for
evaluating transportation impacts associated with vehicle trips. The City of Fontana adopted VMT
guidelines consistent with these requirements in October 2020. The operational vehicle traffic
impacts of the proposed project are therefore evaluated according to the City’s adopted VMT
guidelines established in the City of Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for VMT and Level of
Service Assessment under Impact 17b. As discussed therein, the proposed project would not result
in significant VMT impacts.
In addition to the City’s adopted VMT guidelines, the Fontana General Plan Community Mobility and
Circulation Element, General Plan Land Use Zoning, and Urban Design Element, and Fontana Active
Environmental Checklist Transportation
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 129
Transportation Plan, contain the City’s goals addressing the circulation system. Project consistency
with the relevant goals and policies contained in the Fontana General Plan and Active
Transportation Plan is illustrated in Table 28, below.
Table 28 Project Consistency with Fontana Circulation System Plans
Goal Project Consistency
General Plan Community Mobility and Circulation Element
Goal 1: The City of Fontana has a comprehensive and
balanced transportation system with safety and
multimodal accessibility the top priority of citywide
transportation planning, as well as accommodating
freight movement.
Consistent. The proposed project would provide safe access
to the project site by striping dedicated right- and left-turn
lanes on Tokay Avenue for the main site entrance and
would provide safe circulation within the project through
the proposed internal driveways. In addition, the project is
within the vicinity of bus stops for Omnitrans bus routes 10
and 66 and would include internal walking paths that
connect to existing sidewalks along Foothill Boulevard and
Tokay Avenue and dedicated bicycle parking to enable
multi-modal accessibility to the site. Therefore, the project
would support Goal 1.
Goal 3: Local transit within the City of Fontana is a viable choice for residents, easily accessible and serving destinations throughout the city.
Consistent. The project is an infill development within an
area easily accessible by public transit, walking, and biking
and is adjacent to existing residential, commercial, and
recreational uses. In addition, the project is located
adjacent to Foothill Boulevard and Tokay Avenue which are
serviced by Omnitrans bus routes 10 and 66. The nearest
bus stop for Omnitrans bus route 66 is immediately
adjacent to the project site at the intersection of Catawba
Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, and the nearest stops for
Omnitrans bus route 10 is approximately 750 feet east of
the project site at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and
Citrus Avenue. These features would incentivize the use of
public transit for traveling to and from the site. Therefore,
the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 3.
Goal 6: The city has attractive and convenient parking
facilities for both motorized and non-motorized vehicles
that fit the context.
Consistent. The proposed project would include vehicle
parking spaces and dedicated bicycle parking spaces
consistent with the requirements of the FMC. In addition,
all Big House parking spaces would be EV capable and eight
to twelve Level 2 EV chargers would be installed in the
project parking garage. Therefore, the proposed project
would support Goal 6.
General Plan Land Use Zoning, and Urban Design Element
Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high
quality of life and economic prosperity.
Consistent. The project is a multi-family residential project
on an infill site in a residential area with nearby access to
retail, services, and public transit providing for a variety of
mobility options for residents. The project would include
recreational amenities for residents including walking paths,
shared and private open space, pools, and a recreation
center. Therefore, the proposed project would provide a
high-quality living environment with good access and
mobility options and would be consistent with Goal 2.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
130
Goal Project Consistency
Active Transportation Plan
Goal 1: Increase and improve pedestrian and bicyclist
access to employment centers, schools, transit,
recreation facilities, other community destinations across the City of Fontana, and facilities in neighboring cities for people of all ages and abilities.
Consistent. The proposed project would include internal
walking paths that connect to the existing sidewalks
surrounding the project site, as well as dedicated bicycle
parking to enable pedestrian and bicycle access to and from
the site. In addition, the project site is within walking and
bicycling distance of Omnitrans bus stops and existing
residential, commercial/retail, and recreational amenities,
enabling residents to utilize active transportation and public
transit to access community destinations. Therefore, the
project would be consistent with Goal 1.
Goal 3: Maintain and improve the quality, operation, and
integrity of the pedestrian and bicycle network
infrastructure that allows for convenient and direct
connections throughout Fontana. Increase the number
of high quality support facilities to complement the
network, and create public pedestrian and bicycle
environments that are attractive, functional, and
accessible to all people.
Consistent. The proposed project would include internal
walking paths that connect to the existing sidewalks
surrounding the project site, as well as dedicated bicycle
parking to enable pedestrian and bicycle access to and from
the site. Therefore, the project would incorporate
pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities and would
support Goal 3.
Source: City of Fontana 2017 and 2018b
As illustrated above, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable goals contained in
the Fontana General Plan and Active Transportation Plan. The project would continue to be served
by and would not interfere with existing and planned roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and public
transit facilities. The proposed project would not alter the alignment of Foothill Boulevard or
introduce features that would preclude the addition of bike lanes as planned in the Active
Transportation Plan, nor would the project alter operation of the existing Omnitrans bus stops in the
site vicinity. Therefore, project operation would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the updated
CEQA Guidelines package. The amended CEQA Guidelines, specifically Section 15064.3, generally
require the use of VMT as the primary metric for the evaluation of transportation impacts
associated with land use and transportation projects. In general terms, VMT quantifies the amount
and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project or region. All agencies and projects
statewide are required to utilize the updated CEQA Guidelines for evaluating transportation impacts
as of July 1, 2020.
The updated CEQA Guidelines allow for lead agency discretion in establishing methodologies and
thresholds provided there is substantial evidence to demonstrate that the established procedures
promote the intended goals of the legislation. Where quantitative models or methods are
unavailable, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 allows agencies to assess VMT qualitatively using
factors such as availability of transit and proximity to other destinations. The Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA provides technical
Environmental Checklist Transportation
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 131
considerations regarding methodologies and thresholds with a focus on office, residential, and retail
developments as these projects tend to have the greatest influence on VMT.
The City of Fontana adopted its VMT guidelines in October 2020. Therefore, the project VMT impact
has been assessed in accordance with the City’s VMT guidelines and guidance from City staff.
Consistent with recommendations in the OPR Technical Advisory, the City has established three
screening criteria for projects that may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.
These include if the project is located within a Transit Priority Area, is a residential or office project
located in a low-VMT generating area based on the San Bernardino County Transportation Analysis
Model (SBTAM), or if the project is a local-serving retail project of less than 50,000 sf.
According to the TIA, the project meets the VMT screening criteria because the project site is a
residential project located in a low-VMT area identified in the SBTAM. In addition, the TIA also
states that the project falls within a half-mile of a high quality transit corridor and thus the project is
presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact pursuant to the CEQA guidelines.
The residential uses associated with the project are consistent with the predominant land uses in
the vicinity of the project site, which includes a residential neighborhood. Therefore, the project is
reasonably expected to generate similar VMT as the existing land uses in this low-VMT area. In
accordance with the City’s VMT thresholds, VMT impacts associated with the project would be less
than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?
The project would be accessible via one main driveway located off Tokay Avenue, and two
emergency access driveways, one off Tokay Avenue and one off of Foothill Boulevard. The project
would include the addition of a dedicated left turn lane and right turn lane on Tokay Avenue for safe
movements in and out of the community. Other than restriping lanes for the dedicated turn lanes,
the project would not alter Tokay Avenue (e.g., no roadway widening required). The primary entry
would be set back approximately 160 feet from the Tokay Avenue right-of-way, providing for
adequate line of sight for vehicles exiting and entering the community. Project site plans indicate
the provisioning of on-site streets and drive aisles to accommodate vehicular access to and
circulation throughout the project site, and internal roadway speed limits, speed bumps, and other
traffic calming features would be included to ensure safe circulation within the site. Furthermore,
the proposed residential development would not result in uses that would be incompatible with the
existing land uses surrounding the project site, which also consist of residential uses. Therefore,
implementation of the project would not result in substantial hazards due to geometric design
features or incompatible uses, and impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
During construction, temporary and occasional lane closures may be required on Foothill Boulevard
and Tokay Avenue, however two-way traffic would still be maintained at construction entry points
and along Foothill Boulevard and Tokay Avenue as required by the City of Fontana’s Excavation and
Traffic Control Permit. Therefore, project construction would not result in inadequate emergency
access to the project site or surroundings.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
132
During project operation, emergency response vehicles would be able to access the project site via
the main entrance off Tokay Avenue and the emergency access entrances off Foothill Boulevard and
Tokay Avenue. Site circulation plans would be reviewed by the fire department during the project
application process to ensure adequate onsite lane widths and configurations for emergency vehicle
ingress and egress. Furthermore, the proposed project would not modify existing roadways in the
vicinity, other than by adding new site access points, and would therefore not affect emergency
vehicle use of area roadways. The project would be subject to FFD review of site plans prior to
occupancy to ensure that required fire protection safety features, including emergency access, are
implemented. Therefore, project impacts related to emergency access would be less than
significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Tribal Cultural Resources
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 133
18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in a PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in PRC
Section 5020.1(k), or □ ■ □ □
b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe. □ ■ □ □
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
As of July 1, 2015, AB 52 was enacted and expands CEQA by defining a new resource category,
“tribal cultural resources.” 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 Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency
shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal
cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).
PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places,
cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe” that are either:
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
134
1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register
of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or
2. 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 PRC Section 5024.1.
In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.
The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB
52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native
American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects
proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
Rincon requested a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) by the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) on April 5, 2021. The NAHC sent a response on April 19, 2021 stating that a
search of the SLF was completed with negative results. The NAHC also provided a list of 17 Native
American contacts who may have knowledge regarding cultural resources of Native American origin
within the project site. Five tribes have requested notification of projects in Fontana: the Soboba
Band of Luiseño Indians, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation), San Manuel
Band of Mission Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and San Gabriel Band of Mission
Indians. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the City mailed consultation letters to these tribes on
September 22, 2021.
The City received a response from the Kizh Nation on October 8, 2021 requesting consultation to
discuss the proposed project in further detail. A consultation meeting between Kizh Nation
representatives and City Staff took place on December 2, 2021 and confidential materials regarding
areas of potential sensitivity for tribal cultural resources were shared with the City. In addition, the
City received a response from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on October 12, 2021
indicating that the Tribe does not have any concerns with the proposed project but requesting that
the City inform the Tribe of any cultural/archaeological studies completed for the project and
contact the tribe if Tribal cultural resources are unearthed during the course of the project
construction.
Although no Tribal cultural resources are expected to be present on-site based on the records
search and survey results, the possibility of encountering undisturbed subsurface tribal cultural
resources cannot be ruled out. The proposed excavation of the project site could potentially result
in adverse effects to unanticipated tribal cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures
The following Mitigation Measures would reduce potential impacts related to disrupting tribal
cultural resources to a less than significant level.
TCR-1 Unanticipated Discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources and Native American
Monitors
The project applicant shall obtain the services of a qualified Native American Monitor(s) and a
qualified archaeological monitor during construction-related ground disturbance activities if any
consulting Tribe(s) requests a monitor to be present during such activities. Ground disturbance is
defined as activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring,
Environmental Checklist Tribal Cultural Resources
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 135
grubbing, weed abatement, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project
area. An archaeological monitor must be present at all times alongside the Native American
monitor. The Native American monitor will be a separate individual from the qualified
archaeological monitor and will be a representative of the consulting Tribe(s). If more than one
Tribe requests consultation, one representative from each Tribe shall be designated a Native
American monitor and the Tribes will rotate monitors on a daily basis. Any consulting Tribe may
allow the archaeological monitor to represent the Tribe if they cannot provide a monitor
themselves; prior approval by the consulting tribe and City in writing is required. If the City
determines that an individual qualifies as both a qualified archaeologist and Native American
Monitor, they may be the same individual. If consulting Tribe(s) do not request the presence of a
monitor during ground disturbing activities, then a Native American monitor must be retained on
standby for the identification of any unanticipated discovery of Tribal cultural resources or
prehistoric cultural resources.
The Native American Monitor(s) shall complete monitoring logs on a daily basis that provide
descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural
materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the construction-related ground
disturbance activities are completed, or when the Native American monitor(s) in consultation with
the qualified archaeological monitor have indicated that the site has a low potential for
archeological resources.
If the resources are determined to be human remains (see also Mitigation Measure TCR-2) the
coroner shall be notified, and if the human remains are Native American in origin, the coroner shall
notify the NAHC as mandated by state law, who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD).
The MLD shall then coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these
resources. Typically, the MLD will request reburial or preservation.
TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary
Objects
Human burials outside of formal cemeteries can occur in prehistoric archeological contexts. While
no known burial sites have been identified in the project area, excavations during construction
activities could have the potential to disturb these resources, which include Native American burial
sites. The term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient, as well as
historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the burial of associated cultural
resources (funerary objects) with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.
These remains are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact.
Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are
reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death
or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be
considered as associated funerary objects.
All development projects are subject to State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
that states that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The county coroner must
be notified of the find within 24 hours of identification. All work in the areas shall be immediately
diverted and a minimum of 50 feet exclusion zone around the burial shall be created. If the human
remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner must notify the NAHC, which will determine
and notify a MLD. The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of being
granted site access.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
136
Significance After Mitigation
Adherence to the California Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code, along with
implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, TCR-1, and TCR-2, would reduce the potential
for impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less-than-significant level.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 137
19 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects? □ □ ■ □
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ ■ □
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments? □ □ ■ □
d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals? □ □ ■ □
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? □ □ ■ □
A Water System Hydraulic Analysis and Sewer System Hydraulic Analysis were prepared for the
project site by Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. in July 2021 to analyze factors related to water and
sewer infrastructure that may impact the development of the site. The reports included review of
proposed water, sewer, and drainage infrastructure on the project site. The following analysis is
based on the information contained in these project-specific reports (see Appendix K).
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
138
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Water
The project site is in an urbanized area and is well-served by existing utilities infrastructure. The
project site lies within the service boundaries of the Fontana Water Company operated by SGVWC,
from which it would receive water service. As discussed further below under Impact 19b., SGVWC
would have adequate water supplies available for the proposed project and no new or expanded
water facilities would be required to serve the project. The proposed onsite water conveyance
system consists of 8- and 10-inch diameter water mains. The proposed water system includes two
connections to existing SGVWC water mains in the Foothill Boulevard and Tokay Avenue rights-of-
way. According to the results of the Water System Hydraulic Analysis, the proposed water system
would meet the City’s design standards, and upgrades to the existing water system mains would not
be required in order to serve the proposed development. Therefore, impacts related to water
facilities would be less than significant.
Wastewater
The City operates a sanitary sewer system of over 250 miles of sewer lines and six sewage pump
stations. According to the plans prepared for the proposed project, the main sewer facilities in the
project vicinity consist of an 8-inch sewer line located along Foothill Boulevard, which is maintained
by the City of Fontana (see Appendix K). The project would install an 8-inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP)
private sewer main within the project site, which would connect to the 8-inch sewer line in Foothill
Boulevard. Six-inch private sewer laterals and mains throughout the project site would connect to
the 8-inch private sewer main, which would discharge wastewater to the city’s sewer main in
Foothill Boulevard. According to the Sewer System Hydraulic Analysis, multifamily residential units
in Fontana generate approximately 289 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. Therefore, operation
of the residential community would result in an additional 117,334 gpd of wastewater being
discharged to the Foothill Boulevard sewer main. The City of Fontana has provided a Will-Serve
Letter for the project, indicating that Fontana’s existing sewer system is available for project
connection and has adequate capacity to serve the project (Appendix K).
While Fontana owns the local sewer infrastructure, wastewater treatment services are supplied by a
regional authority, the Inland Empire Utilities Authority (IEUA), which also delivers recycled water
for non-potable uses. The IEUA owns and operates six regional wastewater treatment facilities,
including one in nearby Ontario and one in Rancho Cucamonga. The City of Fontana is within the
service area of two of IEUA’s Regional Plants (RP), RP-1 and RP-4. The treatment capacity of RP-1 is
44 million gpd, and currently treats approximately 28 million gpd, or 65 percent of its capacity. The
treatment capacity of RP-4 is 14 million gpd, and typically treats approximately 10 million gpd or
approximately 71 percent of capacity (City of Fontana 2018a). The proposed project would increase
wastewater flow by 117,334 gpd, which would account for approximately 0.73 percent and
2.9 percent of the remaining capacities of RP-1 and RP-4, respectively. Therefore, the IEUA would
have adequate capacity to provide wastewater treatment for the proposed project and the
Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 139
proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance
or treatment facilities.
Stormwater
The project site would continue to connect to the existing storm drain system operated and
maintained by the City. According to the Preliminary WQMP prepared for the proposed project (see
Appendix G), the project would include a private storm drain system consisting of catch basins and
inlets that would direct flows to an underground modular wetland system for pretreatment and an
underground vault capable of holding 40,007 cubic feet of water, designed to capture 10-year storm
flows. Stormwater collected in the vault would be infiltrated into the ground, with any excess
stormwater directed to storm drains in Foothill Boulevard, similar to existing conditions. As
described in detail under Impact 10c., the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of the
existing stormwater drainage system. Therefore, the project would not necessitate the construction
of new city stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, and impacts would be
less than significant.
Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
The project would not cause substantial unplanned population growth (see Section 14, Population
and Housing), and would not result in wasteful or inefficient use of energy (see Section 6, Energy).
Project operation would result in an increase in electricity consumption on the project site by
2.77 GWh per year. The project’s electricity demand would be served by SCE, which supplied
83,533 GWh of electricity to its service area in 2021 (CEC 2022a). The project’s electricity demand
would represent approximately 0.003 percent of electricity provided by SCE. The project would
connect to existing electrical utility lines running through the project site, which would be
undergrounded during project construction, and would not require the extension or expansion of
electrical facilities. A will serve letter was provided for the project by SCE, indicating that SCE would
serve the proposed project (Appendix K).
Estimated natural gas consumption for the project would be 0.074 MMthm per year (see
Appendix A). The project’s natural gas demand would be served by the SoCal Gas, which provided
5,231 MMthm per year in 2020 (CEC 2022b). The project’s natural gas consumption would represent
approximately 0.001 percent of natural gas provided by SoCal Gas. A will serve letter was provided
for the project by SoCalGas, indicating that there are adequate facilities and supplies in the area to
serve the project (Appendix K). Likewise, the project site is an infill project served by existing
telecommunications facilities within the city. Will serve letters from Charter Communications and
AT&T were received for the project, indicating that the project would not require the expansion or
construction of new telecommunications infrastructure (Appendix K).
As described in the above analysis, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts
due to the construction of new utility facilities and the project would be served by a wastewater
treatment plant with adequate capacity. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
As discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project site receives its water service
from SGVWC. SGVWC primarily sources its water supply from 31 wells located in the Main San
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
140
Gabriel Groundwater Basin and from four wells located in the Central Groundwater Basin. The
company also delivers imported water through a connection with Metropolitan, as well as
emergency interconnections with several surrounding water agencies to ensure the reliability of its
water supply (SGVWC 2021a).
According to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), SGVWC would have an adequate
supply of water, with normal conservation efforts, to meet projected demand through 2045 in
average year, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios (SGVWC 2021b). Table 29 and
Table 30 show projected water supply and demand under normal year and multiple dry year
conditions and single dry year conditions, respectively, in the SGVWC service area through 2045
according to the 2020 UWMP.
Table 29 Normal Year and Multiple Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison (acre-feet per year [AFY])
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Estimated Service Area Population 259,897 263,508 267,169 270,081 273,024
Water Supply Totals 36,935 37,421 37,911 38,304 38,700
Water Demand Totals 36,935 37,421 37,911 38,304 38,700
Source: SGVWC 2021b
Table 30 Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Estimated Service Area Population 259,897 263,508 267,169 270,081 273,024
Water Supply Totals 35,578 36,046 36,518 36,897 37,278
Water Demand Totals 35,578 36,046 36,518 36,897 37,278
Source: SGVWC 2021b
The project would be constructed in accordance with all applicable CALGreen standards and would
be constructed to LEED Silver standards, including those that require water-efficient fixtures and
features, and would also be required to adhere to applicable water conservation measures for
landscaping. According to CalEEMod results (see Appendix A), the project would demand
approximately 34,510,000 gallons of water per year, or approximately 106 AFY. SGVWC anticipates
water demand to increase by 1,700 to 1,765 AFY between 2025 and 2045. Therefore, the water use
associated with the proposed project would be within the anticipated water demand increase for
SGVWC and would be accommodated by the water supply available for the city during normal,
single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions through the year 2045. The project’s impact on
water supply would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 141
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341) set a statewide goal for a 75 percent reduction in waste disposal by the
year 2020 and established mandatory recycling for commercial businesses. The City is required to
comply with this law and report their progress towards achieving the 75 percent reduction goal to
the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). The City contracts with Burrtec
Waste Industries to provide trash, recycling, and special pickup services for residents. After
collection, waste is conveyed to a transfer station in Rancho Cucamonga where recyclables are
sorted from solid waste. Non-recyclable waste is then sent to the Mid-Valley Landfill, which is
permitted to process 7,500 tons of mixed material each day and has a current daily throughput of
approximately 3,575 tons. Therefore, the landfill has a remaining capacity of 3,925 tons per day. The
anticipated life for the landfill at its currently permitted capacity is 2033 (CalRecycle 2021; City of
Fontana 2018a).
Construction of the proposed project would generate solid waste, including construction debris. This
construction debris would include materials such as scrap wood, concrete, and plaster materials.
Construction debris would be removed and disposed of in a timely manner and in accordance with
all applicable laws and regulations. Pursuant to the City’s Construction and Demolition Debris
Recycling Program, project construction would be required to divert a minimum of 65 percent of
construction waste. Construction waste would be hauled to the Mid-Valley Landfill, located five
roadway miles from the project site. The removal of construction debris would only occur during the
construction period and construction of the proposed project would not contribute to an
exceedance of the permitted capacity of any local landfill.
According to the CalEEMod results (see Appendix A), operation of the proposed project would
generate approximately 140 tons of solid waste per year or 0.4 tons per day. The project’s solid
waste generation would not exceed the current estimated remaining daily capacity of 3,925 tons at
Mid-Valley Landfill. In addition, the proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local
statues and regulations related to solid waste, such as AB 939 and the City’s recycling programs for
residences. Therefore, the project’s impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
142
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Wildfire
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 143
20 Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? □ □ ■ □
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? □ □ □ ■
c. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment? □ □ □ ■
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes? □ □ □ ■
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
A FHSZ is a mapped area that designates zones (based on factors such as fuel, slope, and fire
weather) with varying degrees of fire hazard (i.e., moderate, high, and very high). While FHSZs do
not predict when or where a wildfire will occur, they do identify areas where wildfire hazards could
be more severe and therefore are of greater concern. FHSZs are meant to help limit wildfire damage
to structures through planning, prevention, and mitigation activities/requirements that reduce risk.
The FHSZs serve several purposes: they are used to designate areas where California’s wildland
urban interface building codes apply to new buildings, they can be a factor in real estate disclosure,
and they can help local governments consider fire hazard severity in the safety elements of their
general plans. The California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer is an online application tool that
includes mapped FHSZs for State Responsibility Area (SRA) lands and separate VHFHSZs for Local
Responsibility Area (LRA) lands (CALFIRE 2021).
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
144
The project site is in an urban area of Fontana surrounded by roads and structures, including
residential and commercial buildings. Undeveloped wildland areas are not located near the project
site. According to the California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, the project site is not located in a
FHSZ or VHFHSZ for wildland fires (CALFIRE 2021). The nearest VHFHSZ is located approximately
3.2 miles northwest of the project site on the opposite side of I-15. Additionally, as stated in the
Fontana General Plan, within the City of Fontana, fire hazards have been ranked within the range of
little to no threat (City of Fontana 2018b). Therefore, the project site would not be subject to
substantial risk of wildfire.
The project involves the construction of a 406-unit multi-family residential gated community which
would incrementally increase demand for fire protection services. As discussed in Section 15, Public
Services, the project site is in an urbanized area already served by the San Bernardino County Fire
Department and would not have a significant impact on fire response times nor create a
substantially greater need for additional fire protection services above current capacity. The closest
fire station to the project site is San Bernardino County Fire Station No. 71, which is located
1.4 miles to the southeast at 16980 Arrow Boulevard and would provide emergency and evacuation
services in the event of a fire. Furthermore, all buildings would be constructed to meet the current
building code fire safety requirements. During construction and operation of the proposed project,
emergency access to the site and on area roadways would be maintained and the project would not
include any components such as roadway closures that would interfere with an emergency response
plan or evacuation route. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes
or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes?
As discussed under Impact 20a., the project site is not located in a FHSZ or VHFHSZ for wildland
fires. There are no streams or rivers located on or adjacent to the project site, and the project site
and surrounding areas are relatively flat and not at high risk of downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides. The project does not propose uses that could exacerbate wildfire risks and risks to
project occupants would be mitigated through conformance with the 2019 California Fire Code,
2019 CBC, and California Health and Safety Code, which establish provisions for fire safety related to
construction, maintenance, and design of buildings and land uses. Therefore, the project would not
exacerbate wildfire risks or expose people or structures to risk due to runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes. Likewise, residents of the project site would not be exposed to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No impact would
occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Wildfire
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 145
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure
(such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
The project site is not within or near a VHFHSZ or state responsibility area. The project site is located
approximately 3.2 miles from the nearest mapped VHFHSZ (CALFIRE 2021). The project site is
undeveloped but is within an urbanized area served by existing infrastructure including roads and
utilities. The project would be served by Tokay Avenue and Foothill Boulevard and the existing
utilities in the project area and would not require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure within FHSZs that may exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, there would be no impact.
NO IMPACT
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
146
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Mandatory Findings of Significance
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 147
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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? □ ■ □ □
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)? □ ■ □ □
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly? □ ■ □ □
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The project site is within an urbanized area and is not within the vicinity of natural or wildland areas.
As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, regional wildlife movement is restricted given the
built-out nature of the project area, and no native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species,
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites exist on or
immediately around the project site. However, the site currently contains seven trees and nonnative
grasses and shrubs which may provide nesting habitat for birds. Therefore, Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 would require a pre-construction nesting bird survey should construction occur during the
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
148
breeding season to avoid potential impacts to any on-site nesting birds. Furthermore, as discussed
in Section 5, Cultural Resources, Section 7, Geology and Soils, and Section 18, Tribal Cultural
Resources, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to cultural resources,
paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources with implementation of Mitigation Measures
CR-1, CR-2, GEO-1, TCR-1, and TCR-2 which require adherence to existing local, state, and federal
regulations and specific monitoring procedures related to the discovery of any unanticipated
archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources during
construction activity. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, 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. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
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)?
According to the project TIA, there are 20 planned and pending projects in the vicinity of the project
site. Of these, only one project is located within 0.25-mile of the project site; an 18-unit low-rise
multi-family residential building located approximately 600 feet to the northwest of the project site
off Almeria Avenue. As concluded in Sections 1 through 20, the project would have no impact, a
less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated, with
respect to all environmental issues considered in this document. Cumulative impacts related to
several other resource areas have been addressed in the individual resource sections of this IS-
MND, including air quality, GHG emissions, and transportation (see CEQA Guidelines Section
15064(h)(3)). As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, the proposed project would result in less than
significant impacts associated with air quality during both project construction and operation with
implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Likewise, as discussed in Section 8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions.
The impact analyses in these sections use thresholds that already account for cumulative (regional)
impacts. Therefore, air quality and GHG emissions associated with operation and construction
would be less than significant and not be cumulatively considerable.
As discussed in Section 13, Noise, the proposed project would comply with the construction hours
established by the FMC and would remain below the FTA daytime threshold at the nearest noise
sensitive receptors, the residences located to the north of the project site. Noise, by definition, is a
localized phenomenon and is progressively reduced as the distance from the source increases;
specifically, noise levels decrease by 6 decibels (dB) for every doubling of distance. Construction
noise from nearby construction-sites typically correspond closely to the noise levels generated by
the single loudest noise source and do not combine to create significantly louder noise levels.
Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not be anticipated to create a cumulatively
considerable noise impact in combination with construction activity associated with the multi-family
apartment project due to the distance between these sites. In addition, the noise analysis in this IS-
MND considered increases in on-site and off-site noise, including traffic noise, under cumulative
traffic conditions in the project opening year. Based on the results, the traffic generated by the
Environmental Checklist Mandatory Findings of Significance
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 149
proposed project in combination with cumulative traffic conditions would not result in a significant
increase in roadway noise.
As discussed in Section 17, Transportation, construction of the project would not substantially
impede traffic flow on Foothill Boulevard and Tokay Avenue. Additionally, the project would not
result in significant VMT impacts or impacts to vehicular circulation under cumulative traffic
conditions according to the results of the project TIA. The project also would not affect the nearby
Omnitrans bus stops, sidewalks, or pedestrian crosswalks on Foothill Boulevard and Tokay Avenue
or otherwise interfere with pedestrian, bicycle, or public transit facilities. Therefore, the project
would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to transportation impacts in the area.
This IS-MND determined that, for some of the other resource areas (e.g., agricultural and mineral
resources), the proposed project would have no impact in comparison to existing conditions.
Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to these issues. Other
issues (e.g., biological resources, cultural resources, geology, hazards, hazardous materials, and
tribal cultural resources) are by their nature project specific and impacts at one location do not add
to impacts at other locations or create additive impacts. As such, cumulative impacts would be less
than significant (not cumulatively considerable).
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, GHG emissions and climate
change, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts. As detailed in analyses for air quality,
GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise, the proposed project would not result,
either directly or indirectly, in adverse effects related to air quality, GHG emissions, hazardous
materials, or noise. Compliance with applicable rules, regulations, and mitigation measures included
in this IS-MND (including Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which would require use of Tier 4 and
alternative fuel construction equipment), would reduce potential impacts on human beings to a less
than significant level.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
150
This page intentionally left blank.
References
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 151
References
Bibliography
Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). 2016. Final White Paper Beyond 2020 and
Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan
Targets for California. https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf (accessed
September 2021).
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community
Health Perspective. April 2005. https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf (accessed
September 2021).
______. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 2008.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf (accessed
September 2021).
______. 2009. Definitions of VOC and ROG. January. Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ei/speciate/voc_rog_dfn_1_09.pdf
______. 2011 Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel-
health.htm (accessed September 2021).
______. 2014. AB 32 Scoping Plan Website. Updated June 2014.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm (accessed September 2021).
______. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Last modified: May 4, 2016.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf (accessed September 2021).
______. 2017a. 2017 Amendments Health Risk Analysis.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/health-risk-assessment (accessed September
2021).
______. 2017b. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 14, 2017.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed September
2021).
______. 2018. EMFAC2017 Volume III – Technical Documentation v.1.0.2. July 20, 2018.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2017-volume-iii-technical-
documentation.pdf (accessed September 2021).
______. 2019a. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017 – Trends of Emissions and
Other Indicators. [webpage]. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm (accessed
September 2021).
______. 2019b. EMFAC2017 Web Database. https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/ (accessed
September 2021).
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
152
California Code of Regulations (CCR). 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards - Reference Ace v22:
Section 1501.1 – Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches for Low Rise
Residential Buildings. https://energycodeace.com/site/custom/public/reference-ace-
2019/index.html#!Documents/section1501performanceandprescriptivecomplianceapproac
hesforlowr.htm (accessed May 2021).
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2021. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed May 2021).
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark. May 2022.
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2021/
(accessed May 2022).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. California Natural Community
Conservation Plans. April 2019.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline (accessed August
2021).
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2021. California Fire Hazard
Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed May 2021).
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2021. SWIS Facility/Site
Details Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055).
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Details/2662 (Accessed September 2021).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic
Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2) https://www.dtsc-
ssfl.com/files/lib_ceqa/ref_draft_peir/Chap4_10-
Noise/Caltrans_2013a_Tech_Noise_Supplement.pdf (accessed July 2021).
______. 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aa
f7000dfcc19983 (accessed May 2021).
______. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. https://dot.ca.gov/-
/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-
a11y.pdf (accessed August 2021).
______. 2021. Scenic Highways- Frequently Asked Questions.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-
livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways-faq2 (accessed May 2021).
California Department of Water Resources. 2015. Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher. Last
modified October 2015. Available at: https://fmds.water.ca.gov/maps/damim/ (accessed
September 2021).
______. 2021. Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/
(accessed September 2021).
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022a. Electricity Consumption by Entity.
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx (accessed May 2022).
______. 2022b. Gas Consumption by Entity. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx (accessed
May 2022).
References
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 153
California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). 2021. Well Finder.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/-117.46551/34.10436/15
(accessed May 2021)
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36.
______. 2021. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed August 2021).
Crocker, Malcolm J. Crocker (Editor). 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control Book, ISBN:
978-0-471-39599-7, Wiley-VCH, October.
Ed Data Education Data Partnership. 2022. Fontana Unified. http://www.ed-data.org/district/San-
Bernardino/Fontana-Unified (accessed May 2022).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2008. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Map
06037C1725F. Effective September 26, 2008. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Barbee%20Street%20Fontana%20#sear
chresultsanchor (accessed September 2021).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook.
(FHWAHEP-06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02). Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook00.
cfm
______. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. (FHWA-HEP-10-
025). December.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-
innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-
0123_0.pdf (accessed July 2021).
Fontana, City of. 2017. Active Transportation Plan.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/27009/ATP-Final-Report (accessed August
2021).
______. 2018a. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact
Report. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-
Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed May 2021).
______. 2018b. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28271/Complete-Document---Approved-
General-Plan-Documents-11-13-2018 (accessed May 2021).
______. 2018c. Fontana Fire Protection District Strategic Plan.
https://novus.fontana.org/AttachmentViewer.ashx?AttachmentID=16102&ItemID=12107
(accessed July 2021).
______. 2019. Development Fees.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2271/Development-Impact-Fees?bidId=
(accessed May 2021).
______. 2021a. Stations & Equipment. https://www.fontana.org/639/Stations-Equipment (accessed
May 2021).
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
154
______. 2021b. Approved Projects. September 1, 2021. https://www.fontana.org/765/Current-
Projects (accessed October 2021).
Fontana Fire District (FFD). Personal communication with Jeffrey Birchfield, Assistant Chief. July 19,
2021.
Fontana Unified School District (FUSD). 2020. FUSD Development Fees.
https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/188/FUSD_DEV_FEES_TRI-
FOLD.GRIT.2020.pdf (accessed May 2021).
Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc (HMMH). 2006. Create Railroad Noise Model User Guide. February.
Available at: https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/create-railroad-noise-model-user-guide
(accessed October 2021).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change
2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
______. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-
Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L.
Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T.
Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)] Cambridge University Press.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf
(accessed October 2021).
Kinsler, Lawrence E., Frey Austin R., Coppens, Alan B., and Sanders, James V. Fundamentals of
Acoustics, 4th Edition. ISBN 0-471-84789-5. Wiley-VCH, December 1999.
Morton, D.M. 2003. Preliminary geologic map of the Fontana 7.5' quadrangle, Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties, California. U.S. Geological Survey: Open-File Report OF-2003-418,
scale 1:24,000.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program.
Risk Assessment Guidelines.
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf (accessed October
2021).
Paleobiology Database. 2021. Online fossil locality database. https://www.paleobiodb.org/#/
(accessed July 2021).
San Bernardino, County of. 2010. General Plan Hazards Element Maps.
http://countywideplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/HZ-Merged-Maps-
201027_adopted.pdf (accessed August 2021).
San Gabriel Valley Water Company. 2021a. Water Sources. https://www.sgvwater.com/water-
quality-supply/water-sources/ (accessed September 2021).
______. 2021b. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency.
https://www.sgvwater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Final-Draft-San-Gabriel-Valley-
Water-Company-2020-UWMP.pdf (accessed September 2021).
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation
of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact
Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee.
References
Administrative Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 155
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
______. 2003. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-
air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/2003-aqmp (accessed June 2021).
______. 2006. Final - Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance
Thresholds. October 2006. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/particulate-matter-(pm)-2.5-
significance-thresholds-and-calculation-
methodology/final_pm2_5methodology.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed October 2021).
______. 2008a. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-
thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf (accessed June 2021).
______. 2008b. Draft Guidance Document-Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance
Threshold. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-
(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf (accessed June 2021).
______. 2009. Appendix C. Mass Rate LST Look Up Table. October 2009.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-
thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed June 2021).
______. 2010. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-
significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf
(accessed June 2021).
______. 2017. 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-
plan/final-2016-aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf (accessed June 2021).
______. 2019. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf (accessed July 2022).
______. 2022. Historical Data By Year. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/historical-air-
quality-data/historical-data-by-year (accessed July 2022).
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). April 7, 2016.
______. 2020. Connect SoCal: The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. Adopted May
7, 2020. https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/Adopted/fConnectSoCal-Plan.pdf
(accessed September 2021).
Southern California Edison (SCE). 2020. Green Rates.
https://www.sce.com/residential/rates/standard-residential-rate-plan/green-rates
(accessed May 2021).
State of California. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary
Report. August 27, 2018. http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/ (accessed October
2021).
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Begonia Village at Route 66 Project
156
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2018. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission
Factors for Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines in MOVES2014b. July 2018.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100UXEN.pdf (accessed June 2021).
______. 2021a. Health Effects of Ozone Pollution. https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-
pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution (accessed June 2021).
______. 2021b. Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter. https://www.epa.gov/pm-
pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm (accessed June 2021).
______. 2021c. Learn about Lead. https://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead#effects (accessed
June 2021).
______. 2021d. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019. April 2021.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-
1990-2019 (accessed September 2021).
United States Census Bureau (U.S. Census). 2020. QuickFacts: City of Fontana.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fontanacitycalifornia/PST045221. Accessed
August 2022.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021a. Critical Habitat for Threatened and
Endangered Species.
https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe0989
3cf75b8dbfb77 (accessed May 2021).
______. 2021b. National Wetlands Inventory. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
(accessed May 2021).
U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). 2021. Appendix 2. Default Occupancy Counts.
https://www.usgbc.org/credits/new-construction-existing-buildings-commercial-interiors-
core-and-shell-schools-new-constr-3 (accessed October 2021).
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). 2021. UCMP online database specimen
search portal. http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed July 2021).
List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IS-MND under contract to Begonia Real Estate Development,
LLC. Persons involved in data gathering, analysis, project management, and quality control are listed
below.
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Deanna Hansen, Principal
Christine Donoghue, Supervising Environmental Planner
Emily Marino, Associate Environmental Planner
Destiny Timms, Environmental Planner
Rachel Irvine, Environmental Planner
Appendices Table of Contents
Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study
Appendix B Biological Resources Due Diligence Report and Tree Memorandum
Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D Energy Use Calculations
Appendix E Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Appendix F Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix G Preliminary Hydrology Analysis and Preliminary Water Quality Management
Plan
Appendix H Noise Study
Appendix I Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix J Confidential Tribal Cultural Resources
Appendix K Water System Hydraulic Analysis and Sewer System Hydraulic Analysis