HomeMy WebLinkAboutInitial Study and Mitigated Negative DeclarationCITRUS AVENUE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
CEQA Analysis Prepared for:
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Prepared by:
UltraSystems Environmental Inc.
16431 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618-4355
Telephone: 949-788-4900
FAX: 949-788-4901
October 2022
Project No. 7167
This page intentionally left blank.
❖ PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page i
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
1. Project Title Citrus Avenue Condominium Project
MCN21-120/GPA21-08/ZCA21-10/TTM21-
07/DRP21-43
2. CEQA Lead Agency City of Fontana
Alejandro Rico, Associate Planner
8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335
E: arico@fontana.org | T: (909) 350-6558
3. Project Applicant
PRL Inc.
16866 Seville Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
T: (909) 356-1815
4. Project Location
6697 Citrus Avenue, City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California
5. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers APN 0240-011-17
6. Project Site General Plan
Designation(s)
Existing: C-G, General Commercial
Proposed: R-MF, Multifamily Residential
7. Project Site Zoning Designation(s) Existing: C-2, General Commercial
Proposed: R-3, Multi-Family Residential
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting North – Vacant land and an AM/PM mini mart
South – Single family homes
East – undeveloped parcel, greenfield
West – Single family homes.
9. Description of Project The project proposes the development of 68
three-bedroom condominium units in 14 two-
story buildings on an approximately 4.6-acre site
located southeast of the intersection of Citrus
Avenue and Highland Avenue.
Refer to Section 3.0 of this document for
additional information.
The project applicant is requesting discretionary
actions, which are discussed in detail in Section
3.0 of this document.
10. Selected Agencies whose Approval
is Required
City of Fontana Community Development
Department;
City of Fontana Public Works Department;
City of Fontana Fire Protection District; and
❖ PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page ii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
City of Fontana Engineering Department.
11. Have California Native American
tribes traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to
Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1?
If so, has consultation begun?
Letters were sent by the City of Fontana (the Lead
Agency), to local Native American Tribes the week
of July 5, 2022 asking if they wished to participate
in AB 52 and SB 18 consultation concerning the
proposed project in the City of Fontana.
The AB 52 notice period for the Tribes is 30 days
and the SB 18 notice period for the Tribes is 90
days during which they have an opportunity to
respond to notification of this proposed project.
No tribes requested consultations.
12. Other Public Agencies Agencies that will review the proposed project
include the following: None.
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page iii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Proposed Project .................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation .................................................. 1-1
1.3 CEQA Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Purpose of Initial Study ..................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.5 Review and Comment by Other Agencies .................................................................................. 1-3
1.6 Impact Terminology ........................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.7 Organization of Initial Study ........................................................................................................... 1-4
1.8 Findings from the Initial Study ....................................................................................................... 1-5
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Project Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Existing Characteristics of the Site ............................................................................................... 2-6
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Proposed Project Features ............................................................................................................... 3-3
3.4 Offsite Improvements ......................................................................................................................3-12
3.5 Construction Activities ....................................................................................................................3-12
3.6 Discretionary Actions .......................................................................................................................3-14
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ........................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .........................................................................................4.2-1
4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................4.3-1
4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................4.4-1
4.5 Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................................................4.5-1
4.6 Energy ....................................................................................................................................................4.6-1
4.7 Geology and Soils ..............................................................................................................................4.7-1
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...........................................................................................................4.8-1
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................4.9-1
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................. 4.11-10
4.12 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................... 4.14-17
4.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................................ 4.15-1
4.16 Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 4.16-1
4.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................................ 4.17-1
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 4.18-1
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 4.19-1
4.20 Wildfire .............................................................................................................................................. 4.20-1
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................... 4.21-1
5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 5-1
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page iv
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
6.0 List of Preparers .................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 CEQA Lead Agency ............................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Project Applicant .................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.3 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. ................................................................................................. 6-1
7.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ....................................................................... 7-1
TABLES
Table 2.2-1 - Summary of Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations ...................................................... 2-1
Table 3.2-1 - Project Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3-1
Table 3.3-1 – Floor Plans ................................................................................................................................................ 3-3
Table 3.5-1 - Construction Phasing and Equipment Details ..........................................................................3-14
Table 3.6-1 - Permits and Approvals .......................................................................................................................3-15
Table 4.1-1 - Existing Visual Character and Land Uses in the Project Area............................................4.1-3
Table 4.1-1 - Project Compliance with City of Fontana General Plan Policies Regarding Scenic Quality
and Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................................................. 4.1-12
Figure 4.2-1 - Important Farmland Categories ..................................................................................................4.2-2
Table 4.3-1 - Federal and State Attainment Status ...........................................................................................4.3-2
Table 4.3-2 - Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data .........................................................................................4.3-5
Table 4.3-4 - SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................4.3-7
Table 4.3-4 - Construction Schedule .......................................................................................................................4.3-8
Table 4.3-5 - Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions ................................................................4.3-9
Table 4.3-6 - Maximum Daily Project Operational Emissions ......................................................................4.3-9
Table 4.3-7 - Results of Localized Significance Analysis.............................................................................. 4.3-10
Table 4.6-1 - Estimated Project Operational Energy Use ...............................................................................4.6-3
Table 4.8-1 - San Bernadino County GHG Reduction Targets for Countywide Emissions ...............4.8-4
Table 4.8-2 - FONTANA 2016 COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY (MTCO2e) ................4.8-7
Table 4.8-3 - Project Construction-Related GHG Emissions ...................................................................... 4.8-10
Table 4.8-4 - Project Operational GHG Emissions .......................................................................................... 4.8-10
Table 4.9-1 - Hazardous Materials Sites Within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site ..........................................4.9-4
Table 4.11-1 - Consistency Analysis: Proposed Project Compared to Relevant City of Fontana General
Plan Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element Goals and Policies ................................................ 4.11-11
Table 4.13-1 - Sensitive Receivers in Project Area ........................................................................................ 4.13-2
Table 4.13-2 - Ambient Noise Measurement Results ................................................................................... 4.13-4
Table 4.13-3 - California Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Sources ............................ 4.13-6
Table 4.13-4 Construction Equipment Noise Characteristics ................................................................ 4.13-12
Table 4.13-5 -Estimated Construction Noise Exposures at Nearest Sensitive Receivers ........... 4.13-13
Table 4.13-5 - Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment .................................................................. 4.13-15
Table 4.14-1 - City of Fontana Demographic Forecast .............................................................................. 4.14-17
Table 4.14-2 - Regional Housing Needs Assessment, City of Fontana, 2021-2029 ......................... 4.14-18
Table 4.15-1 – Schools Serving the Project Site .............................................................................................. 4.15-3
Table 4.15-2 – Estimated Project Student Generation ................................................................................. 4.15-3
Table 4.15-3 – Project Impacts on Schools’ Capacities ................................................................................ 4.15-3
Table 4.19-2 - Estimated Project Water Demand ........................................................................................... 4.19-4
Table 4.19-3 - Landfills Serving Fontana ........................................................................................................... 4.19-5
Table 4.19-4 - Estimated Project-Generated Solid Waste ........................................................................... 4.19-5
Table 7.0-1 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ......................................................................... 7-2
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page v
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
FIGURES
Figure 2.1-1 - Regional Location .................................................................................................................................. 2-2
Figure 2.1-2 - Project Location ..................................................................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 2.2-1 - Topographic Map .................................................................................................................................. 2-4
Figure 2.2-2 - Project Site Photographs .................................................................................................................... 2-5
Figure 3.2-1 - Site Plan ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3.3-1 - Building A Elevations .......................................................................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3.3-2 - Building B Elevations........................................................................................................................... 3-5
Figure 3.3-3 - Building C Elevations ........................................................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3.3-4 – Floor Plans .............................................................................................................................................. 3-7
Figure 3.3-5 – Preliminary Landscape Plan ............................................................................................................ 3-9
Figure 3.3-6 – Site Photometric Plan .......................................................................................................................3-10
Figure 3.5.-1 – Conceptual Grading Plan ................................................................................................................3-13
Figure 4.1-1 - Existing Visual Character in the Vicinity of the Project Site .............................................4.1-4
Figure 4.1-2 - State Scenic Highways ......................................................................................................................4.1-6
Figure 4.1-3 - Building A Elevations .......................................................................................................................4.1-8
Figure 4.1-4 - Building B Elevations........................................................................................................................4.1-9
Figure 4.1-5 - Building C Elevations ..................................................................................................................... 4.1-10
Figure 4.1-6 - Color and Material Boards........................................................................................................... 4.1-11
Figure 4.1-7 - Site Photometric Plan .................................................................................................................... 4.1-16
Figure 4.4-1 – Project Location and Biological Study Area ...........................................................................4.4-2
Figure 4.4-2 – Land Cover Types ..............................................................................................................................4.4-3
Figure 4.4-3 – USDA Soils ............................................................................................................................................4.4-5
Figure 4.4-4 – CNDDB Known Occurrences Plant Species and Habitats .................................................4.4-6
Figure 4.4-5 – CNDDB Known Occurrences Wildlife Species .......................................................................4.4-8
Figure 4.4-6 – CDFW Wildlife Corridors ............................................................................................................ 4.4-13
Figure 4.5-1 - Topographic Map ...............................................................................................................................4.5-2
Figure 4.7-1 – Alquist Priolo Fault Zones..............................................................................................................4.7-3
Figure 4.9-1 - Airport Influence Area Map for French Valley Airport .......................................................4.9-6
Figure 4.9-2 - Fire Hazard Severity Zones - State Responsibility Area.....................................................4.9-8
Figure 4.9-3 - Fire Hazard Severity Zones - Local Responsibility Area ....................................................4.9-9
Figure 4.10-1 - USGS Surface Waters and Watersheds ................................................................................ 4.10-3
Figure 4.11-1 - General Plan Land Use Designation ...................................................................................... 4.11-1
Figure 4.11-2 - Zoning Designation ...................................................................................................................... 4.11-1
Figure 4.12-1 - Designated Mineral Resource Zone ...................................................................................... 4.12-2
Figure 4.12-2 - Oil, Gas and Geothermal Wells ................................................................................................ 4.12-4
Figure 4.13-1 - Sensitive Receivers Near the Project Site ........................................................................... 4.13-3
Figure 4.13-2 - Ambient Noise Measurement Locations ............................................................................. 4.13-5
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page vi
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Plans and Drawings
Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
Appendix C Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix D Cultural Resources Report
Appendix E Paleontological Resources Records Search
Appendix F EDR
Appendix G1 Preliminary WQMP
Appendix G2 Preliminary Drainage Report
Appendix H Noise Assessment
Appendix I VMT Analysis
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page vii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
AB Assembly Bill
AB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act Of 2006
AB 939 California Integrated Waste Management Act
AB 1327 California Solid Waste Reuse And Recycling Access Act Of 1991
ADA Americans With Disabilities Act
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AF Acre-Feet
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
APE Area of Potential Effect
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
ATP Active Transportation Plan
BMPs Best Management Practices
BRE Biological Resources Evaluation Report
BSA Biological Study Area
C-2 General Commercial
C-G General Commercial
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAGN California Gnatcatcher
Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geologic Society
CH4 methane
CHRIS California Historic Resources Inventory System
City City of Fontana
CIWMA State of California Integrated Waste Management Act
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO Carbon monoxide
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page viii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
COHA Cooper’s hawk
County County of Riverside
CRC California Residential Code
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel scale
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
DIF Development Impact Fees
DMA drainage management area
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOSH California Division of Safety and Health
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DRP Design Review Project
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EG Electric Generation
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMS Emergency Medical Service
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FAR floor area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management agency
FFPD Fontana Fire Protection District
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zones
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FPD Fontana Police Department
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FUSD Fontana Unified School District
FWC Fontana Water Company
GHG greenhouse gas
GPAD Gallons Per Net Acre Per Day
GPCD Gallons Per Capita Per Day
GWP Global Warming Potential
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
HRA Health Risk Assessment
Hz hertz
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency
IPaC Information, Planning, and Conservation
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IS Initial Study
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
kWh kilowatt hours
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page ix
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
L90 noise level that is exceeded 90% of the time
Leq equivalent noise level
LACM Los Angeles County Natural History Museum
LAPM Los Angeles Pocket Mouse
LED light-emitting diode
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LID Low Impact Development
Lmax root mean square maximum noise level
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LRP Legally Responsible Person
LSTs Localized Significance Thresholds
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCN Master Case Number
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM(s) Mitigation Measure(s)
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMT Million Metric Tons
MMTCO2e Million Metric Tons of CO2e
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
ND Negative Declaration
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NFCP North Fontana Conservation Program
NO Nitric Oxide
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 Ozone
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb Lead
PM Particulate Matter
PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter
PM10 Respirable Particulate Matter
Porter-Cologne Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page x
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
PPM Parts Per Million
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
PRDs Permit Registration Documents
PRP Potential Responsible Party
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC(s) Recognized Environmental Condition(s)
REL(s) Reference Exposure Level(s)
RMS Root Mean Square
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
ROW Right-Of-Way
RP Regional Plant
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SBCIWMP San Bernardino Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
SBKR San Bernardino kangaroo rat
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMARTS Stormwater Multi-Application and Report Tracking System
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOx Sulfur Oxides
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SOPs Standard Operating Procedures
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SRAs Source Receptor Areas
STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
SWIS Solid Waste Information System
SWP California State Water Project
SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TCRs Tribal Cultural Resources
TMP Traffic Management Plan
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VdB Vibration Decibels
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page xi
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
VHFHSZs Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WOUS Water(s) Of The United States
❖ SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 1-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Proposed Project
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the proposed Citrus
Avenue Condominium Project (project). The project proposes development of 68 three-bedroom
condominium units in 14 two-story buildings on an approximately 4.6-acre site located southeast of
the intersection of Citrus Avenue and Highland Avenue at 6697 Citrus Avenue in the City of Fontana
(City), in San Bernardino County, California (Parcel 0240-011-17).
1.1.1 Project Components
The proposed project would consist of: (1) utilities improvements; (2) construction of 14 new
residential buildings; and (3) project site amenities and landscaping. See Summary Table below.
New Construction Proposed Uses/Features Square
Feet
No. of
Stories
Approximate
Building
Height (feet)
Buildings 1-3, 6, 7, 9-13
Total 10 bldgs. 5 units each 73,740 2 27
Buildings 4, 5, 14
Total 3 bldg. 4 units each 17,592 2 27
Building 8
Total 1 bldg. 6 units 8,796 2 27
Trash Enclosures Three trash enclosures along the main
driveway. ---- ---- ----
Parking Spaces
The project proposes 193 parking
spaces consisting of 136 garage
spaces; 53 standard parking spaces
(including 3 ADA spaces; and 4 parallel
parking spaces.
---- ---- ----
Common/Open Space
BBQ Area, Tot Lot and Lawn Area are
west of Building 4. Pet Area will be
between Building 7 & 8.
66,094
---- ----
Usable Open Space Total of private space and common
open space. 82,984 ---- ----
Source: Andresen Architecture, Inc., 2022. Site Plan. March 2, 2022
1.1.2 Estimated Construction Schedule
Project construction is expected to begin around February 2023 and would last approximately eight
to ten months, ending about October 2023. Refer to Section 3.0 for details.
1.2 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation
The City of Fontana is the Lead Agency for the proposed project. Pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its implementing regulations,1 the Lead Agency has the
1 Public Resources Code §§ 21000 - 21177 and California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.
❖ SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 1-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
principal responsibility for implementing and approving a project that may have a significant effect
on the environment.
1.3 CEQA Overview
1.3.1 Purpose of CEQA
All discretionary projects within California are required to undergo environmental review under
CEQA. A Project is defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 as the whole of the action having the potential
to result in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change to the environment
and is any of the following:
• An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works
construction and related activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing
public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and
amendment of local General Plans or elements.
• An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public
agency contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more
public agencies.
• An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other
entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.
CEQA Guidelines § 15002 lists the basic purposes of CEQA as follows:
• Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant
environmental effects of proposed activities.
• Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.
• Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects
through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures (MMs) when the governmental agency
finds the changes to be feasible.
• Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the
manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
1.3.2 Authority to Mitigate under CEQA
CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where
feasible. Under CEQA Guidelines § 15041, a Lead Agency for a project has authority to require feasible
changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or avoid
significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such
as the “nexus”2 and “rough proportionality”3 standards.
CEQA allows a Lead Agency to approve a project even though the project would cause a significant
effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that
there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect. In such cases, the Lead Agency must
2 A nexus (i.e., connection) must be established between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental
interest.
3 The mitigation measure must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the Project.
❖ SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 1-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
specifically identify expected benefits and other overriding considerations from the project that
outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.
1.4 Purpose of Initial Study
The CEQA process begins with a public agency making a determination as to whether the project is
subject to CEQA at all. If the project is exempt, the process does not need to proceed any farther. If
the project is not exempt, the Lead Agency takes the second step and conducts an Initial Study to
determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
The purposes of an Initial Study as listed in § 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines are to:
• Provide the Lead Agency with information necessary to decide if an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) should be
prepared.
• Enable a Lead Agency to modify a project to mitigate adverse impacts before an EIR is
prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a ND or MND.
• Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if required, by focusing the EIR on adverse effects
determined to be significant, identifying the adverse effects determined not to be significant,
explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant adverse effects would not
be significant, and identifying whether a program EIR, or other process, can be used to
analyze adverse environmental effects of the project.
• Facilitate an environmental assessment early during project design.
• Provide documentation in the ND or MND that a project would not have a significant effect
on the environment.
• Eliminate unnecessary EIRs.
• Determine if a previously prepared EIR could be used for the Project.
In cases where no potentially significant impacts are identified, the Lead Agency may issue a ND, and
no MMs would be needed. Where potentially significant impacts are identified, the Lead Agency may
determine that MMs would adequately reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. The Lead
Agency would then prepare a MND for the proposed project. If the Lead Agency determines that
individual or cumulative effects of the proposed project would cause a significant adverse
environmental effect that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, then the Lead Agency
would require an EIR to further analyze these impacts.
1.5 Review and Comment by Other Agencies
Other public agencies are provided the opportunity to review and comment on the IS/MND. Each of
these agencies is described briefly below.
• A Responsible Agency (14 CCR § 15381) is a public agency, other than the Lead Agency, that
has discretionary approval power over the Project, such as permit issuance or plan approval
authority.
• A Trustee Agency4 (14 CCR § 15386) is a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural
resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the State of California.
4 The four Trustee Agencies in California listed in CEQA Guidelines § 15386 are California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, State Lands Commission, State Department of Parks and Recreation, and University of California.
❖ SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 1-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
• Agencies with Jurisdiction by Law (14 CCR § 15366) are any public agencies who have
authority (1) to grant a permit or other entitlement for use; (2) to provide funding for the
project in question; or (3) to exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the
project. Furthermore, a city or county will have jurisdiction by law with respect to a project
when the city or county having primary jurisdiction over the area involved is: (1) the site of
the project; (2) the area in which the major environmental effects will occur; and/or (3) the
area in which reside those citizens most directly concerned by any such environmental
effects.
1.6 Impact Terminology
The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of potential impacts:
• A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not
affect the particular environmental threshold in any way.
• An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that the project would
cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation.
• An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the analysis
concludes that the project would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment
with the inclusion of environmental commitments, or other enforceable measures, that
would be adopted by the lead agency.
• An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that the project could
have a substantial adverse effect on the environment.
An EIR is required if an impact is identified as potentially significant.
1.7 Organization of Initial Study
This document is organized to satisfy CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d), and includes the following
sections:
• Section 1.0 - Introduction, which identifies the purpose and scope of the IS/MND.
• Section 2.0 - Environmental Setting, which describes location, existing site conditions, land
uses, zoning designations, topography, and vegetation associated with the project site and
surroundings.
• Section 3.0 - Project Description, which provides an overview of the project, a description
of the proposed development, project phasing during construction, and discretionary actions
for project approval.
• Section 4.0 - Environmental Checklist, which presents checklist responses for each
resource topic to identify and assess impacts associated with the proposed project, and
proposes MMs, as needed, to reduce potential environmental impacts to less than significant.
• Section 5.0 - References, which includes a list of documents cited in the IS/MND.
• Section 6.0 - List of Preparers, which identifies the primary authors and technical experts
that prepared the IS/MND.
Technical studies and other documents, which include supporting information or analyses used to
prepare the IS/MND, are included in the following appendices:
• Appendix A Project Plans and Drawings
❖ SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 1-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
• Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
• Appendix C Biological Resources Evaluation
• Appendix D Cultural Resources Report
• Appendix E Paleontological Resources Records Search
• Appendix F EDR
• Appendix G1 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
• Appendix G2 Preliminary Drainage Report
• Appendix H Noise Assessment
• Appendix I VMT Analysis
1.8 Findings from the Initial Study
1.8.1 No Impact or Impacts Considered Less than Significant
Based on IS findings, the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the
following environmental categories listed from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
1.8.2 Impacts Considered Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Based on IS findings, the project would have a less than significant impact on the following
environmental categories listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when proposed MMs are
implemented.
• Aesthetics
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Transportation and Traffic
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Mandatory Findings of Significance
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 2-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Project Location
The proposed Citrus Avenue Condominiums Project is located at 6697 Citrus Avenue in the City of
Fontana, California, on an approximately 4.6-acre site. Refer to Figure 2.1-1, which shows the
project’s location in a regional context. Local surface streets near the site include Citrus Avenue
adjacent to the west, South Highland Avenue to the north, Los Cedros Avenue to the south, and
Oleander Avenue to the east Figure 2.1-2 depicts an aerial photo of the project site and the
surrounding land.
2.2 Project Setting
The project site is comprised of one parcel, APN 024001117. The project proposes the development
of a 68-unit condominium complex. The condominium units would be housed in 14 proposed
buildings on site. A total of 193 parking spaces are proposed. Site access would be provided via a
proposed new drive located off of Citrus Avenue. See Figure 2.2-1, which depicts the topography of
the site, and surrounding area. Topography within the project site is relatively flat (Google Earth,
2022). Site photographs are provided in Figure 2.2-2.
2.2.1 Land Use and Zoning
The land use, zoning, and specific plan designations of the project site and its immediate vicinity are
listed in Table 2.2-1. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of General
Commercial(C-G) and a zoning designation of General Commercial (C-2) (City of Fontana, 2021a; City
of Fontana, 2021b).
Table 2.2-1
SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAND USE, ZONING AND SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS
Location General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation Existing Development
Project Site General Commercial(C-G) General Commercial (C-2) Vacant land
North General Commercial(C-G) General Commercial (C-2) Vacant land
South Single Family Residential
(R-SF) Single Family (R-1) Single Family Houses
East Single Family Residential
(R-SF)
Single Family (R-1) Single Family Houses
West Single Family Residential
(R-SF)
Single Family (R-1) Single Family Houses
Source: City of Fontana, 2021a; City of Fontana, 2021b; Google Earth Pro, 2022
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 2-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 2.1-1
REGIONAL LOCATION
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 2-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 2.1-2
PROJECT LOCATION
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 2-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 2.2-1
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 2-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 2.2-2
PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1: Looking towards the northwest side of the project site.
Photo 2: Southwest side of the project site looking north.
Photo 3: From northeast side of the project site looking west.
Photo 4: Looking east across project site from west side.
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 2-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
2.3 Existing Characteristics of the Site
2.3.1 Climate and Air Quality
The City of Fontana is characterized by a semi-arid Mediterranean climate that is the result of its
location in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). (Stantec, 2018b p. 5.2-1). The SCAB is a
6,600-square-mile area basin that is usually quite moist near the land surface due to the influence of
the marine layer. Other factors that influence the area’s climate and meteorology are the terrain and
altitude. Fontana is positioned approximately 1,700 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in its northern
half and 1,000 feet AMSL in its southern half. Due to the City being in a valley, heavy early morning
fog and low stratus clouds are often persistent. Yearly climate patterns are characterized by warm
summers, mild winters, low levels of precipitation, and moderate humidity.
Air quality in Fontana generally fluctuates without a consistent seasonal pattern. Neighboring,
high-polluting coastal cities largely influence the air quality in the City. The SCAB is bounded by the
San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains, which trap air pollution at their bases. The
SCAB fails to meet national ambient air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate matter, and
is classified as a “nonattainment area” for those pollutants (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.2-10).
2.3.2 Geology and Soils
The City of Fontana generally lies at the northwest margin of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic
Province of Southern California, which is characterized by northwest-southeast trending faults, folds,
and mountain ranges. Much of the Fontana region is underlain by loose soils such as sand and silt
(Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.5-1).
Although there are no major active faults within the City boundaries, there are a number of faults
that border the Lytle Creek alluvial basin, including the Chino, Cucamonga, San Andreas, and
San Jacinto faults (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.5-3).
Soils in the area are characteristic of the Southern California interior alluvial basins and consist of
alluvial deposits and floodplain soils. The City is underlain by alluvial deposits of the Lytle Creek
alluvial fan (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.5-4).
2.3.3 Hydrology
As detailed in the City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact
Report, the City is located within the lower Lytle Creek watershed, which forms the northwest
portion of the Santa Ana River Watershed. This watershed drains the eastern portion of the
San Gabriel Mountains. The lower portion of Lytle Creek flows through the cities of Fontana, Rialto,
San Bernardino, and Colton, as well as a portion of the unincorporated area of San Bernardino
County. The upper reaches of Lytle Creek are generally perennial; the lower section of Lytle Creek
changes into an intermittent stream with a dry wash south of Interstate 15 (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.8-1).
2.3.4 Biology
The project site is located in an urbanized area, which provides low habitat value for special-status
plant and wildlife species. Vegetation on the project site includes dry non-native grasses (Gramineae
family) and sparse weeds consisting of herons bill (Erodium sp.), black mustard (Brassica nigra), wild
oats (Avena fatua) and various chenopod species. The eastern quarter of the property includes
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 2-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
scattered native shrubs consisting of a patch of deer weed (Lotus scoparius); jimson weed (Datura
wrightii) in the disturbed soil of the northern area and dove weed (Croton setigerus) in the disturbed
soil of the eastern edge of the parcel. A detailed description of existing environmental setting for the
project site and the surrounding area is provided in Section 4.4 of this Initial Study.
2.3.5 Public Services
The City is served by a full range of public services and utilities. Fire prevention, fire protection and
emergency medical service (EMS) for the city of Fontana are provided by the Fontana Fire Protection
Department (FFPD) through a contract with the San Bernardino County Fire Department (City of
Fontana, 2022). The City of Fontana Police Department (FPD) provides services in the project area
(FPD, 2022). Recreational services within the city of Fontana are provided by the City’s Department
of Facilities and Parks, which maintains over 40 parks, sports facilities, and community centers.
Library services within the city are provided by the San Bernardino County Library System, which
has a total of 32 branch libraries. Within the city of Fontana, there are three libraries, including
Fontana Lewis Library and Technology Center, the Summit Branch Library and the Kaiser Branch
Library (City of Fontana, 2020h).
2.3.6 Utilities
The project site lies within the service area of the Fontana Water Company (FWC). Water supplies
consist of imported water from Lytle Creek surface flow, and from wells in the Lytle Basin, Rialto
Basin, Chino Basin, and another groundwater basin known as No Man's Land (West Yost, 2021).
Regional wastewater treatment services are provided under the Regional Sewer Service Contract in
which seven agencies—including the City of Fontana— contract with the Inland Empire Utilities
Agency (IEUA). IEUA’s Regional Water Recycling Plant 4 (RP 4) is located near the intersection of
Etiwanda Avenue and 6th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and treats local wastewater
generated by the City of Fontana (West Yost, 2021; p. 6-15).
Solid waste disposal services in the City of Fontana are provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc., a
private company under contract with the City.
Electrical service to the site is provided by Southern California Edison through a grid of transmission
lines and related facilities. Natural gas is supplied to the project site by Southern California Gas
Company (SoCal Gas), which provides natural gas to the City of Fontana (City of Fontana, 2022).
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 3-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Background
The project proposes the development of a condominium project southeast of the intersection of
Citrus Avenue and Highland Avenue at 6697 Citrus Avenue in the City of Fontana in San Bernardino
County, California (Parcel 0240-011-17). The project proposes development of 68 three-bedroom
condominium units in 14 two-story buildings on an approximately 4.6-acre site. The City is the Lead
Agency for the purposes of CEQA.
The City’s General Plan Land Use designation for the site is C-G, General Commercial. The project
proposes a General Plan Amendment changing the designation to R-MF, Multifamily Residential. The
City’s zoning district for the site is C-2, General Commercial. The project proposes a zone change to
R-3, Multi-Family Residential, which permits a density of 12-24 units per gross acre. The proposed
density would be approximately 14.7 units per acre.
3.2 Project Overview
The project would consist of: (1) utilities improvements; (2) construction of 14 new residential
buildings; and (3) project site amenities and landscaping. Figure 3.2-1 is a site plan depicting the
layout of the proposed project buildings and onsite amenities. Table 3.2-1 summarizes the proposed
project features. All of the project plans are included in Appendix A. The project would include 68
three-bedroom units, totaling 204 bedrooms. The proposed project, consisting of 68 units, is
estimated to house 273 persons based on the average household size in the city of Fontana of 4.02
persons in 2021 (CDF, 2021).
Table 3.2-1
PROJECT SUMMARY
New Construction Proposed Uses/Features Square
Feet
No. of
Stories
Approximate
Building Height
(feet)
10 buildings
(Buildings 1-3, 6, 7, 9-
13)
5 units each 73,740 2 27
3 buildings
(Buildings 4, 5, 14)
4 units each 17,592 2 27
1 building (Building 8) 6 units 8,796 2 27
Trash
Enclosures
Three trash enclosures along the
main driveway
N/A N/A
Parking Spaces The project proposes 193 parking
spaces consisting of 136 garage
spaces; 53 standard parking
spaces (including 3 ADA spaces;
and 4 parallel parking spaces
N/A N/A
Common/Open Space
BBQ Area, Tot Lot and Lawn Area
are west of Building 4. Pet Area
will be between Building 7 & 8.
66,094
N/A N/A
Usable Open Space Total of private space and
common open space.
82,984 N/A N/A
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 3-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 3.2-1
SITE PLAN
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 3-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
3.3 Proposed Project Features
3.3.1 New Residential Buildings
The project proposes includes the development of 14 residential buildings with a total of 68 three-
bedroom units. Ten of the buildings would consist of 5 units each, three buildings of four units each,
and one building of six units. The buildings would be situated in two rows of seven buildings each on
either side of a main driveway. Figure 3.3-1 through Figure 3.3-3 show the proposed elevations of
the residential buildings. The character and scale of surrounding neighborhood were carefully
considered to ensure that the project architecture and massing blends in with the existing
surrounding uses. The project proposes a gross area of 100,128 square feet of new residential living
space. The total footprint of the 14 buildings would be 69,192 square feet, or approximately 34% of
the project site.
The project includes three floor plans, ADA, A, and B. Figure 3.3-4 and Table 3.3-1 show the layout
and pertinent characteristics of each of those plans.
Table 3.3-1
FLOOR PLANS
Floor Plan Building
#(s)
First
Floor
(sq ft)
Second
Floor
(sq ft)
Sq ft/unit No. of
Units
Total
Square Feet
A-ADA 1 -8 516 906 1,422 8 11,376
A and A Reverse 1-14 516 906 1,422 34 48,348
B and B Reverse 1-14 564 990 1,554 26 40,404
Total 68 100,128
Source: Andresen Architecture, Inc. January 24, 2022
The project proposes an architectural style to complement the surrounding neighborhood. The
project architecture includes both wall and roof plane articulation and would carry the design
elements to each elevation, including the inner portions of the site and all detached structures, such
as trash enclosures. The project includes three building elevations: Type A (Buildings 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11,
and 13); Type B (Buildings 2, 6, 8, 10 12, and 14); and Type C (Building 4). The height of the proposed
buildings for Building Type A, B & C is 26’-8 3/8” inches. A minimum 10% of units would be ADA-
compliant through the garage.
Energy-efficient features, including insulated and glazed windows and low E coating on windows,
would be incorporated into building design to comply with the provisions of the California Green
Building Code, Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations.
3.3.2 Trash Enclosures
The project proposes three trash enclosures alongside the main driveway.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 3-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 3.3-1
BUILDING A ELEVATIONS
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 3-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 3.3-2
BUILDING B ELEVATIONS
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 3-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 3.3-3
BUILDING C ELEVATIONS
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 3-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 3.3-4
FLOOR PLANS
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 3-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
3.3.3 Landscaping
The site plan includes several landscaped areas totaling 49,982 square feet (accounting for
approximately 25% of the project site. Figure 3.3-5 shows the landscaping envisioned for the
proposed project. At project completion the site would be approximately 75% impervious (consisting
of building footprints plus hardscape). The project would have a Home Owners Association (HOA)
that would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping and other community elements.
3.3.4 Fire Lanes/Turn-around
The project proposes a fire department turn-around area at the east end of the project site by
Buildings 7 and 8.
3.3.5 Onsite Amenities for Residents
The project would provide 82,984 square feet of usable open space including 66,094 square feet of
common open space and 7,480 square feet (that is, an average of 110 square feet per unit) of private
open space. The project includes several amenities on site for residents, including bicycle parking,
private open spaces by each building, a pet-friendly green space, and a BBQ area with tables. The
property HOA would be responsible for maintaining the onsite amenities and other community
elements.
3.3.6 Site Access, Circulation and Parking
Site ingress and egress would be provided by one 50-foot-wide driveway located on Citrus Avenue.
Access to parking and the buildings would be via a main driveway running east/west through the
middle of the site and also around the perimeter of the site. Sidewalks and pedestrian travel paths
are proposed throughout.
The project proposes 193 parking spaces, consisting of: 136 enclosed garage spaces (two for each of
the 68 units); 53 standard surface spaces (including three ADA spaces); and 4 parallel spaces. Of these
spaces, 170 are for resident parking and 23 are for guest parking.
3.3.7 Exterior Lighting
The project proposes area lighting throughout the project site. Lighting for the project would comply
with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code. Specifically, the project would be required to
comply with City of Fontana Municipal Code § 30-471, Light and glare (Chapter 30-Zoning and
Development Code, Article V-Residential Zoning District, Division 6. Performance Standards), which
states, “All lights shall be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting
adjacent properties. No structure or feature shall be permitted which creates adverse glare effects.”
The proposed project would include installation of exterior lighting fixtures, as necessary, for safety
and security. LED exterior fixtures would be mounted on the walls of the buildings. Latest LED
lighting fixtures with photosensors and motion sensors would be provided. Cut off shields would be
provided as necessary to prevent light spillage beyond the project boundary. Parking lot lighting
would also utilize LED technology. Photometric analysis would be conducted to ensure that the
exterior lighting provided on site meets the minimum lighting levels required. Figure 3.3-6 shows
the Site Photometric Plan.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 3-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 3.3-5
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 3-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 3.3-6
SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 3-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
3.3.8 Project Entry Signage
The project proposes signage at the main project driveway that will consist of a masonry wall with
the development name.
3.3.9 Perimeter Fencing and Exterior Walls
Existing block walls on the southern and eastern project site boundaries would remain. A new six-
foot decorative block wall would be built on the northern and western site boundaries.
3.3.10 Utilities
The project would require sewer, domestic water, fire water, irrigation and dry utilities connections
to existing utility infrastructure in Citrus Avenue.
Sanitary Sewer - The project proposes a network of 8-inch sewer mains connecting to an existing
sewer in Citrus Avenue.
Domestic Water - New domestic water meters would be installed as required to meet project
demands, in compliance with the requirements of the city’s Public Works Department. Water would
be provided by Fontana Water Company, which serves part of the city of Fontana. Construction would
need to occur in the public right-of-way during installation of domestic water lines from the existing
main in Citrus Avenue to the project site.
Fire Water - The project proposes construction of a new six-inch fire water line from Citrus Avenue
to the project site.
Dry Utilities - Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide electricity to the project site.
Electrical utilities would be undergrounded. An existing overhead power line next to the west site
boundary along Citrus Avenue would be removed and undergrounded. Construction would need to
occur in the public right-of-way during installation of a new utility connections to the project site.
Stormwater - Stormwater runoff would be collected by downspouts and area drains and discharged
to the existing drainage system. The proposed onsite drainage includes a Contech
infiltration/retention chamber system, catch basins with Flogard insert filter for pre-treatment,
ribbon-gutter, grate inlets and drainpipes. For water quality management, stormwater would be
conveyed to the proposed Contech infiltration/retention chamber system from street flow or storm
drains from the proposed drainage management area via the proposed manhole for infiltration. For
larger storm events, flows would overflow the Contech infiltration/retention chamber system drains
to the proposed manhole at the southwest corner of the site via storm drain and discharge via a
proposed 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) lateral which would tie into the existing 48-inch
RCP master storm drain system in Citrus Avenue. For emergency overflow, storm water would drain
on the surface within the right-of-way and then discharge at the southwest corner of the site to the
frontal street gutter in Citrus Avenue via the proposed parkway drain which is tributary to the
Walnut Avenue master storm drain system (60-inch RCP). The HOA would maintain the community
elements along with the water quality BMPs for the site (Allard Engineering, 2021b).
Trash Service - Trash service would be provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, which has a contract
with the City of Fontana to provide an array of trash, recycling and special waste handling services
to residents and businesses (Fontana, 2022).
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 3-12
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Cable Television - It is anticipated that new cable television connections would be needed to serve
the project. ATT and Spectrum serve customers near the project site (digalert.org, 2022).
3.3.11 Security Features
A security gate and keypad would be located at the entrance at the west side of the project site. Other
security features would include security cameras and security onsite. The HOA would be responsible
for security at the project site.
3.3.12 Sustainability
Low Impact Development (LID) features such as vegetated swales, an infiltration/retention chamber
system, and catch basins are included throughout the project site to protect water quality. The project
includes environmentally sustainable design features that would result in a reduction in energy
usage, water usage, and waste generation and in doing so would also reduce project-related
greenhouse gas emissions. The project would include sustainability features such as a photovoltaic
(PV) system, WaterSense plumbing fixtures, Energy Star appliances, water use reduction
technologies (such as drip irrigation systems and weather-based sprinkler systems), as well as a
water efficient and drought-tolerant landscape palette.
3.4 Offsite Improvements
The project includes frontage street improvements to Citrus Avenue consisting of approximately 400
feet of pavement, curb and gutter and parkway improvements (Allard Engineering, 2021).
Additionally, construction would need to occur in Citrus Avenue to connect the utility lines for the
proposed project to the existing main lines.
3.5 Construction Activities
Construction would be completed in one phase. Once earthwork commences, all of the construction
activities would follow in sequence. Site grading would involve raw cut of 10,000 cubic yards (cy)
and raw fill of 8,000 cy. However, no net export of soil would be required. After site preparation is
completed, infrastructure such as sewer laterals and storm drains would be installed and/or
connected to existing facilities. The building foundations would be poured and framing of the
buildings would begin. The final steps of construction would involve interior furnishings, detail work,
and completion of common areas and outside landscaping. As discussed previously, offsite
improvements would include frontage street improvements and installation of utility laterals and
connections of laterals to mains.
Construction staging areas would be provided within the boundaries of the project site. Construction
workers would park vehicles onsite and construction trucks and equipment would also be parked
and stored onsite. It is anticipated that approximately 20 workers would be onsite during the peak
construction activities.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 3-13
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 3.5-1
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 3-14
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
For safety reasons, temporary barricades would be used to limit access to the site during project
construction and maintain safe access for construction workers. Construction would occur during
daylight and during regular business hours. Lighting for the construction site would be limited to the
minimum amount of light needed for safety and security.
The 201,683 square-foot (4.63 AC) site is currently undeveloped pervious surface. The building
footprint would be 69,192 square feet, hardscape area would be 82,509 square feet, and landscaped
area would be 49,982 square feet. Therefore, the project would result in the conversion of 151,701
square feet (75%) to impervious surface on the project site.
Construction Schedule and Equipment
The estimated numbers and types of equipment per construction activity are identified below in
Table 3.5-1. Project construction is expected to begin around February 2023 and would last
approximately eight to ten months, ending about October 2023.
Table 3.5-1
CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND EQUIPMENT DETAILS
Activity/Months/Workers
Number of
pieces of
equipment
Equipment Number of
working days
Site Clearance
(1 month/6 workers) 2 Bulldozer Scrapers 21
1 Water Truck 21
1 Motor Grader 21
Grading
(1 month/5 workers) 1 Bulldozer Scrapers 23
1 Water Truck 23
1 Motor Grader 23
Utility trenching and
installation
(2 months/5 workers)
1 Excavator 44
1 Water Truck 44
Building Construction*
(3 months/20 workers) 2 Large forklift 65
Paving
(1 month/5 workers) 1 Motor Grader 26
1 Water Truck 26
1 Paving Machine 26
Landscaping*
(1 month/5 workers) 1 Large forklift 20
1 Skip Loader 20
Architectural coatings*
(1 month/5 workers) 2 Sprayer 23
2 Compressor 23
Source: Allard Engineering, 2022. Note: * Equipment used also includes various hand tools. Working days estimated from CalEEMod.
No export of material would be required.
3.6 Discretionary Actions
The proposed project would be reviewed in detail by applicable City of Fontana departments and
divisions that have the responsibility to review land use applications for compliance with City codes
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 3-15
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
and regulations. City staff is also responsible for reviewing this IS/MND to ensure that it is technically
accurate and is in full compliance with CEQA. The departments and divisions at the City of Fontana
responsible for technical review include:
• City of Fontana Community Development Department;
• City of Fontana Public Works Department;
• City of Fontana Fire Protection District;
• City of Fontana Engineering Department.
The proposed project includes applications for the following discretionary approvals by the City of
Fontana:
• General Plan Amendment changing the General Plan land use designation for the site from C-
G, General Commercial, to R-MF, Multifamily Residential.
• Zone Change changing the zoning district for the site from C-2, General Commercial, to R-3,
Multifamily Residential.
• Remove project site from Auto Overlay.
• Design Review
• Tentative Tract Map (TTM)
3.6.1 Other Permits and Approvals
Table 3.6-1 lists the approvals required for the project.
Table 3.6-1
PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Agency Permit or Approval
City of Fontana Building & Safety Division Site Plan review and approval and Grading and Building
Permits.
Approval of soils report as required for subdivisions
requiring a tentative and final map under California
Health and Safety Code Sections 17953 to 17955
City of Fontana Planning Division General Plan Amendment
Zone Change
Design Review
TTM
Fontana Fire Protection District Building plan check and approval. Review for compliance with
the current California Fire Code, current California Building
Code, California Health & Safety Code and City of Fontana
Municipal Code.
Plans for fire detection and alarm systems, and automatic
sprinklers.
Fontana Public Works Department Approval for proposed offsite utility improvements.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board (Region 8)
Water quality permits
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 3-16
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Fontana Water Company (FWC) Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements
to provide water supply connection to new development.
Southern California Gas Company
(SoCalGas)
Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements
to provide natural gas connection to new development.
Southern California Edison (SCE)
Company
Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements
to provide electrical connection to new development.
❖ SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
(1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards
(e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
(2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as
onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
(3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one
or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
(4) “Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially
Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the
mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to less than significant
level.
(5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an affect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
(See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines. In this case, a brief discussion should
identify the following:
(a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where the earlier analysis available for
review.
(b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
(6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference
❖ SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached
and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
(7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used
or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
(8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant
to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
(9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
(a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
(b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.1 Aesthetics
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
A “visual environment” includes the built environment (development patterns, buildings, parking
areas, and circulation elements) and natural environment (such as hills, vegetation, rock
outcroppings, drainage pathways, and soils) features. Visual quality, viewer groups and sensitivity,
duration, and visual resources characterize views. Visual quality refers to the general aesthetic
quality of a view, such as vividness, intactness, and unity. Viewer groups identify who is most likely
to experience the view. High-sensitivity land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, religious
institutions, and passive outdoor spaces such as parks, playgrounds, and recreation areas. Duration
of a view is the amount of time that a particular view can be seen by a specific viewer group. Visual
resources refer to unique views, and views identified in local plans, from scenic highways, or of
specific unique structures or landscape features.
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact
Scenic vistas generally include extensive panoramic views of natural features, unusual terrain, or
unique urban or historic features, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance,
and focal views that focus on a particular object, scene or feature of interest.
The project site is located in an area of Fontana that is characterized by flat topography and urban
development. The City of Fontana is located on a valley floor between the San Gabriel Mountains to
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
the north and the Jurupa Hills to the south, which both serve as distant scenic vistas for the project
site (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.1-1).
The project site is an undeveloped vacant parcel surrounded by one- and two-story single-family
homes to the south, east, and west. To the north and northeast of the project site are additional vacant
lots with an AM/PM mini market and an ARCO gas station located at the corner of Citrus Avenue and
South Highlands Avenue. Ornamental trees are seen between the homes throughout the project area.
Thus, views of the Jurupa Hills and San Gabriel Mountains are already partially blocked by the
intervening buildings surrounding the project site and would not be significantly impacted by
development of the proposed project. The existing visual character in the vicinity of the project site
is listed in Table 4.1-1 and Figure 4.1-1 includes photographs of the project vicinity.
Furthermore, the project is required to be consistent with the general character of the surrounding
neighborhood in terms of architectural style, density, height, bulk, and setback. All buildings would
be only two stories with a maximum height of approximate 27 feet and thus would blend in with the
heights of the surrounding developments. The proposed development would not obstruct views of
distant mountains and hills for motorists traveling along nearby roadways, specifically Citrus Avenue
because it runs in a north-south alignment and the scenic views in the area are to the north and south;
and the proposed project is located to the east of Citrus Avenue and would not block existing views
from motorists on Citrus Avenue. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impact on
scenic vistas.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provides information regarding officially
designated or eligible state scenic highways, designated as part of the California Scenic Highway
Program. The nearest designated state scenic highway to the project site is State Route 210 near
Azusa (SR-210) at State Route 2 (SR2) in Los Angeles, more than 30 miles away (see Figure 4.1-2).
Due to the large distance between the project site and SR-210/SR2, construction and implementation
of the project would have no impact on state scenic highways. Therefore, the project would have no
impacts on trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located in an emerging suburban setting characterized by a mix of residential and
commercial land uses and vacant land. Views of the existing streetscape are characterized by low
height (one-story to two-story) buildings, utilities (including utility lines, poles, and street lights) and
landscaping. Refer to Table 4.1-1, which describes the existing visual character in the vicinity of the
project site. Figure 4.1-1 includes photographs of the project vicinity.
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.1-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Table 4.1-1
EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER AND LAND USES IN THE PROJECT AREA
Location General
Characteristics Existing Lighting Building Height and
Design Landscaping
Project
Site
Undeveloped
parcel, greenfield None Non-existent Grasses, dirt
Surrounding Areas
North and
Northeast
Vacant land and
an AM/PM mini
mart with an
ARCO gas station
Exterior lighting
associated with the
commercial
development.
One-story building with
sloping roofs and
plastered exterior walls
painted in varying
colors.
Ornamental
vegetation consisting
of trees, grasses, and
shrubs.
South
One- and two-
story single-
family homes.
Exterior lighting
associated with the
residential developments
and street lighting.
One- to two-story
buildings with two car
garages, tiled sloping
roofs and stucco exterior
walls painted in varying
colors.
Ornamental
landscaping
including a few trees
and ornamental
vegetation.
East
One- and two-
story single-
family homes.
Exterior lighting
associated with the
residential developments
and street lighting.
One- to two-story
buildings with two car
garages, tiled sloping
roofs and stucco exterior
walls painted in varying
colors.
Ornamental
landscaping
including a few trees
and ornamental
vegetation.
West
Citrus Avenue
adjacent west -
One- and two-
story single-
family homes
west of Citrus
Avenue.
Exterior lighting
associated with the
residential developments
and street lighting.
Single- to two-story
buildings with two car
garages, tiled sloping
roofs and stucco exterior
walls painted in varying
colors.
Ornamental
landscaping
including a few trees
and ornamental
vegetation.
Source: UltraSystems, 2022 and Google Earth, 2022.
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.1-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.1-1
EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.1-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.1-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.1-2
STATE SCENIC HIGHWAYS
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.1-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Construction. Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary views of construction
activities, construction staging areas, grading, excavation, construction equipment, material storage
areas, construction debris, and exposed trenches on the project site. During project construction,
there would be certain elements on the project site that are not compatible with the project vicinity.
These may include construction equipment, stockpiled materials, and construction‐area barriers and
fencing. While these elements would be removed following construction, they would nonetheless
result in a temporary impact. However, during project construction, work areas would be screened
from public view by temporary barriers/fencing. Project construction could temporarily degrade the
existing visual character of the project area and its immediate surroundings. This impact would be
short-term and thus would be less than significant.
Operation. The completed project would consist of 14 two-story buildings, all about the same height
as the adjacent two-story single-family homes to the south, but taller than the single-family homes to
the west. The project proposes an architectural style to complement the surrounding neighborhood.
The project architecture includes both wall and roof plane articulation and would carry the design
elements to each elevation, including the inner portions of the site and all detached structures, such
as trash enclosures. The maximum building height of all of the proposed buildings is approximately
25 feet. The buildings would have stucco and stone veneer exteriors with wood shutters and sloped
composite roofs. Exterior walls would be in earthy shades of brown, tan, and grey and the roofs would
be dark grey/brown (Andresen Architects, Inc. 2022, pp PL-2 to PL-7). The proposed residential
project would not be out of character with the surrounding area, which consists of primarily
residential and commercial uses and vacant land. Figures 4.1-3 through Figure 4.1-7 show
elevations and color palettes of the proposed project. The proposed project would not degrade the
existing visual character of the site because new buildings would be consistent with the general
character of surrounding neighborhood buildings in terms of architectural style and setbacks.
The overall site plan design and building placement would create several landscaped areas onsite.
Figure 3.3-5 in Section 3.0 depicts the landscaping envisioned for the proposed project. The common
open space area of the project includes 66,094 square feet of common uses, including a Tot Lot and
BBQ area west of Building 4 and a Pet Area between Building 7 & 8. The project would improve an
existing underutilized piece of land with affordable housing and landscaping, thereby resulting in a
beneficial change to existing site conditions and would not adversely affect the existing visual
character of the site and its surroundings.
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.1-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.1-3
BUILDING A ELEVATIONS
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.1-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.1-4
BUILDING B ELEVATIONS
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.1-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.1-5
BUILDING C ELEVATIONS
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.1-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.1-6
COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARDS
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.1-12
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
The project site is located in an urban setting characterized by residential land uses. As further
detailed in Section 4.11, the project would not conflict with policies under the proposed R-MF
(Multifamily Residential) General Plan land use or proposed Multi-Family Residential (R-3) zoning
designation. Table 4.1-1 below provides the applicable policies from the City of Fontana General
Plan that pertain to aesthetics, along with a description of how the proposed project would comply.
Table 4.1-1
PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF FONTANA GENERAL PLAN POLICIES REGARDING
SCENIC QUALITY AND AESTHETICS
General Plan Element Project Compliance
Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails Element. 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.
The proposed project would be developed on vacant
land that consists primarily of non-native grasses
with sparse weeds and scattered native shrubs.
The site does not have any trees. The proposed project
would install drought-resistant trees and would
expand the city’s tree canopy compared to existing
conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not
conflict with this policy.
Land Use Element. Goal 7: Public and private development meets high design standards.
Policies:
• Support high-quality development in
design standards and in land use
decisions.
The proposed project would construct a high-quality
development, including ornamental landscaping that
would complement the surrounding residential land
uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not
conflict with this policy.
Source: Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.1-8 and 5.1-14
As analyzed above, the proposed project would adhere to applicable aesthetic and scenic quality
regulations and policies mandated by the City of Fontana General Plan. Currently the project site is
vacant and views from surrounding developments include views of residential neighborhoods and
vacant land. The proposed project would add well-designed aesthetically pleasing buildings and
landscaping on the site and therefore have a positive effect on the visual character of the site when
compared to existing conditions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact with Implementation of Mitigation
Construction
During project construction there would be additional sources of light that would be used to provide
security lighting for the construction staging area(s) on the project site. To ensure that construction
lighting would not have a significant impact on surrounding residences, mitigation measure AES-1 is
recommended to reduce potential temporary construction lighting impacts to a less than significant
level.
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.1-13
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Project construction would not generate substantial glare that would adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views in the area. Construction equipment consists of low-glare materials. Construction
would occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and so would not involve long durations of
nighttime work. The proposed exterior building materials, such as sand color exterior plaster and
stone veneer, would not be highly reflective. Construction glare impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure
MM AES-1 During project construction the project applicant shall place construction staging
areas as far away as possible from adjacent residences so as to minimize, to the
maximum extent possible, any potential lighting impacts to nearby residences. The
lighting used during project construction shall consist of the minimum amount of
light necessary for safety and security on the project site.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of MM AES-1 and given that project construction would be temporary, the
proposed project would have a less than significant impact regarding temporary construction
lighting and glare.
Operation
The project proposes new exterior lighting throughout the site. Installation of exterior lighting would
be necessary for safety and nighttime visibility throughout the proposed residential development.
The new project lighting would be visible from the surrounding area. Therefore, the project’s
proposed exterior lighting is expected to contribute to ambient nighttime illumination in the project
vicinity. The project site is located in an urban area, which is characterized by low to medium
nighttime ambient light levels. Streetlights, traffic on local streets, and exterior lighting in
surrounding developments are the primary sources of light that contribute to the ambient light levels
in the project area. Light-sensitive uses in the project vicinity are limited to residences.
Lighting for the project would comply with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code.
Specifically, the project would be required to comply with City of Fontana Municipal Code § 30-471,
Light and glare (for residential zoning districts)5, which states, “All lights shall be directed and/or
shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting adjacent properties. No structure or feature
shall be permitted which creates adverse glare effects.”
Fontana’s Municipal Code Section 30-697, Lighting (for on-site parking)6 also sets forth requirements
for exterior lighting, which states the following:
5 Sec. 30-471. - Light and glare. Chapter 30 - ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE V. - RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICTS, DIVISION 6. - PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=CH30ZODECO_ARTVREZO
DI_DIV6PEST_S30-471LIGL
6 Sec. 30-697. - Lighting. Chapter 30 - ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE XI. - ON-SITE PARKING AND
LOADING REGULATIONS, DIVISION 3. - DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PARKING FACILITY.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=CH30ZODECO_ARTXITEP
ALORE_DIV3DESTPAFA_S30-697LI
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.1-14
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
“The minimum standard of one foot candle is required for all entrances, exits, pedestrian
paths, parking lots, and activity areas. All areas shall be illuminated during hours of
darkness and all luminaries utilized shall be vandal-resistant fixtures. The type of
lighting shall be fluorescent, white L.E.D.s or metal halide. A photometric layout may be
required to ensure the minimum light standard is met, per Police Department security
code requirements.
All lights shall be directed and shielded to prevent light or glare from spilling over onto
and adversely affecting adjacent properties. Light standards shall have a design
compatible with the architectural style of related buildings.”
The minimum standard of one foot candle requirement for safety is a City planning condition.
Headlight Impacts on Residents Opposite Citrus Avenue from Project Site
Project access would be via a singular two-way driveway going through the middle of the project
with one entrance/exit onto Citrus Avenue. Headlights of vehicles exiting the development at night
would shine into the living rooms of two or three homes across Citrus Avenue. These homes do not
have walls or landscaping in front to block or minimize the impacts of the headlights. Impacts would
be less than significant because of the distance of four lanes plus a median that separate the driveway
exit from the homes, and the brief illumination period on the residences at a time when the least
traffic would be coming and going outside of peak hours.
Sky Glow
Sky Glow is the brightening of the sky that occurs as a result of outdoor lighting fixtures emitting a
portion of their light directly into the sky. There are no dark sky requirements or lighting restrictions
beyond the residential municipal code specifications. Sky glow impacts would be less than significant.
Glare
Glare is the objectionable brightness caused by over-illumination, as well as poorly shielded or poorly
aimed light fixtures. The proposed project would introduce new outdoor artificial lighting elements,
which have the potential to result in glare if the main beams of proposed lighting elements (i.e., the
portion of the lamp with the greatest illuminance) are visible from offsite locations, resulting in
excessive, uncontrolled brightness. However, the project would comply with the requirements of the
City’s Municipal Code. Specifically, the project would be required to comply with City of Fontana
Municipal Code § 30-471, Light and glare (for residential zoning districts)7, which states, “All lights
shall be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting adjacent properties.
No structure or feature shall be permitted which creates adverse glare effects.”
Fontana’s Municipal Code Section 30-697, Lighting (for on-site parking)8 also sets forth requirements
for exterior lighting, which states the following:
7 Sec. 30-471. - Light and glare. Chapter 30 - ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE V. - RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICTS, DIVISION 6. - PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=CH30ZODECO_ARTVREZO
DI_DIV6PEST_S30-471LIGL
8 Sec. 30-697. - Lighting. Chapter 30 - ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE XI. - ON-SITE PARKING AND
LOADING REGULATIONS, DIVISION 3. - DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PARKING FACILITY.
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.1-15
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
“The minimum standard of one foot candle is required for all entrances, exits, pedestrian
paths, parking lots, and activity areas. All areas shall be illuminated during hours of
darkness and all luminaries utilized shall be vandal-resistant fixtures. The type of
lighting shall be fluorescent, white L.E.D.s or metal halide. A photometric layout may be
required to ensure the minimum light standard is met, per Police Department security
code requirements.
All lights shall be directed and shielded to prevent light or glare from spilling over onto
and adversely affecting adjacent properties. Light standards shall have a design
compatible with the architectural style of related buildings.”
Figure 4.1-7 contains the Photometric Plan for the project.
Furthermore, as detailed in Figure 4.1-6, the project would utilize light-colored building materials
such as sand color exterior plaster and stone veneer with no use of highly reflective building
materials. Therefore, impacts from new sources of substantial light or glare would be less than
significant.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=CH30ZODECO_ARTXITEP
ALORE_DIV3DESTPAFA_S30-697LI
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.1-16
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.1-7
SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN
❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.2-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
§ 12220(g)), timberland (as defined
by Public Resources Codes § 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code § 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
No Impact
The project site and surrounding uses are designated by the Division of Land Resource Protection
(DLRP) as “Other Land” (see Figure 4.2-1 below), which is land not included in any other mapping
category. Other Land includes: low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian
areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip
mines; borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres. (DOC, 2016) Therefore, no farmland
would be converted to non-agricultural use and no impacts would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.2-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.2-1
IMPORTANT FARMLAND CATEGORIES
❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.2-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
No Impact
The project site is zoned General Commercial (C-2), and is not zoned for agricultural use. Williamson
Act contracts restrict the use of privately-owned land to agriculture and compatible open-space uses
under contract with local governments; in exchange, the land is taxed based on actual use rather than
potential market value. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract or under an
Agricultural Preserve contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Codes § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code § 51104(g))?
No Impact
The project site is zoned General Commercial (C-2); the site is not zoned for forest, timberland, or
timberland production use. Therefore, project development would not conflict with zoning for forest
land or timberland, and no impact would occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
No Impact
The project site and surroundings are not cultivated for forest resources. Therefore, project
development would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use,
and no impact would occur.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
The project site is vacant and is surrounded by residences to the east and south, and to the west
opposite Citrus Avenue. No important farmland is near the project site; the nearest such farmland is
Unique Farmland approximately 1.5 miles to the west. No forest land is present on or near the project
site. Therefore, project development would not indirectly cause conversion of farmland to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and no impacts would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.3-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.3 Air Quality
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
4.3.1 Pollutants of Concern
Criteria pollutants are air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and
an ambient air quality standard has been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and/or the California Air Resources Board (ARB). The criteria air pollutants of concern are
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), lead (Pb), and ozone, and their precursors, such as reactive organic gases (ROG) (which are
ozone precursors). Since the Citrus Avenue Condominium Project (project) would not generate
appreciable SO2 or Pb emissions,9 it is not necessary for the analysis to include those two pollutants.
Presented below is a description of the air pollutants of concern and their known health effects.
The project is in the southwestern San Bernardino County portion of the South Coast Air Basin
(SCAB), for whose air pollution control the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
is substantially responsible. Table 4.3-1 shows the attainment status of the SCAB for each criteria
pollutant for both the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air
Quality Standards (CAAQS). Presented below is a description of the air pollutants of concern and their
known health effects.
Nitrogen oxides (NOX) serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog
production and are precursors for certain particulate compounds that are formed in the atmosphere
and for ozone. A precursor is a directly emitted air contaminant that, when released into the
atmosphere, forms, causes to be formed, or contributes to the formation of a secondary air
contaminant for which an ambient air quality standard (AAQS) has been adopted, or whose presence
9 Sulfur dioxide emissions will be below 0.05 pound per day during construction and operations.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.3-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
in the atmosphere will contribute to the violation of one or more AAQSs. When NOX and ROG are
released in the atmosphere, they can chemically react with one another in the presence of sunlight to
form ozone. The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. NO is a colorless, odorless gas
formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high
temperature and/or high pressure. NO2 is a reddish-brown pungent gas formed by the combination
of NO and oxygen. NO2 acts as an acute respiratory irritant and eye irritant and increases
susceptibility to respiratory pathogens (USEPA, 2011).
Table 4.3-1
FEDERAL AND STATE ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutants Federal Classification State Classification
Ozone (O3) Nonattainment (Extreme) Nonattainment
Particulate Matter (PM10) Maintenance (Serious) Nonattainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment (Serious) Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance (Serious) Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Maintenance Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment
Sulfates
No Federal Standards
Attainment
Lead (Pb) Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Unclassified
Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified
Sources: ARB, 2017; USEPA, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d, 2021e.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless non-reactive pollutant produced by incomplete
combustion of fossil fuels. CO is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants,
refineries, industrial boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains. In urban areas, such as the project location,
automobile exhaust accounts for most CO emissions. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates
relatively quickly; therefore, ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal
distributions of vehicular traffic. CO concentrations are influenced by local meteorological
conditions; primarily wind speed, topography, and atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle
exhaust can become locally concentrated when surface-based temperature inversions are combined
with calm atmospheric conditions, a typical situation at dusk in urban areas between November and
February. The highest levels of CO typically occur during the colder months of the year when
inversion conditions are more frequent. In terms of health, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing
it in the blood, thus reducing the blood’s ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of
excess CO exposure can be dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions.
High concentrations are lethal (USEPA, 2010).
Particulate matter (PM) consists of finely divided solids or liquids, such as soot, dust, aerosols,
fumes and mists. Primary PM is emitted directly into the atmosphere from activities such as
agricultural operations, industrial processes, construction and demolition activities, and
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.3-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
entrainment of road dust into the air. Secondary PM is formed in the atmosphere from predominantly
gaseous combustion by-product precursors, such as sulfur oxides, NOX, and ROGs.
Particle size is a critical characteristic of PM that primarily determines the location of PM deposition
along the respiratory system (and associated health effects) as well as the degradation of visibility
through light scattering. In the United States, federal and state agencies have focused on two types of
PM. PM10 corresponds to the fraction of PM no greater than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter
and is commonly called respirable particulate matter, while PM2.5 refers to the subset of PM10 of
aerodynamic diameter smaller than 2.5 micrometers, which is commonly called fine particulate
matter.
PM10 and PM2.5 deposition in the lungs results in irritation that triggers a range of inflammation
responses, such as mucus secretion and bronchoconstriction, and exacerbates pulmonary
dysfunctions, such as asthma, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis. Sufficiently small particles may
penetrate the bloodstream and impact functions such as blood coagulation, cardiac autonomic
control, and mobilization of inflammatory cells from the bone marrow. Individuals susceptible to
higher health risks from exposure to PM10 airborne pollution include children, the elderly, smokers,
and people of all ages with low pulmonary/cardiovascular function. For these individuals, adverse
health effects of PM10 pollution include coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, phlegm, bronchitis,
and aggravation of lung or heart disease, leading, for example, to increased risks of hospitalization
and mortality from asthma attacks and heart attacks (USEPA, 2019a).
Reactive organic gases (ROG) are defined as any compound of carbon, excluding CO, carbon dioxide,
carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in
atmospheric photochemical reactions. It should be noted that there are no state or national ambient
air quality standards for ROG because ROGs are not classified as criteria pollutants. They are
regulated, however, because a reduction in ROG emissions reduces certain chemical reactions that
contribute to the formation of ozone. ROGs are also transformed into organic aerosols in the
atmosphere, which contribute to higher PM10 and lower visibility. The term “ROG” is used by the ARB
for this air quality analysis and is defined the same as the federal term “volatile organic compound”
(VOC).
Ozone is a secondary pollutant produced through a series of photochemical reactions involving ROG
and NOX. Ozone creation requires ROG and NOX to be available for approximately three hours in a
stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. Because of the long reaction time, peak ozone concentrations
frequently occur downwind of the sites where the precursor pollutants are emitted. Thus, ozone is
considered a regional, rather than a local, pollutant. The health effects of ozone include eye and
respiratory irritation, reduction of resistance to lung infection and possible aggravation of
pulmonary conditions in persons with lung disease. Ozone is also damaging to vegetation and
untreated rubber (USEPA, 2020f).
4.3.2 Climate/Meteorology
Air quality is affected by both the rate and location of pollutant emissions, and by meteorological
conditions that influence movement and dispersal of pollutants. Atmospheric conditions such as
wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients, along with local topography, provide the
link between air pollutant emissions and air quality.
The project site would be located wholly within the SCAB, which includes all of Orange County, as
well as the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.3-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
distinctive climate of the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The SCAB is in
a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the
southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region
lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. Thus, the climate is mild,
tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by
periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds (SCAQMD, 1993).
The annual average temperature varies little throughout the 6,600-square-mile SCAB, ranging from
the low 60s to the high 80s. However, with a less pronounced oceanic influence, the inland portion
shows greater variability in the annual minimum and maximum temperatures. The mean annual
maximum and minimum temperatures in the project area—as determined from the nearest weather
station Fontana Kaiser (WRCC, 2021), which has a period of record from 1961 to 1990—are 79.5
degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and 52.7°F, respectively. The hottest months are July and August, with an
average maximum temperature of 94.6°F, and the coldest month is December, with an average
minimum temperature of 44.4°F (WRCC, 2021).
During the period of record, the average rainfall measured 15.32 inches, which occurs mostly during
the winter and relatively infrequently during the summer. Monthly precipitation averages
approximately 8.57 inches during the winter (December, January, and February), approximately
4.19 inches during the spring (March, April, and May), approximately 2.40 inch during the fall
(September, October, and November), and approximately 0.16 inch during the summer (June, July,
and August).
4.3.3 Local Air Quality
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has divided the SCAB into source
receptor areas (SRAs), based on similar meteorological and topographical features. The proposed
project site is in SCAQMD’s Central San Bernardino Valley (SRA 34), which is served by the SCAQMD’s
Fontana-Arrow Monitoring Station, located about 3.2 miles southwest of the proposed project site,
at 14360 Arrow Highway in Fontana (SCAQMD, 2021). Criteria pollutants monitored at the Fontana-
Arrow Monitoring Station include ozone, PM10, PM2.5, and NO2. CO has not been monitored in the
SCAB since 2012. The ambient air quality data in the project vicinity as recorded from 2018 through
2020, along with applicable standards, are shown in Table 4.3-2.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.3-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Table 4.3-2
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Air
Pollutant Standard/Exceedance 2018 2019 2020
Ozone (O3)
Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm)
Max. 8-hour Concentration (ppm)
# Days > Federal 8-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm
# Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.09 ppm
# Days > California 8-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm
0.141
0.111
69
38
72
0.124
0.109
67
41
71
0.151
0.112
89
56
91
Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3)
Est. # Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 150 µg/m3
Federal Annual Average (12 µg/m3)
64.1.
0
34.6
88.8
0
35.3
76.8
ND
37.2
Fine Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3)
# Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 35 µg/m3
State Annual Average (12 µg/m3)
29.2
0
10.0
81.3
9.1
ND
57.6
12.3
12.7
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm)
State Annual Average (0.030 ppm)
# Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.18 ppm
0.070
0.018
0
0.070
0.017
0
0.070
0.018
0
Source: ARB, 2022, USEPA 2021.
ND - There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.
Bold - exceedance
4.3.4 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
The SCAQMD is required to produce plans to show how air quality will be improved in the region.
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires that these plans be updated triennially to incorporate
the most recent available technical information.10 A multi-level partnership of governmental agencies
at the federal, state, regional, and local levels implement the programs contained in these plans.
Agencies involved include the USEPA, ARB, local governments, Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG), and SCAQMD. The SCAQMD and the SCAG are responsible for formulating and
implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB. The SCAQMD updates its
AQMP every three years.
The 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD, 2017b) was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on March 3, 2017, and on
March 10, 2017 was submitted to the ARB (SCAQMD, 2017a) to become part of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP)11 (SCAQMD, 2017a). The AQMP was then submitted to the USEPA
(ARB, 2017a). It focuses largely on reducing NOX emissions as a means of attaining the 1979 1-hour
ozone standard by 2022, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by 2023, and the 2008 8-hour standard by
2031. The AQMP prescribes a variety of current and proposed new control measures, including a
request to the USEPA for increased regulation of mobile source emissions. The NOX control measures
would also help the Basin attain the 24-hour standard for PM2.5.
10 CCAA of 1988.
11 The State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a collection of local and regional plans, regulations, and rules for attaining
ambient air quality standards. It is periodically submitted to the USEPA for approval.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.3-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.3.5 Sensitive Receptors
Some people, such as individuals with respiratory illnesses or impaired lung function because of
other illnesses, persons over 65 years of age, and children under 14, are particularly sensitive to
certain pollutants. Facilities and structures where these sensitive people live or spend considerable
amounts of time are known as sensitive receptors. For the purposes of a CEQA analysis, the SCAQMD
localized significance analysis methodology (see Section 4.3.7) considers a sensitive receptor to be
a receptor such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility where it is possible that an individual
could remain for 24 hours (Chico and Koizumi, 2008, p. 3-2). The present analysis also includes
schools as sensitive receptors for air pollution. Commercial and industrial facilities are not included
in the definition of sensitive receptor, because employees typically are present for shorter periods of
time, such as eight hours. Therefore, applying a 24-hour standard for PM10 is appropriate not only
because the averaging period for the state standard is 24 hours, but also because people would be at
the sensitive receptor location for the full 24 hours.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family residences to the south, east and
west of the project site. The A.B. Miller High School is within 0.24 mile of the project site. Additionally,
the Wayne Ruble Middle School at 6762 Juniper Ave, Fontana, is 0.54 mile from the project site.
4.3.6 Applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules
Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Rule)
During construction, the project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (fugitive dust). SCAQMD
Rule 403 does not require a permit for construction activities, per se; rather, it sets forth general and
specific requirements for all construction sites (as well as other fugitive dust sources) in the SCAB.
The general requirement prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from
construction (or other fugitive dust source) such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the
atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source. SCAQMD Rule 403 also prohibits
construction activity from causing a PM10 concentration difference of more than 50 micrograms per
cubic meter between upwind and downwind samples at the property line. The concentration
standard and associated PM10 sampling do not apply if specific measures identified in the rules are
implemented and appropriately documented.
Other requirements of Rule 403 include not causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust that would
remain visible beyond the property line; no track-out extending 25 feet or more in cumulative length
and all track-out to be removed at conclusion of each workday; and using the applicable best available
control measures included in Table 1 of Rule 403.
Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings)
Construction of the project would include the application of architectural coatings and be subject to
SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Among other applicable entities, Rule 1113 requires
any person who applies, stores at a worksite, or solicits the application of architectural coatings to
use coatings that contain VOC less than or equal to the VOC limits specified in Table 1 of the rule.
4.3.7 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.3-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Less than significant Impact
The South Coast 2016 AQMP, discussed above, incorporates land use assumptions from local general
plans and regional growth projections developed by the SCAG to estimate stationary and mobile air
emissions associated with projected population and planned land uses. If the proposed land use is
consistent with the local general plan, then the impact of the project is presumed to have been
accounted for in the AQMP. This is because the land use and transportation control sections of the
AQMP are based on the SCAG regional growth forecasts, which incorporates projections from local
general plans. Since, the proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change. it
is not directly accounted for in the current AQMP. However, it is important to look at other aspects
of consistency with the AQMP.
Another measurement tool in evaluating consistency with the AQMP is to determine whether a
project would generate population and employment growth and, if so, whether that growth would
exceed the growth rates forecasted in the AQMP and how the project would accommodate the
expected increase in population or employment. The project would create minimal increase in
population and overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which would be included in the growth rates
forecasted in the AQMP.
Additionally, to assist the implementation of the AQMP, projects must not create regionally
significant emissions of regulated pollutants from either short-term construction or long-term
operations. The SCAQMD (2019) has developed criteria in the form of emissions thresholds for
determining whether emissions from a project are regionally significant. They are useful for
estimating whether a project is likely to result in a violation of the NAAQS and/or whether the project
is in conformity with plans to achieve attainment. SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for criteria
pollutant emissions during construction activities and project operation are summarized in
Table 4.3-3. A project is considered to have a regional air quality impact if emissions from its
construction and/or operational activities exceed the corresponding SCAQMD significance
thresholds.
Table 4.3-3
SCAQMD THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Pollutant Construction
Thresholds (lbs/day)
Operational
Thresholds (lbs/day)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 150
Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55
Note: lbs = pounds. Source: SCAQMD, 2019.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.3-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Regional Construction Emissions
Project construction is expected to begin around February 2023 and would last approximately eight
to ten months, ending about October 2023.
Table 4.3-4 shows the project schedule used for the air quality, GHG emissions, and noise analyses.
Table 4.3-4
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Construction Phase Start End
Site Preparation February 1, 2023 March 1, 2023
Grading March 2, 2023 April 3, 2023
Utility Trenching and Installation April 4, 2023 June 2, 2023
Building Construction June 5, 2023 September 29, 2023
Paving June 26, 2023 July 31, 2023
Architectural Coating September 29, 2023 October 31, 2023
These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dusts, fumes, equipment
exhaust, and other air contaminants. Mobile sources (such as diesel-fueled equipment onsite and
traveling to and from the project site) would primarily generate NOX emissions. The quantity of
emissions generated daily would vary, depending on the amount and types of construction activities
occurring at the same time.
Estimated criteria pollutant emissions from the project’s onsite and offsite project construction
activities were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version
2020.4.0 (CAPCOA, 2022). CalEEMod is a planning tool for estimating emissions related to land use
projects. Model-predicted project emissions are compared with applicable thresholds to assess
regional air quality impacts. Offroad construction equipment information was supplied by the client
but CalEEMod defaults were used for onroad construction traffic inputs.
As shown in Table 4.3-5, construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds.
Therefore, the project’s short-term regional air quality impacts would be less than significant. Refer
to Appendix B of this document for air quality calculations.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.3-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Table 4.3-5
MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Activity
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Emissions, 2023 28.63 23.66 16.40 3.48 2.18
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 55
Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022). SCAQMD, 2019
Regional Operational Emissions
Operational emissions generated by area sources, motor vehicles and energy demand would result
from normal day-to-day activities of the project. The results of these calculations are presented in
Table 4.3-6. As seen in the table, for each criteria pollutant, operational emissions would be below
the pollutant’s SCAQMD significance threshold. Therefore, regional operational emissions would be
less than significant. Despite the changes in land use and zoning, the project would not run counter
to the policies, goals, and emission reduction efforts embodied in the AQMP.
Table 4.3-6
MAXIMUM DAILY PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Emission Source
Pollutant (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 2.32 0.06 5.61 0.03 0.03
Energy Source Emissions 0.04 0.36 0.15 0.03 0.03
Mobile Source Emissions 1.83 2.50 17.92 4.02 1.09
Total Operational Emissions 4.19 2.92 23.68 4.08 1.15
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55
Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022). SCAQMD,
2019.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact
Since the SCAB is currently in nonattainment for ozone and PM2.5, related projects may exceed an air
quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. The SCAQMD
neither recommends quantified analyses of construction and/or operational emissions from multiple
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.3-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
development projects nor provides methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess
the cumulative emissions generated by multiple cumulative projects. Instead, the District
recommends that a project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed by utilizing
the same significance criteria as those for project-specific impacts. Furthermore, the SCAQMD states
that if an individual development project generates less-than-significant construction or operational
emissions impacts, then the development project would not contribute to a cumulatively
considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment.
As discussed above, the mass daily construction and operational emissions generated by the project
would not exceed any of the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds. Also, as discussed below, localized
emissions generated by the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance
Thresholds (LSTs). Therefore, the project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable increase
in emissions for the pollutants which the SCAB is in nonattainment. Thus, cumulative air quality
impacts associated with the project would be less than significant.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction of the project would generate short-term and intermittent emissions. Following the
SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (Chico and Koizumi, 2008), only onsite
construction emissions were considered in the localized significance analysis. The residences to the
south, and east of the project site are the nearest sensitive receptors (less than 5 meters away).12
Localized significance thresholds for projects in SRA 34 were obtained from tables in Appendix C of
the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (Chico and Koizumi, 2008).
Table 4.3-7 shows the results of the localized significance analysis for the project. Localized short-
term air quality impacts from construction of the project would be less than significant.
Table 4.3-7
RESULTS OF UNMITIGATED LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS
Nearest Sensitive Receptor
Maximum Onsite Construction
Emissions (pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum daily unmitigated emissions 23.63 14.22 3.37 2.15
SCAQMD LST for 4.6 acres @ 25 meters 257 1,645 13 7.5
Significant (Yes or No) No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022). SCAQMD, 2019.
12 According to SCAQMD guidance, a receptor closer than 25 meters to the source may be assumed to be 25 meters away
(Chico and Koizumi, 2008, p. 3-3).
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.3-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact
A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if construction or operation of the proposed
project would result in generation of odors that would be perceptible in adjacent sensitive areas.
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993), land uses and industrial
operations that are associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment
plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and
fiberglass molding. Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include
equipment exhaust. Odors from these sources would be localized and generally confined to the
immediate area surrounding the project. The project would use typical construction techniques, and
the odors would be typical of most construction sites and temporary in nature.
The project would not create substantial objectionable odors and this impact would be less than
significant.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.4-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
4.4.1 Environmental Setting
The City of Fontana is in southwestern San Bernardino County, California. Residential developments
surround the project site on the east, south, and west. Vacant land exists north of the site. Residential
developments and vacant land compose the majority of the biological study area (BSA), shown in
Figure 4.4-1; a gas station and mini-market are located on the southeast corner of Citrus Avenue and
South Highland Avenue, approximately 0.1 mile north of the project site. The project site contains a
high coverage of non-native annual grasses and native shrubs (see Figure 4.4-2).
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.4-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.4–1
PROJECT LOCATION AND BIOLOGICAL STUDY AREA
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.4-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.4–2
LAND COVER TYPES
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.4-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
The project site is located in a relatively urbanized area, and provides low-value habitat for most of
the special status plant and wildlife species that have been recorded within ten miles of the project
site (CNDDB 2022). The project site itself has a relatively flat topography. Elevations on the project
site range from 1,480 feet to 1,490 feet above mean sea level (amsl) (Google Earth, 2022). The project
site is currently undeveloped. Stormwater runoff generated on the project site is discharged as sheet
flow toward the west and southwest, and into a storm drain inlet installed on Citrus Avenue.
Vegetation on the project site includes dry non-native grasses (Gramineae family) and sparse weeds
consisting of herons bill (Erodium sp.), black mustard (Brassica nigra), wild oats (Avena fatua) and
various chenopod species. The eastern quarter of the property includes scattered native shrubs
consisting of a patch of deer weed (Lotus scoparius); jimson weed (Datura wrightii) in the disturbed
soil of the northern area and dove weed (Croton setigerus) in the disturbed soil of the eastern edge
of the parcel. See Figure 2.2-2 and Figure 4.1-1 for photos of the project site. Figure 4.4-3 shows
the soil on the project site.
Methodology
UltraSystems Environmental, Inc (UEI) biologists conducted a literature review to identify habitat,
special-status plant and wildlife species, waters of the U.S. and State, including wetlands, critical
habitat, and wildlife movement corridors potentially associated with the project site. Biologists
reviewed relevant literature, databases, agency web sites, reports and management plans,
Geographic Information System (GIS) data, maps, aerial imagery obtained from public domain
sources, and photographs of the project site. The review helped to determine which biological
surveys may be required prior to site construction and development. Windshield surveys were
conducted (from an automobile) for this project on April 12 and 21, 2022.
4.4.2 Discussion of Impacts
Plant and wildlife species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or under the
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) are referred to collectively as “listed species” in this
section. Plant and wildlife species not listed under ESA or CESA but still protected by federal agencies,
state agencies, local or regional plans and/or nonprofit resource organizations, such as the California
Native Plant Society (CNPS), are collectively referred to as “sensitive species” in this section. The term
“special-status species” is used when collectively referring to both listed and sensitive species.
e) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Literature Review Results and Discussion
Impacts to Special-Status Plants and Vegetation Communities
Based on a literature review and query from publicly available databases (hereafter, plant inventory;
USFWS 2022a, b, CNDDB 2022a) for reported occurrences within a ten-mile radius of the project site,
there were nine listed and 26 sensitive plant species identified by one of the following means:
reported in the plant inventory; recognized as occurring based on survey observations or knowledge
of the area; or observed during other surveys (see Figure 4.4-4). Of those 35 total species, one listed
and three sensitive plant species were determined to have a low potential to occur and these species
are listed in Appendix C, Special-Status Species Inventory and Potential Occurrence Determination.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.4-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.4-3
USDA SOILS
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.4-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.4-4
CNDDB KNOWN OCCURRENCES PLANT SPECIES AND HABITATS
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.4-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
The following four species in the plant inventory were determined to have a low potential to occur
in the project site, but none of these species were observed during the windshield surveys:
• slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) FE, SE, CRPR: 1B.1
• short-joint beavertail (Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada) CRPR: 1B.3
• Plummer’s mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae) CRPR: 4.2
• Robinson’s pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii) CRPR: 4.3
The project site lacks suitable habitat, or is outside the elevation or geographic range of all but four
special-status plant species documented in the plant inventory. No special-status plant species were
observed during the windshield surveys, including the four special-status plant species determined
to have a low potential to occur. In addition, the project site contains a high coverage of non-native
annual grasses, therefore likely deterring the establishment of special-status plants on the project
site (See Figure 4.4-2). Considering that none of the four special-status plant species determined to
have a low potential to occur within the BSA were observed, it is anticipated that construction of the
project will have less than a significant impact on special-status plant species within the BSA.
Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife
Based on a literature review and query from publicly available databases (hereafter, wildlife
inventory; USFWS 2022a, b, CNDDB 2022) for reported occurrences within a ten-mile radius of the
project site, there were 16 listed and 25 sensitive wildlife species identified by one of the following
means: reported in the wildlife inventory; recognized as occurring based on survey observations and
knowledge of the area; or observed during other surveys. Refer to Figure 4.4-5, which displays
species identified in the CNDDB wildlife inventory within a two-mile radius of the BSA. Of those 41
total species, six listed and 14 sensitive wildlife species were determined to have at least a low
potential to occur and these species are listed on a table (Special-Status Species Inventory and
Potential Occurrence Determination) included in Appendix C. It is anticipated that construction of
the project would not have a significant impact on any of those special-status wildlife species.
The following four species in the wildlife inventory were determined to have a moderate potential to
occur on the project site, but none of these species were observed during the windshield surveys:
• Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii)
• northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax)
• burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
• San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii)
The following 16 species in the wildlife inventory were determined to have a low potential to occur
in the project site, but none of these species were observed during the windshield surveys:
• Delhi sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) FE
• Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) ST, BCC, Season of Concern: nesting
• coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)
• San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) FE, SSC
• Stephen’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) FE, ST
• monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus pop. 1) FC: California overwintering population
• San Diegan whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) SSC
• California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis) SSC
• white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus)
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.4-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.4-5
CNDDB KNOWN OCCURRENCES WILDLIFE SPECIES
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.4-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
• Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
• merlin (Falco columbarius) WL, Season of concern: nesting
• California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) WL
• pallid San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax pallidus) SSC
• Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) SSC
• western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) SSC, WBWG:H
• western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus) SSC, WBWG:H
These species may occur on the project site but were not observed during the windshield survey and
do not appear to reside permanently within the BSA. The BSA is primarily surrounded by residential
developments which limit the availability of foraging habitat for species within the BSA. Another
factor that reduces the likelihood that special-status wildlife would establish in the BSA is that there
is a high level of traffic and traffic noise, which may make the habitat less desirable for many special-
status species to occupy. Thus, it is anticipated that construction of the project would have a less than
significant impact on the species listed above.
Discussion
Due to many disturbances within the BSA, including frequent traffic noise, and a high level of human
activity, it is not likely that raptors would build nests within the BSA. The project site and BSA do not
contain stands of trees with contiguous canopies to provide good cover for nests, but the large on-
site shrubs could offer some low-quality potential nesting habitat.
A potential direct impact might result from the removal of the large onsite shrubs, which may support
species such as small birds. The handling of nests or wildlife by crews also creates potential impact
to wildlife. Potential direct impacts also include the degradation of fossorial mammal burrows due to
project activities. Noise and dust generated by construction activities could indirectly impact
foraging and nesting behavior of several bird species. Another indirect impact may be contact with
toxic liquids such as oil or gas that leak from machinery and which could contaminate soil surfaces
or temporary onsite water sources. Birds and other wildlife species could come into contact with
these contaminated soils or waters either through direct contact or by consumption of prey species
that have contacted contaminated soils or waters.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1: Pre-Construction Breeding Bird Survey
To be in compliance with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, and to avoid impacts or take of
migratory non-game breeding birds, their nests, young, and eggs, the following measures will
be implemented. The measures below will help to reduce direct and indirect impacts caused
by construction on migratory non-game breeding birds to less than significant levels.
• Project activities that will remove or disturb potential nest sites, such as open ground,
trees, shrubs, grasses, or burrows, during the breeding season would be a potential
significant impact if migratory non-game breeding birds are present. Project
activities that will remove or disturb potential nest sites shall be scheduled outside
the breeding bird season to avoid potential direct impacts on migratory non-game
breeding birds protected by the MBTA and Fish and Game Code. The breeding bird
nesting season is typically from February 15 through September 15, but can vary
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.4-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
slightly from year to year, usually depending on weather conditions. Removing all
physical features that could potentially serve as nest sites will also help to prevent
birds from nesting within the project site during the breeding season and during
construction activities.
• If project activities cannot be avoided during February 15 through September 15, a
qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction breeding bird survey for breeding
birds and active nests or potential nesting sites within the limits of project
disturbance. The survey shall be conducted at least seven days prior to the onset of
scheduled activities, such as mobilization and staging. It shall end no more than three
days prior to vegetation, substrate, and structure removal and/or disturbance.
• If no breeding birds or active nests are observed during the pre-construction survey
or they are observed and will not be impacted, project activities may begin and no
further mitigation shall be required.
• If a breeding bird territory or an active bird nest is located during the pre-
construction survey and will potentially be impacted, the site shall be mapped on
engineering drawings and a no activity buffer zone will be marked (fencing, stakes,
flagging, orange snow fencing, etc.) a minimum of 100 feet in all directions or 500 feet
in all directions for listed bird species and all raptors. The biologist shall determine
the appropriate buffer size based on the type of activities planned near the nest and
the type of bird that created the nest. Some bird species are more tolerant than others
of noise and activities occurring near their nest. This no-activity buffer zone shall not
be disturbed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is inactive, the
young have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the parents, the young have
left the area, or the young will no longer be impacted by project activities. Periodic
monitoring by a biologist will be performed to determine when nesting is complete.
Once the nesting cycle has finished, project activities may begin within the buffer
zone.
• If listed bird species are observed within the project site during the pre-construction
survey, the biologist shall immediately map the area and notify the appropriate
resource agency to determine suitable protection measures and/or mitigation
measures and to determine if additional surveys or focused protocol surveys are
necessary. Project activities may begin within the area only when concurrence is
received from the appropriate resource agency.
• Birds or their active nests shall not be disturbed, captured, handled or moved. Active
nests cannot be removed or disturbed. However, nests can be removed or disturbed
if determined inactive by a qualified biologist.
MM BIO-2: Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)
Prior to project construction activities, a qualified biologist shall prepare and conduct a
Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) that will describe the biological
constraints of the project. All personnel who will work within the project site will attend the
WEAP prior to performing any work. The WEAP will include, but not be limited to the
following: results of pre-construction surveys; description of sensitive biological resources
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.4-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
potentially present within the project site; legal protections afforded the sensitive biological
resources; BMPs for protecting sensitive biological resources (i.e., restrictions, avoidance,
protection, and minimization measures); individual responsibilities associated with the
project; and a training on grading to reduce impacts to biological resources. A condition shall
be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a training session for
project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of
concern and its habitats and the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act). The
penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are
being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the
access routes to the project site boundaries within which the project activities must be
accomplished. The program will also include the reporting requirements if workers
encounter a sensitive wildlife species (i.e., notifying the biological monitor or the
construction foreman, who will then notify the biological monitor).
Training materials shall be language-appropriate for all construction personnel. Upon
completion of the WEAP, workers will sign a form stating that they attended the program,
understand all protection measures, and will abide all the rules of the WEAP. A record of all
trained personnel will be kept with the construction foreman at the project field construction
office and will be made available to any resource agency personnel. If new construction
personnel are added to the project later, the construction foreman will ensure that new
personnel receive training before they start working. The biologist will provide written hard
copies of the WEAP and photos of the sensitive biological resources to the construction
foreman.
The appropriate agencies shall be notified if a dead or injured protected species is located
within the project site. Written notification shall be made within 15 days of the date and time
of the finding or incident (if known) and must include: location of the carcass; a photograph;
cause of death (if known); and other pertinent information.
The project will have less than significant impact on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species following implementation of the above-described mitigation measures.
f) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations
or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact
The project site is situated on relatively level ground, and no ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial
streams or rivers were identified in the literature review. Vegetation within the BSA primarily
consists of grasslands and forbs. The land cover types observed within the BSA and project site are
described below.
Land Cover Type Mapping
The BSA contains two land cover types (see Figure 4.4-2), which are briefly described below. The
two land cover types are not classified as sensitive natural communities in the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) California Natural Community List (CDFW, 2022a). Therefore, there
are no anticipated impacts to sensitive natural communities as a result of construction of the project.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.4-12
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Non-native Annual Grasslands:
Non-native annual grasslands land cover comprises the entirety of the 4.32-acre project area. This
land cover also comprises 13.69 acres of the BSA, occurring north of the project site in an open,
undeveloped area. On the project site and in the BSA, non-native annual grasslands consists of a mix
of non-native grasses and ruderal forbs.
Developed/Ornamental:
Developed/Ornamental includes areas that often support man-made structures such as houses,
sidewalks, buildings, parks, water tanks, flood control channels, transportation infrastructure
(bridges and culverts), and ornamental landscaping, consisting of exotic, or non-native, plant species,
that occurs in parks, gardens and yards. This land cover type does not occur on the project site.
Developed/Ornamental areas border the project site to the east, south, and west. This land cover type
comprises approximately 30 acres of the BSA and consists of residences, landscaped yards, and
roadways and other developed surfaces.
The BSA does not support riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. The literature
review (CNDDB, 2022a; USFWS 2022a, b, c, e) indicates that riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural communities do not occur on the project site. Therefore, construction of the project would
not result in impacts on any riparian habitat, or sensitive natural communities identified in local,
regional state, or federal plans, policies, or regulations. No impact would occur and no mitigation is
proposed.
g) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact
Drainages, depressions, and other topographic features that would be conducive to wetlands
formation were not observed within the BSA. The results of the literature study (USFWS 2022d; USGS
2022; USEPA 2022a) determined that wetlands and other waters of the U.S. or State are not on the
project site; the site does not contain drainages with a definable bed, bank, channel, or evidence of
an ordinary high-water mark. Wetland hydrology, wetland soils, or wetland plants were not observed
on the project site according to the results of the literature study. It was determined that state or
federal protected wetlands and other waters do not occur on the project site. No impact would occur
and mitigation is not required.
h) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact
The nearest CDFW Natural Landscape Blocks and Essential Connectivity Areas are located
approximately two miles north of the project site, in the San Gabriel Mountains (see Figure 4.4-6).
Access to the Small Natural Areas near the project site is already heavily impeded by the presence of
major roadways and developed areas, so project development would not further impede wildlife
access to these areas.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.4-13
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.4-6
CDFW WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.4-14
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, and no impacts related to wildlife movement or wildlife corridors would occur.
Direct impacts are anticipated to native wildlife nursery sites. Site photographs from the windshield
surveys that took place on April 12 and 21, 2022 were reviewed by UltraSystems biologists. The
photographs indicated the presence of many ground squirrels and burrows that are likely used by
ground squirrels. In addition, biologists observed desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) near some
of the onsite trees. These sightings of fossorial mammals and burrows indicate that there may be
resident populations of these species near the project site. Thus, it is possible that fossorial mammal
species give birth and raise young within the burrow complexes located onsite. Ground disturbing
activities such as discing, bulldozing and excavating would lead to significant impacts to fossorial
species, which do not typically evacuate their burrows during this type of disturbance.
Although there would likely be direct impacts to fossorial species as a result of construction of the
project, it is not anticipated that these impacts will be significant. The California Fish and Game
Commission (CFGC), the agency that regulates sport fishing and hunting, classifies both California
ground squirrels and desert cottontail rabbits as non-game mammals. As such, property owners can
legally take these species. These species are not considered to be special-status (Baldwin, 2019;
Quinn et al., 2018). No mitigation is required for the take of either of these fossorial species. The
direct impacts of construction of the project to nursery sites of fossorial species would be less than
significant.
i) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact
The BSA does not contain trees that qualify for protection under Fontana Code of Ordinances, Chapter
28, Article III, Section 28 Preservation of Heritage, Significant, and Specimen Trees (City of Fontana,
1993). The project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances. No impact would occur, and
mitigation is not required.
j) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
No Impact
The project site does not occur in an area addressed by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan, and therefore no conflicts would occur. No mitigation is required.
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.5-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
X
Information from UltraSystems’ Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory report, dated June 2, 2022 (see
Appendix D), prepared for the Citrus Avenue Condominiums Project, City of Fontana has been
included within this section.
4.5.1 Methodology
A cultural resources records search was requested March 8, 2022 for the Citrus Avenue
Condominiums Project site (Figure 4.5-1, Topographic Map) that would include a California Historic
Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) records and literature search at the South Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. The completed SCCIC records
search was received April 25, 2022. Additionally, a request was made to the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) to conduct a search of their Sacred Lands File (SLF) for potential
traditional cultural properties as well as to provide a list of local Native American tribal organizations
to contact. The NAHC request was made on March 8, 2022, and a reply was received on April 25,
2022; letters were sent to the listed tribes on May 11, 2022 and follow-up telephone calls were
conducted following conclusion of the 30-day response period on June 1, 2022. A pedestrian field
survey of the project site was conducted on April 12, 2022.
4.5.2 Background
Historical aerial photographs dated 1938 through 1985 show the site in agricultural use. One
structure is shown in the west part of the site in a 1959 photograph; two structures are shown in the
west part of the site in photographs dated 1966 through 2005; and one structure remained in a
photograph dated 2018. The site has been vacant since 2018 (historicaerials.com, 2022; Google Earth
Pro, 2022). The southerly of the two structures is depicted as a church in topographic maps dated
1955 through 1999 (Historicaerials.com).
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.5-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.5-1
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.5-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.5.3 Existing Conditions
A cultural resources records search was requested from the SCCIC, the local CHRIS facility, on March
8, 2022, and the results were received April 25, 2022. No prehistoric or historic cultural resource
sites are listed for the project parcel. Two prior surveys included the project parcel (SB-02621, SB-
04207) (see Section 4.1 and Tables 4.1-1 and Table 4.1-2 in Appendix D). The pedestrian field survey
undertaken for this project noted the remains of two mid-20th Century era structures with one being
built between 1959 and 1966, according to USGS topographic maps and aerial photos (see Section
4.3 in Appendix D).
4.5.4 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No Impact
A historical resource is defined in § 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as any object, building,
structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript determined to be historically significant or
significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social,
political, military, or cultural annals of California. Historical resources are further defined as: being
associated with significant events, important persons, or distinctive characteristics of a type, period
or method of construction; representing the work of an important creative individual; or possessing
high artistic values. Resources listed in or determined eligible for the California Register, included in
a local register, or identified as significant in a historic resource survey are also considered as
historical resources under CEQA.
Similarly, the National Register criteria (contained in Code of Federal Regulations Title 36 § 60.4) are
used to evaluate resources when complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act. Specifically, the National Register criteria state that eligible resources comprise districts, sites,
buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association, and that (a) are associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives
of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period,
or method of construction, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded or
may be likely to yield, information important to history or prehistory.
A substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, as a result of a project or
development, is considered a significant impact on the environment. Substantial adverse change is
defined as physical demolition, relocation, or alteration of a resource or its immediate surroundings
such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. Direct impacts are
those that cause substantial adverse physical change to a historic property. Indirect impacts are those
that cause substantial adverse change to the immediate surroundings of a historic property, such that
the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.
The foundation remnants of two historic structures in the northwest area of the project site, one
apparently residential (west feature) and the other work related (east feature) (see Sections 2.2.3.3
and 4.3 in Appendix D) do not warrant preservation. The foundations are in-place and there has
been no further disturbance to the area surrounding these historic features. Therefore, there is the
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.5-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
strong potential for the presence of one or more buried refuse pits with trash associated with the
residential structure to the west and debris from the work-related structure to the east.
Because neither of the two observed demolished structures meets the criteria required to qualify as
a significant historic resource, there would be no substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5, and therefore the project would have no impact in this
regard.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
An archaeological resource is defined in § 15064.5(c) of the CEQA Guidelines as a site, area or place
determined to be historically significant as defined in § 15064(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, or as a
unique archaeological resource defined in § 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code as an artifact,
object, or site that contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions of
public interest or that has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best example of
its type, or that is directly associated with a scientifically-recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person.
The lack of apparent agricultural use on the project site suggests that ground on the project site has
been minimally disturbed, with the native surface soil remaining (see Section 2.2.3.3 in Appendix
D). The cultural resources investigation conducted by UltraSystems included a CHRIS records search
of the project site and buffer zone, a search of the SLF by the NAHC, and a pedestrian field survey.
The results of these investigations suggest that a low potential for undisturbed unique archeological
resources exists on the project site.
Based on the SCCIC cultural resources records search, it was determined that there are no prehistoric
or historic cultural resources previously recorded within the project site boundary. Within the
half-mile buffer zone, there have been three historic era structures and one historic water pump and
distribution center. Table 4.1-1 in Appendix D summarizes these resources. To the north of the
project area was the remains of a small collapsed cobble concrete structure, and a poured concrete
cistern (CA-SBR-007327H), apparently associated with agricultural activities. Associated artifacts
included boards, wire nails: post 1890's tar paper, corrugated metal, stucco, clear bottle glass and a
pile of cobbles. The remains of additional structures were located approximately 1,500 feet to the
north of the project area (CA-SBR-006251H). This historic resource includes three foundations
(concrete slab, granitic cobblestone mortar) and a very sparse scatter of contemporary post-
depositional artifacts. Two of the foundations (Features A and B), were remnants of a gas station that
had been situated on the southwest corner of old Highland Avenue and Citrus Avenue, before State
Route 30 (now the 210 Freeway) was constructed along the path of the original Highland Avenue.
The third foundation (Feature C) was relatively large, but its function is unknown. The Grapeland
Irrigation District main canal (CA-SBR-006589H) was located 0.5 mile to the northeast of the project
area and led from Lytle Creek drainage to the properties within the Grapeland Irrigation District. The
canal was utilized by the district from 1892 to 1937.
There have been 20 previous cultural resource studies within the 0.5-mile buffer of the project (Table
4.1-2 in Appendix D of this IS/MND). Two surveys are located inside the project area (SB-02621,
SB-04207).
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.5-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Alexandrowicz et al. (1992), conducted cultural and paleontological resources investigations for the
North Fontana Infrastructure Area (SB-02621). Two of the historic archaeological sites (CA-SBR-
006251H and CA-SBR-006589H) were identified in this survey report. Hogan et al. (2004) prepared
a Historical and Archaeological Resources Survey Report for the city of Fontana’s Auto Mall Overlay
Zone (SB-04207). This project identified two historic resources within the 0.5-mile buffer zone
described above. (See Section 4.1 and Tables 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 in Appendix D of this IS/MND.)
A NAHC SLF search was conducted on and within a 0.5-mile buffer around the project site. The NAHC
letter of April 25, 2022 indicated that there is the presence of traditional cultural property within this
area. Eighteen representatives of 12 Native American tribes were contacted requesting a reply if they
have knowledge of cultural resources in the area that they wished to share and asking if they had any
questions or concerns regarding the project. These tribes included:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians -
Kizh Nation
• Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of
Mission Indians
• Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
• Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
Tribal Council
• Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
There have been two responses to the outreach contacts from the 12 tribes. An email was received
from Lacy Padilla, Archaeologist for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians on May 11, 2022,
indicating that the project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area and that they are
deferring any comments to closer tribes. Another email from the Agua Caliente Band on June 2, 2022
from Arysa B. Romero provided the same statement. An email response was received from Ms.
McCormick, Historic Preservation Officer for the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation on May
13, 2022, indicating that the Tribe does not wish to comment on this project and defers to more local
tribes.
Following up on the initial letter and email contacts, telephone calls were conducted by
Archaeological Technician Megan B. Doukakis on June 1, 2022 to the ten tribes who had not
previously replied by email or letter and had provided telephone numbers. Six telephone calls were
placed with no answer and messages were left describing the project and requesting a response.
These were to: Anthony Morales, Chairperson of the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission
Indians; Charles Alvarez, Councilmember of the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe; Mark Cochrane, Co-
Chairperson of the Serrano Nation of Mission Indians; Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson of the Serrano
Nation of Mission Indians; Jessica Mauck, Director of Cultural Resources for the San Manuel Band of
Mission Indians; and Sandonne Goad, Chairperson of the Gabrielino/Tongva Nation.
Chairperson Andrew Salas, Chairperson of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation
responded during the telephone call stating that the tribe is involved in a project nearby the current
Citrus Condos project site called Monarch (approximately three miles to the north, north of the I-15
freeway) and that metates have been found there. The Chairperson also indicated that to the east of
the current project area is a frisbee park (approximately six miles to the northeast in Rialto) where
cultural resources were found as well. Cultural resources were also found to the west of the project
area. Chairperson Salas requested that we resend him our letter and map and that they would get
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.5-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
back to us. This information was sent the same day. Christina Conley, Tribal Consultant and
Administrator for the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council responded by telephone
indicating that the tribe does not have any comments on the project due to it being located in Fontana.
Ann Brierty, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians indicated
during the telephone call that she would look into the project and one of her staff would get back to
us. The tribal receptionist for the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians indicated over telephone that
the project is well outside of the Band’s area and they would not have any comment on projects
outside of Riverside County. Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department for the Soboba Band of
Luiseño Indians indicated that they would defer any comments to San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians (see contact record table in Attachment C in Appendix D).
A pedestrian field survey of the project site was conducted on April 12, 2022. Systematic ten-meter-
wide transects of the parcel were conducted for the survey. The surface was open natural terrain and
flat, approximately 620 feet long east/west and 200 feet wide north/south. The entire parcel’s
surface appeared to be original native surface, consisting of coarse sand, small pebbles, and medium
and large rocks with little soil exposed, with occasional small boulders one to two feet in diameter.
This is consistent with the Qyf5 Lytle Creek alluvium designation for soils in this area.
Two modern era structures were observed in the northwest corner of the parcel. The western
building remains, designated “A,” consists of partial wall foundations of cinderblock on concrete
foundation, approximately 35 feet wide (north/south) and 40.5 feet long (east/west). There is no
flooring. A pipe with a water handle and another pipe with a gas control device remain along the
outside of the southern wall 11.5 feet from the east end. This building is located approximately 42
feet east of Citrus Avenue. The eastern building, designated “B,” is approximately 45 feet east of
building A and is generally aligned with it. This building also consists of remnants of walls made of
cinderblock and concrete, with a partial concrete floor integrated with the wall foundation. This
structure is approximately 18.25 feet long (east/west) and 14 feet wide (north/south). There are no
signs of foundations or interior partitions for rooms within either of the two buildings. There was no
structural debris observed within or outside the foundations. It is apparent that these two structures
had been demolished with all of the structural and interior material removed except for the base of
the wall foundations; the wall foundations themselves had been broken up and partially removed.
By their location, these two structures appear to be represented by the structure indicated in the
USGS topo maps for this parcel that was present starting in the 1968 through 1999 USGS topo maps;
from the next version, 2012, onward individual structures are no longer shown. Building A appears
in the 1966 aerial photo (not yet present in the 1959 photo), with a back outbuilding appearing in
1980 and several outbuildings in 1994; they appear to have been demolished by 2018, the last
available aerial photo. The aerial photos indicate a main structure to the west (Building A), with
several smaller outbuildings behind to the east. (see Section 2.2.3.3 in Appendix D) Building A had a
circular dirt driveway to its western front from Citrus Avenue and may have been a residential
structure. A DPR Primary Site Record has been prepared for this historical resource and will be
submitted to the SCCIC.
The USGS topo maps and aerial photos also indicated another, smaller structure on the project parcel
also near Citrus Avenue and to the south of Building A. This other building first appears in the 1948
version and was replaced by a larger building in 1959; it was not yet present in 1938. It was present
through 1985 and gone by the 2002 aerial photo; it also first appears in the 1955 USGS map with a
cross on it indicating it to be a religious building (not yet present in 1941). The building is present
through 1999 (from the next version, 2012, onward individual structures are no longer shown) (see
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.5-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Section 2.2.3.3 in Appendix D). However, no remnants of this structure were observed during the
pedestrian survey.
The result of the pedestrian survey was negative for prehistoric cultural resources or features. The
remnants of two historic structures in the northwest area of the project site do not warrant
preservation. However, there is the strong potential for the presence of one or more buried refuse
pits with trash from the residential structure (Building A) to the west and debris from the work area
(Building B) to the east. A monitor is recommended to be present during grading and trenching in
these areas to recover material from these potential deposits to better understand the nature of these
structures possibly dating back to the 1940s.
While the project site as a whole appears to be relatively undisturbed, the presence of the two
historical features and high potential for associated buried trash and debris pits indicates the need
for an archaeological monitor be present during ground disturbing activities throughout the project
site. If prehistoric and/or historic items are observed during subsurface activities, work should be
stopped in that area and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be retained to assess
the finding(s) and retrieve the material. See Mitigation Measures (MM) CUL-1 and CUL-2 below.
Grading activities would cause new subsurface disturbance and may result in the unanticipated
discovery of prehistoric and/or historic archeological resources.
Mitigation Measure
MM CUL-1: Archaeological Monitoring: At least 30-days prior to grading permit issuance and
before any grading, excavation, and/or ground-disturbing activities on the site take
place, the project permittee/owner shall retain a Lead Archaeologist who meets the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology to
monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown
archaeological resources. Prior to grading, the project permittee/owner shall provide
to the City verification that a certified archaeological monitor has been retained. Any
newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources
evaluation.
The Project Archaeologist shall manage and oversee monitoring for all initial ground
disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the project site including
clearing, grubbing, tree removals, mass or rough grading, trenching, stockpiling of
materials, rock crushing, structure demolition and etc. The Project Archaeologist shall
have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground disturbance
activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural
resources in coordination with any required special interest or tribal monitors.
A final report documenting the monitoring activity and disposition of any recovered
cultural resources shall be submitted to the City of Fontana and the South Central
Coastal Information Center within 60 days of completion of monitoring.
MM CUL-2 If archaeological resources are discovered during construction activities, the
contractor shall halt construction activities in the immediate area and notify the City
of Fontana. The project Lead Archaeologist will be notified and afforded the necessary
time to recover, analyze, and curate the find(s). The qualified archaeologist shall
recommend the extent of archaeological monitoring necessary to ensure the
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.5-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
protection of any other resources that may be in the area. Any identified cultural
resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-L) form and filed with the
South Central Coastal Information Center. Construction activities may continue on
other parts of the project site while evaluation and treatment of prehistoric
archaeological resources takes place.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 above, the project would
result in less than significant impacts to archeological resources.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
As previously discussed in Section 4.5.b) above, the project would be built on relatively undisturbed
land that has not been previously graded. No human remains have been previously identified or
recorded onsite.
The project proposes grading activities for the installation of infrastructure including water, sewer,
and utility lines, and for construction of the proposed buildings. Grading would involve new
subsurface disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of unknown human remains,
including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. In the unlikely event of an unexpected
discovery, implementation of mitigation measure MM CUL-3 would ensure that impacts related to
the accidental discovery of human remains would be less than significant.
California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 specifies the procedures to follow during the unlikely
discovery of human remains. CEQA § 15064.5 describes determining the significance of impacts on
archeological and historical resources. California Public Resources Code § 5097.98 stipulates the
notification process during the discovery of Native American human remains, descendants,
disposition of human remains, and associated grave goods.
Mitigation Measure
MM CUL-3 If human remains are encountered during excavations associated with this project,
all work shall stop within a 30-foot radius of the discovery and the San Bernardino
County Coroner will be notified (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The
Coroner shall determine whether the remains are recent human origin or older
Native American ancestry. If the coroner, with the aid of the supervising
archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, they shall contact the
NAHC. The NAHC shall be responsible for designating the Most Likely Descendant
(MLD). The MLD (either an individual or sometimes a committee) shall be responsible
for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by § 7050.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code. The MLD shall make recommendations within 24 hours of
their notification by the NAHC. These recommendations may include scientific
removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with
Native American burials (§ 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code).
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.5-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With adherence to applicable codes and regulations protecting cultural resources and with
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CUL-3 above, the proposed project would result in less
than significant impacts to human remains.
❖ SECTION 4.6 - ENERGY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.6-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.6 Energy
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
X
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
Less than Significant Impact
Impact Analysis
CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d)) states that “uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and
continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources
makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts
(such as highway improvement that provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally
commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental
accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated
to assure that such current consumption is justified.” Therefore, the purpose of this analysis is to
identify significant irreversible environmental effects of project implementation that cannot be
avoided.
Electricity
Electricity would be supplied to the project site by Southern California Edison Company (SCE), which
provides electricity to the City of Fontana (Stantec, et al., 2018a, p. 10.9). The project site does not
currently have electric service but the site would be connected to the existing electrical service lines
in the vicinity. All electric lines for the site would be placed underground.
During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of electricity associated with the
conveyance and treatment of water used for dust control and, on a limited basis, powering lights,
electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power.
Due to the fact that electricity usage associated with lighting and construction equipment that utilizes
electricity is not easily quantifiable or readily available, the estimated electricity usage during project
construction is speculative. Nonetheless, lighting used during project construction would comply
❖ SECTION 4.6 - ENERGY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.6-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
with California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 standards/requirements (such as wattage
limitations). This compliance would ensure that electricity use during project construction would not
result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. Lighting would be used in compliance
with applicable City of Fontana Municipal Code requirements to create enough light for safety.
Title 24 also requires all low-rise residential buildings to have a PV system with annual electrical
output equal to or greater than the dwelling’s annual electrical usage (CEC, 2021).
Natural Gas
Natural gas would be supplied to the project site by Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas),
which provides natural gas to the City of Fontana (City of Fontana Utilities, 2020).
Construction activities, including the construction of new buildings and facilities, typically do not
involve the consumption of natural gas. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to have a
demand for natural gas during project construction.
Construction
The following forms of energy are anticipated to be expended during project construction:
• Diesel fuel for off-road equipment (gallons).
• Electricity to deliver water for use in dust control (kilowatt-hours [kWh]).
• Motor vehicle fuel for worker commuting, materials delivery and waste disposal (gallons).
Project construction would consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels associated with the
use of offroad construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction workers’ travel
to and from the project site, and delivery and haul truck trips hauling solid waste from and delivering
building materials to the project site.
During project construction, trucks and construction equipment would be required to comply with
the ARB’s anti-idling regulations. ARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation would also
apply (ARB, 2016). Vehicles driven to or from the project site (delivery trucks, construction employee
vehicles, etc.) are subject to fuel efficiency standards established by the federal government.
Therefore, project construction activities regarding fuel use would not result in wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary use of energy.
Operation
Energy would be consumed during project operations related to space and water heating, water
conveyance, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips of residents. Project operation energy usage,
which was estimated by the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) as part of the air
quality and greenhouse gas emissions analyses (refer to Section 4.3), is shown in Table 4.6-1.
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were used as a surrogate for energy from consumption of
transportation fuels. While a variety of factors govern the relationship between VMT and fuel energy,
in general, an increase in VMT results from an increase in motor vehicle energy use.
❖ SECTION 4.6 - ENERGY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.6-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Table 4.6-1
ESTIMATED PROJECT OPERATIONAL ENERGY USE
Energy Type Units Value
Per Capitaa
Onroad Motor
Vehicle Fuel
Consumption
Gallons gasoline/year 63,920
172
Gallons diesel/year 8,732 0.28
Natural Gas Use 1,000 BTU per year 1,434,800
5,256
Electricity Use Kilowatt-hours per year 338,216
1,239
a Based upon estimated residential population of 273; see Section 3.2.
Notes: Onroad Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption calculated by UltraSystems using
EMFAC2021(v1.0.2) emissions inventory web platform tool (ARB, 2022) and CalEEMod (2020.4.0)
(CAPCOA, 2022); see Appendix B.
The Per Capita value for the onroad motor vehicle fuel consumption is calculated from the
passenger vehicles fuel consumption.
Natural Gas Use and Electricity Use calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (2020.4.0).
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, of the
California Code of Regulations) were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to
reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow
consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
Compliance with Title 24 will result in decrease in GHG emissions.
The 2019 update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards focuses on several key areas to improve
the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing
buildings. The most significant efficiency improvements to the residential Standards include the
introduction of photovoltaic into the prescriptive package and improvements for attics, walls, water
heating, and lighting. The 2019 Standards also include changes made throughout all of its sections to
improve the clarity, consistency, and readability of the regulatory language. The CEC updates Title
24 standards every three years and the most recent 2022 revisions to the standards became effective
August 11, 2021 (CEC, 2021).
The provisions of Title 24, Part 6 apply to all buildings for which an application for a building permit
or renewal of an existing permit is required by law. They regulate design and construction of the
building envelope, space-conditioning and water-heating systems, indoor and outdoor lighting
systems of buildings, and signs located either indoors or outdoors. Title 24, Part 6 specifies
mandatory, prescriptive and performance measures, all designed to optimize energy use in buildings
❖ SECTION 4.6 - ENERGY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.6-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
and decrease overall consumption of energy to construct and operate residential and nonresidential
buildings. Mandatory measures establish requirements for manufacturing, construction, and
installation of certain systems, including photovoltaic (PV) systems; equipment and building
components that are installed in buildings.
Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11 code) commonly referred to as the
CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code developed and adopted by the California
Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The
CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory
measures under the topics of planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation,
material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. CALGreen also provides
voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional
measures in the five green building topics.
The proposed project would be designed with energy-efficient features, including photovoltaic (PV)
systems, insulated and glazed windows and low E coating on windows, and will be built in compliance
with the California Green Building Standards (CAL Green) Code (California Code of Regulations, Title
24, Parts 6 and 11).
City of Fontana General Plan
Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience, of the City of Fontana General Plan focuses on sustainability
and resilience on resource efficiency and planning for climate change. It includes policies for new
development promoting energy-efficient development in Fontana, meeting state energy efficiency
goals for new construction, promoting green building through guidelines, awards and nonfinancial
incentives, and continuing to promote and implement best practices to conserve water (Stantec,
2018b, pp. 10.9, 12.5).
Further, the roadway network in the vicinity of the project site is served by Omnitrans, the public
transit agency serving the San Bernardino Valley. Omnitrans has 10 bus routes in the city (Stantec,
et al., 2018a, p. 9.7). Residents and visitors would be able to access the project site via the public
transit system, thereby reducing transportation-related fuel demand.
The proposed project would adhere to applicable federal, state, and local requirements for energy
efficiency, including Title 24 standards and General Plan Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.7-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1 B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
X
This section is based on the following information:
• California Geological Survey Data Viewer
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.7-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
• Paleontological Records Search for the proposed Citrus Avenue Condominium Project in
Fontana, San Bernardino County. Prepared by Natural History Museum of Los Angeles
County, dated April 16, 2022. A complete copy of this report is included as Appendix E to this
IS/MND.
Note that a geotechnical investigation is required by the City building code (which includes the City
grading code) before the City will issue a grading permit for the project. The 2019 California Building
Code (CBC) is adopted, with certain amendments, as the City building code in Fontana Municipal Code
Section 5-61 (Municode.com, 2022).
Requirements for geotechnical investigations are included in CBC Section 1803, Geotechnical
Investigations. Testing of samples from subsurface investigations is required, such as from borings
or test pits. Studies must be done as needed to evaluate slope stability, soil strength, position and
adequacy of load-bearing soils, the effect of moisture variation on load-bearing capacity,
compressibility, liquefaction, differential settlement, and expansiveness. Geotechnical reports are
required for issuance of grading permits under CBC Appendix J, Grading, Section J104. CBC Section
1705.6 sets forth requirements for geotechnical inspection and observation during and after grading.
The CBC is updated on a three-year cycle; the 2019 CBC took effect on January 1, 2020.
Soils on the project site are shown on Figure 4.4-3. Soils reports are required for subdivisions
requiring a tentative and final map under California Health and Safety Code Sections 17953 to 17955.
If the preliminary soil report indicates the presence of critically expansive soils or other soil problems
which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects, a soil investigation of each lot in the
subdivision is required. The preliminary soils report shall recommend corrective action which is
likely to prevent structural damage to each dwelling proposed to be constructed on the expansive
soil. As a condition to the building permit, the approved recommended action must be incorporated
in the construction of each dwelling.
As the geotechnical report, and compliance with recommendations of the geotechnical report, are
required by existing laws and regulations, mitigation is not required to ensure preparation of the
report or compliance with the recommendations therein.
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
Less than Significant Impact
The Alquist-Priolo Zones Special Studies Act defines active faults as those that have experienced
surface displacement or movement during the last 11,000 years. As shown in Figure 4.7-1, the
project site is outside Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. The nearest such zone to the project
site is along the Etiwanda Avenue Fault approximately 2.4 mile to the northwest. Project
development would not cause substantial hazards arising from surface rupture of a known active
fault, and impacts would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.7-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.7-1
ALQUIST PRIOLO FAULT ZONES
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.7-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact
As shown in Figure 4.7-2, the project is located within a seismically active region of Southern
California, and all structures in the region are susceptible to collapse, buckling of walls, and damage
to foundations from strong seismic ground shaking. The four nearest mapped active faults to the
project site are an unnamed fault to the southeast; the Red Hill-Etiwanda Avenue Fault to the
northwest; Sierra Madre Fault Zone to the north; and San Jacinto Fault Zone to the northeast, as
shown on Figure 4.7-2.
Structures for human occupancy must be designed to meet or exceed 2019 California Building Code
(CBC) standards for earthquake resistance. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based
on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the strength of ground
motion with a specified probability at the site. The geotechnical investigation to be prepared for the
project will estimate seismic design parameters to be used in project design and construction
pursuant to the 2019 CBC. Impacts would be less than significant after compliance with regulatory
requirements regarding geotechnical investigations.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact
Liquefaction typically occurs when saturated or partially saturated soils behave like a liquid, as a
result of losses in strength and stiffness in response to an applied stress caused by ground shaking
or other sudden change in stress conditions.
The probability of occurrence of each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the
earthquake, distance from the faults, topography, subsoils and relatively shallow groundwater tables
(approximately 50 feet or less below ground surface), in addition to other factors. The nearest depth
to groundwater mapped on the Department of Water Resources SGMA Viewer is 398.5 feet below
ground surface (bgs), 2.5 miles to the northeast of the project site (DWR, 2022).
A geotechnical investigation is required for the proposed project. The geotechnical investigation
would assess liquefaction potential in subsurface site soils, and provide any needed
recommendations to minimize hazards from liquefaction.
Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, including the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code,
would minimize hazards from potential seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, that
could be exacerbated by project development. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation
is not proposed.
i) Landslides?
No Impact
Landslides occur when the stability of the slope changes from a stable to an unstable condition. A
change in the stability of a slope can be caused by a number of factors, acting together or alone.
Natural causes of landslides include groundwater (pore water) pressure acting to destabilize the
slope, loss of vegetative structure, erosion of the toe of a slope by rivers or ocean waves, weakening
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.7-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
of a slope through saturation by snow melt or heavy rains, earthquakes adding loads to a barely stable
slope, earthquake-caused liquefaction destabilizing slopes, and volcanic eruptions.
The project site is relatively flat. The elevation onsite ranges from approximately 1,491 feet to 1,483
feet above mean sea level.
Landslide risk onsite is very low due to the relatively flat terrain. Impacts in this regard would be less
than significant.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction
Construction projects of one acre or more are regulated under the Statewide General Construction
Permit, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in
2009. Projects obtain coverage by developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) estimating sediment risk from construction activities to receiving waters and
specifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be used by the project to minimize
pollution of stormwater.
Operation
The project during operation would be developed with a mix of impervious surfaces such as
buildings, concrete, and pavement and grass/landscaped areas, including landscaping along the site
boundary. This combination of impervious surfaces and landscaped areas would reduce the potential
of the project for soil erosion to a negligible level.
With the implementation of soil erosion and sedimentation BMPs during the construction phase and
the proposed combination of impervious and landscaped surfaces during the operational phase, the
project would have less than significant impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil and
mitigation is not proposed.
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?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is underlain by Quaternary alluvium consisting of sand and gravel; the Quaternary
Period extends from approximately 2.58 million years before present to the present (Dibblee and
Minch, 2003; GSA, 2018).
Impacts related to liquefaction and landslides are discussed above in Section 4.7 a). Additionally, the
project would be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Fontana Building
Code—that is, the California Building code adopted as the City of Fontana Building Code, Sections 5-
61, et seq., of the city of Fontana Municipal Code—set forth to assure safe construction and include
building foundation requirements appropriate to site-specific conditions.
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.7-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is the downslope movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface
layer due to gravity and earthquake shaking combined. Lateral spreading of the ground surface
during an earthquake usually occurs along the weak shear zones within a liquefiable soil layer and
has been observed to generally take place toward a free face (i.e., retaining wall, slope, or channel)
and to lesser extent on ground surfaces with a very gentle slope. The geotechnical investigation
required for the proposed project would assess liquefaction potential in subsurface site soils and
provide needed recommendations to minimize hazards from liquefaction and from lateral spreading.
Impacts arising from lateral spreading would be less than significant.
Collapsible Soils
Based on our experience in the region, we expect that the geotechnical investigation will conclude
that shallow site soils—that is, within a few feet of the ground surface—are unsuitable for supporting
the proposed condominium buildings, and will recommend removal, engineering, and replacement
of shallow site soils. The geotechnical investigation required for the project will assess the suitability
of site soils for supporting the proposed improvements, and will provide recommendations as
needed for site preparation and remedial grading to engineer soils capable of supporting the
proposed improvements. Project development would not exacerbate hazards arising from
collapsible soils after completion of the geotechnical report and implementation of recommendations
in such report.
Subsidence
The major cause of ground subsidence is the excessive withdrawal of groundwater. Soils with high
silt or clay content are particularly susceptible to subsidence. The project site is not in an area of
subsidence mapped by the USGS (USGS, 2022). The project site is over the Chino Subbasin of the
Upper Santa Ana Valle Groundwater Basin (DWR, 2022). The project site is not in an area of
subsidence concern mapped by the Chino Valley Watermaster (Chino Valley Watermaster, 2021).
Project development would not exacerbate hazards related to ground subsidence and impacts would
be less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
Less than Significant Impact
Expansive soils shrink and swell with changes in soil moisture. Soil moisture may change from
landscape irrigation, rainfall, and utility leakage.
The project geotechnical investigation would assess subsurface site soils for expansion potential; and
provide recommendations as needed to minimize hazards from expansive soils. Impacts arising from
expansive soils would be less than significant after completion of the geotechnical investigation and
adherence with recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.7-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
No Impact
The project site would connect to the City of Fontana’s existing sewer system; therefore, the project
would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. For this reason, no impacts
associated with septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems would occur.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The project site is underlain by Quaternary alluvium; the Quaternary period extends from
approximately 2.58 million years before present to the present (Dibblee and Minch, 2003; GSA,
2018). The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) completed a search of its
paleontology records for the project region on April 16, 2022; a copy of the records search letter is
included as Appendix E to this Initial Study. The LACM did not identify any fossil localities on the
project site; but identified seven fossil localities in the project region described below in Table 4.7-
1.
Table 4.7-1
FOSSIL LOCALITIES IN THE PROJECT REGION
Locality No. Location Depth Formation Taxa
LACM VP
1728
W of intersection of
English Rd & Peyton
Dr, Chino
15-20 ft bgs Unknown (light brown
shale with interbeds of
very coarse brown sand;
Pleistocene)
Horse (Equus), camel
(Camelops)
LACM VP
7508
Near intersection of
Vellano Club Dr. and
Palmero Dr.,
Oakcrest
Development; N of
Serrano Canyon
Unknown Unknown formation
(Pleistocene)
Ground sloth
(Nothrotheriops);
elephant family
(Proboscidea); horse
(Equus)
LACM VP
7268, 7271
Sundance
Condominiums, S of
Los Serranos Golf
Course
Unknown Unknown (Pleistocene) Horse (Equus)
LACM VP
7811
W of Orchard Park,
Chino Valley
9-11 feet bgs Unknown formation
(eolian, tan silt;
Pleistocene)
Whip snake
(Masticophis)
LACM VP
1207
Hill on east side of
sewage disposal
plant; 1 mile N-NW
of Corona
Unknown Unknown formation
(Pleistocene)
Bovidae
LACM 4619 Wineville Ave,
Eastvale
100 feet bgs Unknown Mammoth
(Mammothus
Source: Los Angeles County Natural History Museum (LACM), 2022
Excavations or grading may encounter fossil remains. Any substantial excavations below the
uppermost layers should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any specimens.
This impact would be potentially significant and mitigation is required.
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.7-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Mitigation Measure
MM GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall provide a letter to the
City of Fontana Planning Department, or designee, from a qualified paleontologist
stating that the paleontologist has been retained to provide services for the project.
The paleontologist shall develop, as needed, a Paleontological Resources Impact
Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) to mitigate the potential impacts to unknown buried
paleontological resources that may exist onsite for the review and approval by the
City. The PRIMP shall require that the paleontologist perform paleontological
monitoring of any ground disturbing activities within undisturbed native sediments
during mass grading, site preparation, and underground utility installation. The
project paleontologist shall reevaluate the necessity for paleontological monitoring
after 50 percent or greater of the excavations have been completed. In the event
paleontological resources are encountered, ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet
of the area of the discovery must cease. The paleontologist shall examine the
materials encountered, assess the nature and extent of the find, and recommend a
course of action to further investigate and protect or recover and salvage those
resources that have been encountered. Criteria for discard of specific fossil specimens
shall be made explicit. If the qualified paleontologist determines that impacts to a
sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided by project
planning, then recovery shall be applied. Actions may include recovering a sample of
the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring work and halting
construction if a significant fossil needs to be recovered, and/or cleaning, identifying,
and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes. Recovery, salvage and
treatment shall be done at the Applicant’s expense. All recovered and salvaged
resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation
by the paleontologist. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established
accredited professional repository. The paleontologist shall have a repository
agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of MM GEO-1, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced
to a less than significant level.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.8-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
4.8.1 Background Information on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Life on earth depends on energy coming from the sun. About half the light reaching Earth's
atmosphere passes through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and then radiated
upward in the form of infrared heat. About 90% of this heat is then absorbed by carbon dioxide (CO2)
and other greenhouse gases (GHG) and radiated back toward the surface, which is warmed to a
life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (NASA, 2018).
Human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century, the burning of fossil
fuels such as coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2. This happens because
the coal or oil burning process combines carbon in the fuel with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a
lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased
concentrations of GHGs (NASA, 2018).
GHGs are defined under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) as CO2, methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6).13
Associated with each GHG species is a “global warming potential” (GWP), which is a value used to
compare the abilities of different GHGs to trap heat in the atmosphere. GWPs are based on the
heat-absorbing ability of each gas relative to that of CO2, as well as the decay rate of each gas (the
amount removed from the atmosphere over a given number of years). The GWPs of CH4 and N2O are
25 and 298, respectively (GMI, 2019). “Carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e) emissions are calculated
by weighting each GHG compound’s emissions by its GWP and then summing the products. HFCs,
PFCs, and SF6 would not be emitted in significant amounts by Citrus Avenue Condominium
Development (Citrus Avenue Project or project) sources, so they are not discussed further.
Worldwide, California is responsible for approximately two percent of the world’s CO2 emissions
(CEC, 2006a). The California Energy Commission (CEC) estimates that California is the second largest
emitter of GHG emissions in the United States. According to the California Air Resources Board
(ARB), in 2019, GHG emissions from statewide emitting activities were 418.2 million metric tons of
13 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.pdf.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.8-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2e, or million tons CO2e), 7.2 MMTCO2e lower than 2018 levels and almost 13
MMTCO2e below the 2020 GHG Limit of 431 MMTCO2e. Since the peak level in 2004, California’s GHG
emissions have generally followed a decreasing trend. In 2016, statewide GHG emissions dropped
below the 2020 GHG Limit and have remained below the Limit since that time (ARB, 2021).
Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas consisting of molecules made up
of two oxygen atoms and one carbon atom. CO2 is produced when an organic carbon compound (such
as wood) or fossilized organic matter (such as coal, oil, or natural gas) is burned in the presence of
oxygen. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid-1700s, industrial activities have increased
in scale and distribution. Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations were stable at a range
of 275 to 285 ppm (IPCC, 2007a). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth
System Research Laboratory indicates that global concentration of CO2 was 413.67 parts per million
(ppm) in March 2020 (ESRL, 2020). These concentrations of CO2 exceed by far the natural range over
the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores.
Methane (CH4). Methane is a colorless, odorless non-toxic gas consisting of molecules made up of
four hydrogen atoms and one carbon atom. CH4 is combustible, and is the main constituent of natural
gas, a fossil fuel. CH4 is released when organic matter decomposes in low oxygen environments.
Natural sources include wetlands, swamps and marshes, termites, and oceans. Anthropogenic
sources include the mining of fossil fuels and transportation of natural gas, digestive processes in
ruminant animals such as cattle, rice paddies, and the buried waste in landfills. Over the last 50 years,
human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added
to the atmospheric concentration of CH4. Other anthropogenic sources include fossil-fuel combustion
and biomass burning.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O). Nitrous oxide is a colorless, non-flammable gas with a sweetish odor,
commonly known as “laughing gas,” and sometimes used as an anesthetic. N2O is naturally produced
in the oceans and in rainforests (USEPA, 2019b). Manmade sources of N2O include the use of
fertilizers in agriculture, nylon and nitric acid production, cars with catalytic converters and the
burning of organic matter. Concentrations of N2O also began to rise at the beginning of the industrial
revolution.
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
GHGs are regulated at the national, state, and air basin level; each agency has a different degree of
control. The USEPA regulates at the national level; the ARB regulates at the state level; and the
SCAQMD regulates at the air basin level in the Citrus Avenue project area.
4.8.2.1 Federal Regulations
The USEPA collects several types of GHG emissions data. These data help policy makers, businesses,
and the USEPA track GHG emissions trends and identify opportunities for reducing emissions and
increasing efficiency. The USEPA has been maintaining a national inventory of GHG emissions since
1990 and in 2009 established mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from large GHG emissions
sources.
EPA is also getting GHG reductions through partnerships and initiatives; evaluating policy options,
costs, and benefits; advancing the science; partnering internationally and with states, localities, and
tribes; and helping communities adapt.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.8-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.8.2.2 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards
In May 2010, the USEPA finalized the first-ever national GHG emissions standards under the Clean
Air Act, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) finalized Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (USEPA,
2021a). The 2010 CAFE standards were for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles. In
April 2020, NHTSA and USEPA amended the CAFE and GHG emissions standards for passenger cars
and light trucks and established new less stringent standards, covering model years 2021 through
2026 (USEPA, 2021b).
Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule
On September 27, 2019, the USEPA and the NHTSA published the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
(SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program (ARB, 2020a), revoked California’s authority
to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandates in California.
The loss of the ZEV sales requirements will likely result in additional gasoline-fueled vehicles being
sold in the State and criteria emissions increasing. On April 30, 2020, USEPA and NHTSA issued the
Final SAFE Rule, (ARB, 2020b) which relaxed the federal GHG emissions and CAFE standards
resulting in the probable increase of CO2 emissions. This regulation was repealed on December 21,
2021 by the Biden administration (NHTSA, 2021).
4.8.2.3 State Regulations
Executive Order S 3-05
On June 1, 2005, the governor issued EO S 3-05, which set the following GHG emission reduction
targets:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels;
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels.
To meet these targets, the Climate Action Team (CAT)14 prepared a report to the Governor in 2006
that contained recommendations and strategies to help ensure that the targets in EO S-3-05 are met.
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)
In 2006, the California State Legislature enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,
also known as AB 32. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHG emissions in California. GHGs, as defined under
AB 32, include CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted in California be
reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The ARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and
regulating sources of emissions of GHGs that cause global warming. AB 32 also required that by
January 1, 2008, the ARB determine what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990, and it must
approve a statewide GHG emissions limit, so it may be applied to the 2020 benchmark. The ARB
approved a 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e) on December 6,
14 The Climate Action Team (CAT) members are state agency secretaries and the heads of agencies, boards, and
departments, led by the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). They coordinate
statewide efforts to implement global warming emission reduction programs and the state's Climate Adaptation
Strategy.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.8-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
2007, in its Staff Report. Emissions in California were required to be at or below 427 MMTCO2e,
before the year 2020.
Under the “business as usual or (BAU)” scenario established in 2008, statewide emissions were
increasing at a rate of approximately one percent per year as noted below. It was estimated that the
2020 estimated BAU of 596 MMTCO2e would have required a 28% reduction to reach the 1990 level
of 427 MMTCO2e.
San Bernardino Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan
The San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (Reduction Plan) includes the
collective results of all local efforts to reduce GHG emissions consistent with statewide GHG targets
expressed in Senate Bill (SB) 32, the “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” and SB 375. The
Reduction Plan establishes a baseline GHG inventory, emissions forecast and specific GHG reduction
measures for the City of Fontana. The baseline can be used as reference for all future GHG analyses
and planning. (County of San Bernardino, 2021, p. 1-1, 1-3).
The State has set goals for reducing GHG emissions by 2020, 2030, and 2045 through AB 32, SB 32,
SB-100, EO-B-55-18. The State passed an executive order (EO-B-55-18), which mandates statewide
net carbon neutrality by 2045. In the interim, the State has also provided a target of 40 percent below
2020 levels by 2030. The County has identified this target as a 40 percent below 2020 emission levels
by 2030. The 2030 target will put the County on a path toward the State’s long-term goal to achieve
zero net carbon emissions by 2045 (LSA Associates, Inc., 2021, p. 22). As shown in Table 4.8-1, in
2030, San Bernardino County would need to reduce its emissions to 1,754,098 MTCO2e to meet the
GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 2020 levels.
Table 4.8-1
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GHG REDUCTION TARGETS FOR COUNTYWIDE EMISSIONS
Strategy Target
2020 Target 15% below 2007 baseline levels
2020 Emissions Goal (MTCO2e) 5,315,000
2030 Target 40% below 2020 BAU levels
2030 Emissions Goal (MTCO2e) 1,754,098
Source: San Bernardino County GHG Reduction Plan Update, (LSA Associates, Inc., 2021, p.22) MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Climate Change Scoping Plan
The Scoping Plan released by the ARB in 2008 (ARB, 2008) outlined the state’s strategy to achieve
the AB 32 goals. This Scoping Plan, developed by ARB in coordination with the CAT, proposed a
comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California, improve the
environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs,
and enhance public health. It was adopted by the ARB at its December 2008 meeting. According to
the Scoping Plan, the 2020 target of 427 MMTCO2e requires the reduction of 169 MMTCO2e, or
approximately 28.3%, from the state’s projected 2020 BAU emissions level of 596 MMTCO2e.
In August 2011, the Scoping Plan was re-approved by the Board and includes the Final Supplement
to the Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document (ARB, 2011). This document includes expanded
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.8-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
analysis of project alternatives and updates the 2020 emission projections by considering updated
economic forecasts. The updated 2020 BAU estimate of 507 MMTCO2e determined that only a 16%
reduction below the estimated new BAU levels would be necessary to return to 1990 levels by 2020.
The 2011 Scoping Plan expands the list of nine Early Action Measures into a list of 39 Recommended
Actions contained in Appendices C and E of the Plan.
In May 2014, ARB developed, in collaboration with the CAT, the First Update to California’s Climate
Change Scoping Plan (Update) (ARB, 2014), which showed that California was on track to meet the
near-term 2020 GHG limit and was well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020
as required by AB 32. In accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, the ARB has mostly transitioned to the use of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change’s (IPCC’s) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)’s 100-year GWP (IPCC, 2007b) in its climate
change programs. ARB recalculated the 1990 GHG emissions level with the AR4 GWPs to be 431
MMTCO2e; therefore the 2020 GHG emissions limit established in response to AB 32 is now slightly
higher than the 427 MMTCO2e in the initial Scoping Plan.
In November 2017, ARB published the 2017 Scoping Plan (ARB, 2017b) which builds upon the
former Scoping Plan and Update by outlining priorities and recommendations for the state to achieve
its target of a 40% reduction in GHGs by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. The major elements of the
framework proposed are enhancement of the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the Low
Carbon Fuel Standard; a Mobile Source Strategy, Sustainable Freight Action Plan, Short-Lived Climate
Pollutant Reduction Strategy, Sustainable Communities Strategies, and a Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade
Program; a 20% reduction in GHG emissions from the refinery sector; and an Integrated Natural and
Working Lands Action Plan.
In May, 2022, ARB released its draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update for public review (ARB, 2022). The
2022 Scoping Plan, once final, will be a major milestone, laying out how the fifth largest economy in
the world can get to carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier (Ibid., p. 16).
Renewables Portfolio Standard (Scoping Action E-3)
The California Energy Commission estimates that in 2000 about 12% of California’s retail electric
load was met with renewable resources. Renewable energy includes (but is not limited to) wind,
solar, geothermal, small hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas. California’s
current RPS is intended to increase that share to 33% by 2020. Increased use of renewables will
decrease California’s reliance on fossil fuels, thus reducing emissions of GHGs from the electricity
sector. Most recently, Governor Brown signed into legislation Senate Bill (SB) 350 in October 2015,
which requires retail sellers and publicly-owned utilities to procure 50% of their electricity from
eligible renewable energy resources by 2030.
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375)
Senate Bill (SB) 375 passed the Senate on August 30, 2008, and was signed by the Governor on
September 30, 2008. Per SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions
and contributes approximately 45 percent of the GHG emissions in California, with automobiles and
light trucks alone contributing almost 30 percent. SB 375 indicates that GHGs from automobiles and
light trucks can be reduced by new vehicle technology. However, significant reductions from changed
land use patterns and improved transportation also are necessary. SB 375 states, “Without improved
land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375
does the following: (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.8-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, (2) aligns
planning for transportation and housing, and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementation
of the strategies.
Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, the Governor issued EO B-30-15 which added an interim target of GHG emissions
reductions to help ensure the State meets its 80 percent reduction by 2050, as set in EO S-3-05. The
interim target is reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent by 2030. It also directs State agencies to
update the Scoping Plan, update Adaptation Strategy every 3 years, and take climate change into
account in their planning and investment strategies. Additionally, it requires the State’s Five-Year
Infrastructure Plan to take current and future climate change impacts into account in all
infrastructure projects.
Title 24
Although not originally intended to reduce GHGs, California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6:
California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was
first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption.
The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new
energy efficient technologies and methods. The 2016 standards have been published and became
effective July 1, 2017. The requirement for when the 2008 standards must be followed is dependent
on when the application for the building permit is submitted. Energy efficient buildings require less
electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG
emissions. The 2019 Standards improve upon the 2016 Standards for new construction of, and
additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. Buildings whose permit
applications are dated on or after January 1, 2020, must comply with the 2019 Standards. The 2019
Standards is a major step towards meeting the Zero Net Energy goal by the year 2030 and is the last
of three updates to move California towards achieving that goal. The California Energy Commission
updates the standards every three years15.
4.8.2.4 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
In the process of fulfilling its mandate to reduce local air pollution, the SCAQMD has promoted a few
programs to combat climate change, e.g., energy conservation, low-carbon fuel technologies,
renewable energy, VMT reduction programs, and market incentive programs.
Air Quality-Related Energy Policy
In 2011, the SCAQMD Board adopted an Air Quality-Related Energy Policy (SCAQMD, 2011) that
integrates air quality, energy, and climate change issues in a coordinated and consolidated manner.
The Energy Policy presents policies to guide and coordinate SCAQMD efforts and actions to support
the policies.
4.8.2.5 Local Regulations
Table 4.8-2 shows 2016 and future GHG Emissions from sources in Fontana. Primary sources of GHG
emissions in the city are onroad transportation (55%), building energy (34%), and waste (8%).
15 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. California Energy Commission. Became effective January 1, 2020.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.8-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Emissions are projected to increase by 15% from 2016 to 2030 and by 31% from 2016 to 2045 due
to economic and population growth. In 2016, Fontana had per capita emissions of 5.4 MTCO2e, which
are lower than the region's average per capita emissions of 7.5 MTCO2e (ICF International and LSA,
2021, p. 3-25).
Table 4.8-2
FONTANA 2016 COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY (MTCO2e)
Sector 2016 Inventory 2030 Forecast 2045 Forecast
MTCO2e Percent MTCO2e Percent MTCO2e Percent
Residential Natural
Gas 86,355 8% 107,599 8% 130,362 9%
Non-Residential
Natural Gas 68,268 6% 81,745 6% 96,186 6%
Light-Medium Duty
Vehicles 480,465 42% 518,076 40% 560,186 38%
Heavy-Duty
Vehicles 136,258 12% 170,497 13% 200,951 14%
Off-Road
Equipment 23,220 2% 32,595 3% 48,700 3%
Agriculture 1,016 <1% 572 <1% 309 <1%
Residential
Electricity 96,888 9% 113,518 9% 131,643 9%
Non-Residential
Electricity 134,422 12% 155,516 12% 178,072 12%
Solid Waste
Management 86,844 8% 101,750 8% 117,932 8%
Wastewater
Treatment 6,610 1% 7,744 1% 8,981 1%
Water Transport,
Distribution, and
Treatment
10,581 1% 11,893 1% 13,792 1%
Total Emissions 1,130,927 100% 1,301,505 100% 1,487,115 100%
MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Source: ICF International and LSA, 2021, p. 3-25
4.8.3 Impact Analysis
4.8.3.1 Methodology
Short-term construction GHG emissions and long-term operational GHG emissions were assessed
using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 (CAPCOA, 2021). This
analysis focused upon emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O only. HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 would be emitted in
negligible quantities by the Citrus Avenue project, so they are not discussed further.
b) Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.8-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Less than Significant Impact
California has enacted several pieces of legislation that relate to GHG emissions and climate change,
much of which set aggressive goals for GHG reductions within the state. Per Senate Bill 97, the
California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, which address
the specific obligations of public agencies when analyzing GHG emissions under CEQA to determine
a project’s effects on the environment. However, neither a threshold of significance nor any specific
mitigations are included or provided in these CEQA Guideline amendments.
GHG Significance Threshold
The City of Fontana does not have an adopted threshold of significance for GHG emissions, but for
CEQA purposes, it has discretion to select an appropriate significance criterion, based on substantial
evidence. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions
in their CEQA documents, the SCAQMD formed a GHG California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Significance Threshold Working Group, which developed a tiered approach for evaluating GHG
emissions where SCAQMD is not the lead agency. (SCAQMD, 2008). Although SCAQMD never adopted
a threshold, the approach developed by the Working Group, which includes a screening threshold of
3,000-MTCO2e-per-year, is supported by substantial evidence (as discussed further below), and the
City has selected this value as a significance criterion.
The 3,000-MTCO2e-per-year threshold is based on a 90% emission “capture” rate methodology. Prior
to the development of the proposed threshold described above, the 90% emissions capture approach
was one of the options suggested by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA) in its CEQA & Climate Change white paper (2008). A 90% emission capture rate means
that unmitigated GHG emissions from the top 90 percent of all GHG-producing projects within a
geographic area – the SCAB in this instance – would be subject to a detailed analysis of potential
environmental impacts from GHG emissions, while the bottom 10 percent of all GHG-producing
projects would be excluded from detailed analysis. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90%
emission capture rate is appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global
climate change because medium and large projects will be required to implement measures to reduce
GHG emissions, while small projects, which are generally infill development projects that are not the
focus of the State’s GHG reduction targets, are allowed to proceed. Further, a 90% emission capture
rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial proportion of future
development projects and demonstrate that cumulative emissions reductions are being achieved
while setting it high enough to exclude small projects that will, in aggregate, contribute approximate
1% of projected statewide GHG emissions in the Year 2050 (SCAQMD, 2008, p. 4).
In developing the threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year, SCAQMD researched a database of projects
kept by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). That database contained 798 projects,
87 of which were removed because they were very large and/or outliers that would skew emissions
values too high, leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90th-percentile
capture rate. The SCAQMD analysis of the 711 projects within the sample population combined
commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects. It should be noted that the sample of projects
included warehouses and other light industrial land uses but did not include industrial processes
(i.e., oil refineries, heavy manufacturing, electric generating stations, mining operations, etc.).
Emissions from each of these projects were calculated by the SCAQMD to provide a consistent
method of emissions calculations across the sample population and from projects within the sample
population. In calculating the emissions, the SCAQMD analysis determined that the 90th percentile
ranged between 2,983 to 3,143 MTCO2e per year. The SCAQMD set its significance threshold at the
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.8-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
low end of the range when rounded to the nearest hundred tons of emissions (i.e., 3,000 MTCO2e per
year) to define small projects that are considered less than significant and do not need to provide
further analysis.
The City understands that the 3,000-MTCO2e-per-year threshold for residential/commercial uses
was proposed by the SCAQMD a decade ago and was never formally adopted; however, no
permanent, superseding policy or threshold has since been adopted. The 3,000-MTCO2e-per-year
threshold was developed and recommended by the SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial
evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance
Threshold (2008) and subsequent Working Group meetings (the latest of which occurred in 2010).
The SCAQMD has not withdrawn its support of the proposed threshold and all documentation
supporting the threshold remains on the SCAQMD website on a page that provides guidance to CEQA
practitioners for air quality analysis (and where all SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional and
local criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants also are listed). Further, as stated by the SCAQMD,
this threshold “uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal [80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050] as the
basis for deriving the screening level” and, thus, remains valid for use in 2022 (SCAQMD, 2008, pp. 3-
4). Lastly, this threshold has been used for hundreds, if not thousands, of GHG analyses performed
for projects located within the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction.
Thus, for purposes of analysis in this initial study, if Project-related GHG emissions do not exceed the
3,000-MTCO2e-per-year threshold, then Project-related GHG emissions would clearly have a less-
than-significant impact pursuant to Threshold “a.” On the other hand, if Project-related GHG
emissions exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year, the Project would be considered a substantial source of
GHG emissions.
Construction GHG Emissions
Construction is an episodic, temporary source of GHG emissions. Emissions are generally associated
with the operation of construction equipment and the disposal of construction waste. To be
consistent with the guidance from the SCAQMD for calculating criteria pollutants from construction
activities, only GHG emissions from onsite construction activities and offsite hauling and construction
worker commuting are considered as project-generated. As explained by the CAPCOA in its 2008
white paper (CAPCOA, 2008), the information needed to characterize GHG emissions from
manufacture, transport, and end-of-life of construction materials would be speculative at the CEQA
analysis level. CEQA does not require an evaluation of speculative impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15145).
Therefore, the construction analysis does not consider such GHG emissions, but does consider
non-speculative onsite construction activities, and offsite hauling, and construction worker trips. All
GHG emissions are identified on an annual basis.
Estimated criteria pollutant emissions from the 6697 Citrus Avenue Project’s onsite and offsite
project construction activities were calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0. The results of this
analysis are presented in Table 4.8-3. The project construction is expected to begin around February
2023 and would last approximately eight to ten months, ending about October 2023. The increase in
GHG emissions from the project construction activities would be 224 metric tons in 2023. Consistent
with SCAQMD recommendations (SCAQMD, 2008, p. 3-10) and to ensure that construction emissions
are assessed in a quantitative sense, construction GHG emissions have been amortized over a 30-year
period. The amortized value, 7.5 MTCO2e, has been added to the Citrus Avenue project’s annual
operational GHG emissions. (See below.) Modeling results are in Appendix B.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.8-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Table 4.8-3
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS
Year/Phase Annual Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2023 222.14 0.061 0.0014 224.07
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) (CAPCOA,
2022).
Operational GHG Emissions
For a reasonable maximum emissions case, it was assumed that GHG emissions from the Citrus
Avenue Project site are currently zero. Operational GHG emissions calculated by CalEEMod are
shown in Table 4.8-4. Total annual unmitigated emissions from the Citrus Avenue Project would be
766 MTCO2e per year. Energy production and mobile sources account for about 95% of annual
operational emissions and about 94% of total annual emissions.16
Table 4.8-4
PROJECT OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Emissions Source
Estimated Project Generated
CO2e Emissions
(Metric Tons per Year)
Area Sources 1.17
Energy Demand (Electricity & Natural Gas) 137.31
Mobile (Motor Vehicles) 582.68
Solid Waste Generation 15.73
Water Demand 21.85
Construction Emissionsa 7.5
Total 766
a Total construction GHG emissions were amortized over 30 years and added to those
resulting from the operation of the project.
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022).
Therefore, under the first significance criterion, GHG emissions would be less than significant, and
no mitigation is necessary.
c) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG?
16 Calculations are provided in Appendix B.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.8-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Less than Significant Impact
The City of Fontana, through its partnership with the San Bernardino County, has identified measures
that it can take to reduce GHG emissions from City operations and from development in its
jurisdiction. According to the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, the
City of Fontana selected a goal to reduce its community GHG emissions to a level that is 46% below
its 2008 GHG emissions level by 2030. The city will meet and exceed this goal subject to reduction
measures that are technologically feasible and cost-effective through a combination of state (~75%)
and local (~25%) efforts (County of San Bernardino County, 2021, p. 3-67).
Another approach to identifying potential conflict with GHG reduction plans, policies, or regulations
is to examine General Plan provisions that prescribe or enable GHG emissions control. The EIR for
the General Plan Update (City of Fontana, 2018, Table 5.6-7) lists policies in the General Plan Update
that reduce GHG emissions and help to quantify emissions reductions. However, the policies
prescribe actions to be taken by the City, and not measures to be implemented by a project
proponent. Nevertheless, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the GHG emission
reduction policies. Furthermore, the EIR determined that implementation of the updated general
plan will result in significantly lower GHG emissions from Fontana than would continuation of the
2003 General Plan (City of Fontana, 2018, Table 5.6-6). As demonstrated in Section 4.11, the
proposed project would have no impacts in relation to consistency with local land use plans, policies,
or regulations. Therefore, the project would not hinder the GHG emission reductions of the General
Plan Update.
Finally, as noted in Section 3.3.1, energy-efficient features, including insulated and glazed windows
and low E coating on windows, would be incorporated into building design to comply with the
provisions of the California Green Building Code, Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of
Regulations. These will help reduce GHG emissions.
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.9-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the
project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X
The analysis for this section is based partly on the hazardous materials database search by
Environmental Records Search (ERS Inc.) dated April 27, 2022 and included as Appendix F.
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.9-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Less than Significant Impact
Construction
The regulatory database search conducted for the proposed project did not identify hazardous
materials sites on or abutting the project site (ERS, 2022). Historical aerial photographs dated 1938
through 1985 show the site in agricultural use. One structure is shown in the west part of the site in
a 1959 photograph; two structures are shown in the west part of the site in photographs dated 1966
through 2005; and one structure remained in a photograph dated 2018. The site has been vacant
since 2018 (historicaerials.com, 2022; Google Earth Pro, 2022). The southerly of the two structures
is depicted as a church in topographic maps dated 1955 through 1999 (Historicaerials.com).
Project construction would involve the use of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, solvents,
paints and other architectural coatings, fertilizers, and pesticides. Hazardous materials would be
used, stored, transported, and disposed of in compliance with existing regulations of several agencies
including: US Environmental Protection Agency; US Department of Transportation; Department of
Toxic Substances Control; Occupational Safety and Health Administration; and Division of
Occupational Safety and Health. Construction impacts involving hazardous materials would be less
than significant after compliance with such regulations.
Operation
Project operation would involve the transport, storage, use, and disposal of small amounts of
hazardous materials for cleaning and landscaping purposes, such as commercial cleansers, paints,
and lubricants for maintenance and upkeep of the proposed buildings and landscaping. These
materials would be stored, handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. The
proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of quantities of hazardous
materials that may create a significant hazard to the public or environment.
Therefore, hazardous materials impacts from project operation would be less than significant.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction
Project construction would involve transport, storage, and use of chemical agents, solvents, paints,
and other hazardous materials commonly associated with construction activities. Chemical
transport, storage, and use would comply with: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); California hazardous waste control law (California Health
and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Hazardous Waste Control); California Division of Safety
and Health (DOSH); South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD); and San Bernardino
County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division (HMD) requirements. The construction
contractor would maintain equipment and supplies onsite for containing and cleaning up small spills
of hazardous materials, and in the event of a release of hazardous materials of quantity and/or
toxicity that onsite workers could not safely contain and clean up, would notify the HMD
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.9-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
immediately.17 Therefore, compliance with applicable laws and regulations during project
construction would reduce the potential for accidental releases of hazardous materials, and
construction hazards impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
Project operation would involve the handling and storage of materials such as commercial cleansers,
solvents and other janitorial or industrial-use materials, paints, and landscape fertilizers/pesticides
during project operations. However, these materials would be stored, handled, and disposed of in
accordance with applicable regulations and would not be stored in amounts that would create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through accidental release. The project would
have a less than significant impact in this regard.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact
A.B. Miller High School is within 0.25 mile of the project, located less than 0.2 mile to the southeast
of the site. No other schools are within a 0.25-mile radius of the project.
Construction
During construction, the project would entail the use and handling of limited volumes of commonly
used hazardous materials. Project personnel would ensure that use of hazardous materials during
construction would adhere to applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Project construction
would not subject persons at A.B. Miller High School to substantial hazards, and therefore impacts
would be less than significant.
Operation
Project operations would involve the handling and storage of small amounts of hazardous materials
such as cleansers, solvents, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides. However, these materials would be
stored, handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations and would not be used or
stored in amounts that would pose a hazard to persons at A.B. Miller High School. Therefore, the
project would have less than significant impacts in this regard.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
17 The San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division (HMD) is the Certified Unified Program
Agency (CUPA) for most of San Bernardino County including the City of Fontana; the Certified Unified Program
coordinates and makes consistent enforcement of several state and federal regulations governing hazardous materials.
(SBCFD, 2021)
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.9-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Less than Significant Impact
Government Code § 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to compile
and update, at least annually, lists of the following:
• Hazardous waste and substances sites from the DTSC EnviroStor database.
• Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites by county and fiscal year in the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database.
• Solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous
waste levels outside waste management units.
• SWRCB Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAOs).
• Hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to § 25187.5 of the Health
and Safety Code, identified by DTSC.
These lists are collectively referred to as the “Cortese List.” The project site is not included on the
Cortese List.
According to the database search by ERS Inc. (2022), No hazardous materials sites were identified
on the project site. Eight hazardous materials sites were identified within one mile of the project site.
Some sites were listed on multiple databases; a total of 18 database listings at the eight hazardous
materials sites were found. Table 4.9-1 only lists documented and potential hazardous releases—
that is, it excludes listings documenting permits and/or permitted facilities; and only within 0.5 mile
of the project site. The database search by ERS Inc. (2022) includes sites listed for permits and
permitted facilities; and sites to one mile from the project site.
Table 4.9-1
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES WITHIN 0.5 MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE
Site Name
Address
Distance and Direction from project site
Additional information
Landmark Inc.
6599 Citrus Avenue
0.12 mi. N
State Water Resources Control Board
Stormwater enforcement actions
Former gas station
16173 Highland Ave
0.2 mi. N
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
gasoline release affected soil
case closed 1993
Valley Kia
16295 S Highland Ave
0.21 mi. NE
State Water Resources Control Board
Stormwater enforcement actions
A. B. Miller High School
6821 Oleander Ave
0.26 mi. SE
School site investigation
No action required
Source: ERS Inc., 2022
None of the four sites listed in Table 4.9-1 are considered environmental concerns for the project site.
The leaking underground storage tank (LUST) case is closed, the school site investigation concluded
that no further action is required, and the remaining two listings are for stormwater enforcement
actions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.9-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in
the project area?
No Impact
The nearest public-use airport to the project site is Ontario International Airport, approximately 8.7
miles to the southwest (see Figure 4.9-1). The project site is outside of zones at Ontario International
Airport where land uses are regulated to minimize aviation-related hazards to persons on the
ground, and outside of noise compatibility contours for the airport (City of Ontario, 2011). Project
development would not cause airport-related hazards, or excessive noise, to persons at the project
site. No impact would occur.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction
The City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) was adopted by the City Council in 2018.
As further detailed in Section 4.17, project construction in the Citrus Avenue right-of-way next to
the project site could temporarily impact street traffic by temporarily reducing the number of lanes
or temporarily closing a portion of Citrus Avenue. The city requires that projects conducting
construction work in City roadway rights-of-way get Traffic Control Permits approved by the City
Department of Engineering. Emergency access must be maintained. Compliance with City
requirements for traffic management during construction in the public ROW would ensure that the
project would have a less than significant impact.
Operation
Project operation would not block traffic on Citrus Avenue or other local roadways. The project
would provide emergency access to the proposed buildings compliant with California Fire Code
Section 503. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.9-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.9-1
AIRPORTS IN THE PROJECT REGION
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.9-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) developed Fire Hazard
Severity Zones (FHSZ) for State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and Local Responsibility Areas (LRA).
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) designation refers to either:
a. wildland areas supporting high-to-extreme fire behavior resulting from climax fuels
typified by well-developed surface fuel profiles (e.g., mature chaparral) or forested
systems where crown fire is likely. Additional site elements include steep and mixed
topography and climate/fire weather patterns that include seasonal extreme weather
conditions of strong winds and dry fuel moistures. Burn frequency is typically high, and
should be evidenced by numerous historical large fires in the area. Firebrands from both
short- (<200 yards) and long-range sources are often abundant.
OR
b. developed/urban areas typically with high vegetation density (>70% cover) and
associated high fuel continuity, allowing for frontal flame spread over much of the area
to progress impeded by only isolated non-burnable fractions. Often where tree cover is
abundant, these areas look very similar to adjacent wildland areas. Developed areas may
have less vegetation cover and still be in this class when in the immediate vicinity (0.25
mile) of wildland areas zoned as Very High (see above).
The project site is not in or near a fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) mapped by CAL FIRE within a
State Responsibility Area (SRA) or within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA, that is, where cities and
counties are responsible for the costs of wildfire prevention and suppression) (see Figures 4.9-2 and
4.9-3, respectively). The project site is bounded on three sides by urban development; the nearest
FHSZ to the site is in LRA approximately 1.3 miles to the north. Project development would not
expose people or structures to substantial hazards from wildfire, and there would be no impact.
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.9-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.9-2
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES – STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.9-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.9-3
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES – LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.10-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
X
i) result in substantial erosion or
siltation on or offsite; X
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite;
X
iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
X
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact
The California State Water Resources Control Board requires its nine Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCBs) to develop water quality control plans (Basin Plans) designed to preserve and
enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all Regional waters. Specifically, Basin Plans
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.10-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
designate beneficial uses for surface waters and groundwater, set narrative and numerical objectives
that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the
State antidegradation policy, and describe implementation programs to protect all waters in the
Regions (RWQCB 1995). In addition, Basin Plans incorporate by reference all applicable State and
Regional Board plans and policies, and other pertinent water quality policies and regulations. The
proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana (Region 8) RWQCB.
As shown in Figure 10.4-1, USGS Surface Waters and Watersheds, the project site is located within
the USGS Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit (HUC 8; HU Code 18070203). The project is located within
the lower Lytle Creek watershed, which forms the northwest portion of the Santa Ana River
Watershed (USGS HUC 18070203). The Santa Ana River Watershed drains the eastern area portion
of the San Gabriel Mountains spanning approximately 2,650 square miles. The Santa Ana River, which
flows a distance exceeding 100 miles, discharges into the Pacific Ocean at the City of Huntington
Beach (USEPA, 2022). Under existing conditions, stormwater generated on the project site drains to
the west toward Citrus Avenue, which is tributary to the Walnut Avenue Master storm drain system.
The onsite runoff will flow into grate inlets/catch basins via proposed gutters and storm drains and
then into the proposed onsite Contech Chamber System-1,2 for low flow retention and infiltration for
WQ volume. For larger storm events, flows will overflow the Contech infiltration/retention chamber
system-1,2, drains to the proposed manhole at the southwest corner of the site via storm drain and
discharge via proposed 24” RCP lateral which will tie in to the existing 48” RCP master storm drain
system in Citrus Avenue. The proposed new development site is consistent with drainage pattern in
the area. It flows to the existing 48” RCP master storm drain system in Citrus Avenue which ultimately
drains to existing master storm drain system (60” RCP, Line D2) in Walnut Avenue. The proposed
drainage system is sufficient to drain onsite water into the proposed future 48” RCP (per the City of
Fontana Storm Drain Improvement Plans to be built by the property developer) in Citrus Avenue
(Allard Engineering, 2021). This storm drain eventually discharges into Etiwanda Channel.
Development of the project has the potential to result in two types of water quality impacts:
(1) short-term impacts due to construction-related discharges; and (2) long-term impacts from
operation. Temporary soil disturbance would occur during project construction, due to earth-moving
activities such as excavation and trenching for foundations and utilities, soil compaction and moving,
cut and fill activities, and grading. Disturbed soils are susceptible to high rates of erosion from wind
and rain, resulting in sediment transport via stormwater runoff from the project area. Erosion and
sedimentation affect water quality of receiving waters through interference with photosynthesis,
oxygen exchange, and respiration, growth, and reproduction of aquatic species. Runoff from
construction sites may include sediments and contaminants such as oils, fuels, paints, and solvents.
Additionally, other pollutants such as nutrients, trace metals, and hydrocarbons can attach to
sediment and be carried by stormwater into storm drains which discharge eventually to the Pacific
Ocean.
Spills and mishandling of construction materials and waste may also potentially leave the project site
and negatively impact water quality. The use of construction equipment and machinery may
potentially result in contamination from petroleum products, hydraulic fluids, and heavy metals.
Contamination from building preparation materials such as paints and solvents, and landscaping
materials such as fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides may also potentially degrade water quality
during project construction. Trash and demolition debris may also be carried into storm drains and
discharged into receiving waters.
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.10-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.10-1
USGS SURFACE WATERS AND WATERSHEDS
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.10-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Construction Pollutants Control
The project proponent is required by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, as authorized by
§ 402 CWA, NPDES for projects which will disturb one or more acres of soil during construction). The
Construction General Permit requires potential dischargers of pollutants into Waters of the US
(WOUS)to prepare a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which establishes
enforceable limits on discharges, requires effluent monitoring, designates reporting requirements,
and requires construction BMPs to reduce or eliminate point and non-point source discharges of
pollutants. Additionally, BMPs must be maintained, inspected before and after each precipitation
event, and repaired or replaced as necessary. Because the project is required by the SWRCB to comply
with all applicable conditions of Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, potential
violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during project construction
would be less than significant.
Operational Pollutant Controls
The San Bernardino County NPDES Permit (NPDES No. CAS618036) and Waste Discharge
Requirements Area Wide Urban Storm Water Runoff Management Program regulates, through Order
No. R8 2010 0036, the discharge of pollutants into WOUS through stormwater and urban runoff
conveyance systems, including flood control facilities. These conveyance systems are commonly
referred to as municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), or storm drains. In this context, the
NPDES Permit is also referred to as an MS4 Permit.
Pursuant to the MS4 Permit, Principal Permittees (i.e., the San Bernardino County Flood Control
District) and Co-Permittees (the City of Fontana is a Co-Permittee) must regulate discharges of
pollutants in urban runoff from man-made sources into storm water conveyance systems within their
jurisdiction.
New development and redevelopment can significantly increase pollutant loads in stormwater and
urban runoff, because increased population density results in proportionately higher levels of vehicle
emissions, vehicle maintenance wastes, municipal sewage wastes, household hazardous wastes,
fertilizers, pet waste, trash, and other pollutants (RWQCB, 2010). The San Bernardino County MS4
Permit requires new development and significant redevelopment projects to incorporate post
construction Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs into project design to comply with the local Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce or eliminate the quantity, and improve the quality of,
stormwater being discharged from the project site.
A preliminary WQMP (Allard Engineering, 2021b) has been prepared for the proposed project site
and is included herein as Appendix G1. The MS4 and the associated WQMP require the
implementation of LID features to ensure that most stormwater runoff is treated and retained onsite.
The project WQMP includes structural BMPs, such as: stenciling and signage for the storm drain
system; design and construction of trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction;
use of efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and
source control; and finish grade of landscaped areas at a minimum of one to two inches below top of
curb, sidewalk, or pavement. Additionally, the proposed project would include LIDs such as
minimizing impervious areas, maximizing infiltration capacity, and preserving the existing drainage
patterns to mitigate the impacts of runoff and stormwater pollution as close to the source as possible.
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.10-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
These facilities are highly effective at removing water pollutants such as sediment, nutrients, trash,
metals, bacteria, oil and grease, and organic compounds, while reducing the volume and intensity of
stormwater flow leaving a site (Allard Engineering, 2021b, p. 4-11 to 4-12).
The WQMP may also include non-structural source control BMPs, including BMP maintenance, local
water quality ordinances, spill contingency plan, litter/debris control program, employee training,
catch basin inspection program, vacuum sweeping of private streets and parking lots, and complying
with all applicable NPDES permits (Allard Engineering, 2021b, p. 4 8 to 4-10).
With implementation of construction and operational BMPs, potential impacts to water quality
would be less than significant and mitigation is not proposed.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is within the service area of the FWC. Water supplies consist of imported water from
Lytle Creek surface flow, and from wells in the Lytle Basin, Rialto Basin, Chino Basin, and another
groundwater basin known as No Man's Land (West Yost, 2021). The FWC Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP) (West Yost, 2021) provides a summary of anticipated supplies and demands for the
years 2025 through 2045 in five-year increments (West Yost, 2021, p. 7-5).
Worst case scenario is FWC’s future Five Consecutive Dry Year supplies anticipated as:
• About 4,154 AFY of local groundwater from the Lytle Basin from 2025 to 2045 (assumes a 35
percent reduction from Normal Year and Single Dry Year supplies);
• Up to about 832 AFY of purchased supplies from SBVMWD from 2025 to 2035, decreasing to
704 AFY for 2040 to 2045 (assumes a 74 and 78 percent reduction from Normal Year
supplies, respectively);
• The same as future Single Dry Year supplies for the remaining supply sources; and
• Local groundwater supplies from the Chino Basin are assumed to provide 100 percent of
FWC’s remaining demand during multiple dry years.
The UWMP states that FWC’s Multiple Dry Year supplies (worst-case scenario) are adequate to meet
projected Multiple Dry Year demands (West Yost, 2021, p. 7-7), even with the Chino Basin providing
100 percent of FWC’s remaining demand during multiple dry years.
While the project would result in a decrease in pervious surface area compared to existing conditions,
the relatively small size of the proposed project site limits its potential to contribute to groundwater
recharge to the Chino Basin. Regardless, the proposed project would implement LID measures that
would maximize the volume of stormwater runoff that would be captured and allowed to infiltrate
the soil to add to groundwater recharge. These LID measures and BMPs are discussed above in
Section 4.10 a), and are described in detail and illustrated in the preliminary WQMP (Allard
Engineering, 2021b), located in Appendix G1.
The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge, or impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin. Project-related impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is proposed.
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.10-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
c) 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:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite;
Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is relatively flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 1,488 to 1,514 feet
above mean sea level (amsl) [Google Earth, 2022]. There is no evidence of ephemeral, intermittent,
or perennial streams or rivers that occur in the BSA. As detailed in Section 4.10 a), the project owner
would be required to develop a SWPPP by a certified qualified SWPPP developer. The required
SWPPP would be project-specific and would prescribe site-specific stormwater BMPs which would
be intended to minimize or avoid having soil leave the project site, through either stormwater or
wind, and thus minimize or avoid soil erosion onsite and siltation in receiving waters.
With implementation of a project-specific SWPPP and proper maintenance and replacement of
required stormwater BMPs (as necessary), potential impacts resulting in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or offsite would be minimized or avoided, and impacts would be less than significant. No
mitigation is proposed.
Construction
As described in Section 4.10 a), temporary soil disturbance would occur during project construction,
due to earth-moving activities such as excavation and trenching for foundations and utilities, soil
compaction and moving, cut and fill activities, and grading. Disturbed soils are susceptible to high
rates of erosion from wind and rain, resulting in sediment transport via stormwater runoff from the
project area.
Implementation of the required SWPPP and required BMPs, including installation, maintenance, and
replacement of BMPs, as discussed in Section 4.10 a) would minimize or avoid potential impacts
resulting from on- or offsite erosion and siltation to a level that is less than significant.
Operation
The LID BMPs proposed as part of project design would minimize or avoid on- or offsite erosion and
siltation by a combination of maintaining drainage patterns, installation of landscaping, and
installation of LID BMPs which would prevent erosion and prevent siltation-laden stormwater from
leaving the site. Applicable regulations (e.g., the MS4 permit, and installation of LID BMPs, including
site design, infiltration and pre-treatment BMPs, etc.), would limit pollutant discharges from
development of the project. The project’s adherence to existing requirements would reduce erosion
and siltation during operation and therefore, impacts resulting from operation of the project would
be less than significant.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or offsite;
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?
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.10-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Less than Significant Impact
The project Preliminary Drainage Report (Allard Engineering, 2021a), included as Appendix G2 to
this document, provides calculations and exhibits to estimate the values for the existing and proposed
condition stormwater flows.
The Preliminary Drainage Report determined that the proposed drainage design for this project
meets the applicable standards and requirements of the Santa Ana Region. The drainage plan
proposed in the Preliminary WQMP is consistent with the historical drainage patterns for the
proposed project site. The LID BMPs proposed by the Preliminary WQMP would mitigate the post-
construction increase in peak flow of runoff from the site for the 2-, 5-, and 10-year storm events
(Allard Engineering, 2021b).
As discussed in the project’s preliminary WQMP (Allard Engineering, 2021b) and preliminary
Drainage Report (Allard Engineering, 2021a), the project would not substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite, 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. Impacts would be less than
significant.
As detailed in the proposed project’s WQMP and in Section 4.10 a) above, the proposed project
would incorporate operational LID BMPs in compliance with the San Bernardino County NPDES
Permit (NPDES No. CAS618036) and Waste Discharge Requirements Area Wide Urban Storm Water
Runoff Management Program requirements. The project proposes installation of an
infiltration/retention chamber system-1,2, catch basins with filter for pre-treatment, ribbon-gutter,
grate inlets and drainpipes that would convey stormwater to the proposed infiltration/retention
chamber system. During heavy storm periods, flows will overflow the Contech infiltration/retention
chamber system-1,2, drains to the proposed manhole at the southwest corner of the site via storm
drain and discharge via proposed 24” RCP lateral which will tie in to the existing 48” RCP master
storm drain system in Citrus Avenue. For emergency overflow, storm water will drain on surface
within the right-of-way and then discharge at the southwest corner of the site to the street gutter at
Citrus Avenue via proposed parkway drain which is tributary to the Walnut Avenue master storm
drain system (60” RCP, Line D2).
The MS4 and the project WQMP would require the implementation of water quality features to
ensure that runoff is treated prior to discharge into native soils (infiltration), storm drains or other
regional conveyance facilities, as described above. Therefore, upon adherence to existing state water
quality requirements, including MS4 requirements, the proposed project would minimize or avoid
causing a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would: (1)
result in flooding on- or offsite; (2) would not 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 (3) 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. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is proposed.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.10-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
No Impact
The project site is located on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) for San Bernardino County, California, and Incorporated Areas (Map Number
06071C7915H, effective August 27, 2008); the site is located in Flood Hazard Zone X, defined on this
FIRM as Areas of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2020a). The areas of minimal flood hazard, such as
Zone X, are outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and higher than the elevation of the 0.2-
percent-annual-chance flood areas. The floodplain (i.e., flood hazard zone) nearest to the project site
is the 100-year floodplain associated with East Etiwanda Creek (FEMA, 2020b; USEPA, 2022). The
project site is located outside the nearest floodplain and the proposed project would not impede or
redirect flood flows. No impact would occur, and mitigation is not required.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
No Impact
Seven dams or reservoirs are within a 5-mile radius of the project site: Jurupa Basin, Hickory Basin,
San Sevaine Basin #5, Cactus Basin #3, Etiwanda Debris Basin, and Declez Retention Basin. The
project would not be located within the dam breach inundation areas of the dams or reservoirs (DWR,
2022) and would not be at risk of flood hazards due to dam breaches. As discussed previously, the
project site is located outside the 500-year floodplain and therefore would not be at risk of
inundation by flood hazards.
The tsunami inundation area nearest to the project site is in the City of Huntington Beach, located
approximately 42-mile southwest of the project site (Google Earth, 2022; CEMA, CGS, and USC, 2009).
Therefore, the project would not be at risk of inundation by tsunami.
A seiche is an oscillating wave, formed by earthquakes or winds, in an enclosed or partially enclosed
waterbody. The nearest waterbodies to the project site in which a seiche could form are Lake
Arrowhead and Big Bear Lake. The project site is not within the dam breach inundation areas mapped
for these waterbodies (DWR, 2022), and the project would not be at risk of inundation by seiche.
The proposed project would not be at risk of inundation by flood hazards, tsunami, or seiche, and
would therefore not be at risk of release of pollutants due to inundation. No impact would occur, and
mitigation is not required.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control
plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact
The nearest water well (State Well Number 01N05W32N001S) is located approximately 1.8 miles
southeast of the project, southeast of storm drain 2. This active well is designated for residential use
and is drilled to a depth of 1,140 feet (CASGEM 2022).
As discussed in Section 4.10 a), the proposed project would comply with the Construction General
Permit and the San Bernardino County NPDES Permit requirements by developing and implementing
a site-specific SWPPP and construction stormwater BMPs throughout the construction phase. The
proposed project would also comply with the MS4 Permit by incorporating LID BMPs into project
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.10-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
design, which would avoid or minimize the amount and type of pollutants leaving the project,
entering receiving waters, and impacting water quality and beneficial uses defined for these waters
by the Basin Plan (RWQCB, 2016). In addition, the LID BMPs would allow stormwater infiltration into
the local aquifer, similar to existing conditions and minimize or avoid impacts to groundwater quality
and beneficial uses of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin (RWQCB, 1995). The proposed
project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan. No impact would occur, and mitigation is not required.
❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.11-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact
The project site is surrounded by: single-family residences to the east and south; single-family
residences to the west opposite Citrus Avenue; and vacant land to the north. The site is fenced and is
not used for access between surrounding residential areas. Project development would not
physically divide an established community, and no impact would occur.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
No Impact
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (CG; Fontana, 2022)
(refer to Figure 4.11-1 below). The project site is zoned General Commercial (C-2; Fontana, 2022)
(see Figure 4.11-2 below). The project includes: applications for a General Plan Amendment (GPA)
to Multi Family Residential (R-MF), which permits development of residences at a density of 12.1-24
units per acre (Fontana, 2018); and a zone change to Multiple Family (R-3), which permits residential
development at a density of 12-24 units per acre (Fontana, 2008). The proposed project would have
a density of 15.7 units per acre. Upon approval of the GPA and zone change by the City of Fontana,
the proposed project would conform with General Plan and zoning designations for the project site.
A consistency analysis of the proposed project respecting relevant Fontana General Plan Land Use,
Zoning, and Urban Design Element goals and policies is provided below in Table 4.11-1. No adverse
impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.11-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Table 4.11-1
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS: PROPOSED PROJECT COMPARED TO RELEVANT CITY OF FONTANA
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE, ZONING, AND URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES
Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high quality of life and economic prosperity.
Policy 2.2: Locate multi-family development in
mixed-use centers, preferably where there is nearby
access to retail, services, and public transportation.
Consistent: The project site is on the southern
margin of an area of mixed land uses surrounding
the interchange of SR-210 and Citrus Avenue.
Further, the roadway network in the vicinity of the
project site is served by Omnitrans, Residents and
visitors would thus be able to access the project site
via the public transit system
Policy2.3: Promote interconnected neighborhoods
with appropriate transitions between lower-
intensity and higher-intensity land uses.
Consistent: The proposed multifamily uses would
buffer single-family uses to the south from existing
and future commercial uses to the north.
Goal 7: Public and private development meets high standards of design.
Policy 7.1: Support high-quality development in
design standards and in land use decisions
Consistent: The project proposes high-quality
design standards and materials.
Sources: Goals and Policies: City of Fontana, 2018
❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.11-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.11-1
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.11-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.11-2
ZONING DESIGNATION
❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.12-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
X
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?
and
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
No Impact
As shown on Figure 4.12-1, the project site is mapped in Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2) by the
California Geological Survey (CGS), meaning that geologic data indicate that significant Portland
cement concrete (PCC)-grade aggregate resources are present (CGS, 2008a). The project site is
mapped in Mineral Resource Sector A-8, in a portion of the Sector that has been lost to land uses
incompatible with mining (CGS, 2008b, Table 3 p14). A mineral resource sector is an area currently
permitted for mining and where land uses are compatible with mining. Mineral reserves are
aggregate that has been determined to be acceptable for commercial use, are in properties owned or
leased by aggregate producing companies, and for which permits have been issued allowing mining
and processing of the material. Mineral resources include reserves and all of the potentially usable
aggregate materials that may be mined in the future, but for which no permit allowing mining has
been issued, or for which marketability has not yet been established (CGS, 2008b, p. 5). The portions
of Mineral Resource Sector A-8 remaining compatible with mining span 71 acres and contain
approximately 20 million tons of aggregate resources (CGS, 2008b, p. 29). The portion of Sector A-8
consisting of land uses still compatible with mining are east of Juniper Avenue, over 0.6 mile east of
the project site (CGS, 2008c).
❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.12-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.12-1
DESIGNATED MINERAL RESOURCE ZONE
❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.12-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
The nearest mine to the project site mapped by the Division of Mines Reclamation (DMR) is a
Robertson’s Ready Mix location at 2601 N. Alder Avenue in the City of Rialto, approximately 1.8 miles
to the northeast (DMR, 2022). The only mine mapped by DMR within the City of Fontana is the Old
Henshaw Quarry on the southeast City boundary; the mine is closed and formerly produced
decomposed granite and fill dirt (DMR, 2022). No mineral resources in the city of Fontana are
identified in the City’s General Plan (City of Fontana, 2018b). The nearest oil or gas well to the project
site is a plugged well approximately 1.2 miles to the northwest (DOGGR, 2022; see Figure 4.12-2).
The project site is surrounded by residential uses incompatible with mining to the south and east,
and to the west opposite Citrus Avenue. Thus, any aggregate onsite is unavailable for mining. Project
development would not cause a loss of availability of known mineral resources valuable to the region,
and no impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7167 Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.12-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.12-2
OIL, GAS AND GEOTHERMAL WELLS
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7167 Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.13-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.13 Noise
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
X
4.13.1 Characteristics of Sound
Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or
amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in hertz or cycles per second), and
duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The decibel (dB) scale is a logarithmic scale that
describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the
sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Because the human ear is not equally
sensitive to all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale is used to relate noise to
human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating
against upper and lower frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. The
scale is based on a reference pressure level of 20 micro pascals (zero dBA). The scale ranges from
zero (for the average least perceptible sound) to about 130 (for the average human pain level).
4.13.2 Noise Measurement Scales
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze adverse effects of community noise on people.
Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on
people depends largely upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of
day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows:
• Leq, the equivalent noise level, is an average of sound level over a defined time period (such
as 1 minute, 15 minutes, 1 hour or 24 hours). Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of
a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during
exposure.
• L90 is a noise level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time at a given location; it is often used
as a measure of “background” noise.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7167 Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.13-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
• Lmax is the root mean square (RMS) maximum noise level during the measurement interval.
This measurement is calculated by taking the RMS of all peak noise levels within the sampling
interval. Lmax is distinct from the peak noise level, which only includes the single highest
measurement within a measurement interval.
• CNEL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level, is a 24-hour average Leq with a 4.77-dBA
“penalty” added to noise during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and a 10-dBA penalty
added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in
the evening and nighttime (Hendriks, 2013). The logarithmic effect of these additions is that
a 60-dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a calculation of 66.7 dBA CNEL.
• Ldn, the day-night average noise, is a 24-hour average Leq with an additional 10-dBA “penalty”
added to noise that occurs between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The Ldn metric yields values
within 1 dBA of the CNEL metric. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered
to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment.
4.13.3 Existing Noise
The project site is in a predominantly commercial and residential area. The main source of ambient
noise is traffic on local roadways.
4.13.3.1 Sensitive Land Uses
The City of Fontana 2015-2035 General Plan Noise and Safety Element (Stantec, 2018a, p. 11-9)
defines “noise-sensitive” uses in areas of 24-hour-per-day of exposure as residential uses, hospitals,
rest homes, long-term care facilities, and mental care facilities. Sensitive receivers18 for shorter-term
exposures are defined as schools, libraries, places of worship, and passive recreation uses.
The principal sensitive receivers in the project vicinity are the single-family residences that are
approximately 40 feet south of the project site, the single-family residences that are approximately
124 feet west of the project site, the single-family residences that are approximately 37 feet east of
the project site, and A.B. Miller High School, which is approximately 1,047 feet east and southeast of
the project site. Table 4.13-1 identifies sensitive receivers in the project vicinity. Figure 4.13-1
shows the locations of the sensitive receivers.
Table 4-13-1
SENSITIVE RECEIVERS IN PROJECT AREA
ID Name Type Address Feet From
Sitea
1 Single-family Residence Residential 6730 Sunridge Court 40
2 Single-family Residence Residential 6725 Winter Night Court 40
3 Single-family residence Residential 6688 Citrus Avenue 124
4 Single-family residence Residential 6696 Stardust Lane 37
5 A.B. Miller High School Institutional 6821 Oleander Avenue 1,047
aThese distances are from the sensitive receiver to the nearest point on the project boundary.
18 The targets of adverse noise impacts are called “sensitive receivers” in this document, while those of adverse air quality
impacts are termed “sensitive receptors.”
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7167 Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.13-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.13-1
SENSITIVE RECEIVERS NEAR THE PROJECT SITE
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7167 Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.13-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.13.3.2 Ambient Noise Levels
In order to characterize existing noise levels, UltraSystems conducted ambient noise sampling at five
locations near the project site, as shown in Figure 4.13-2. Table 4.13-2 lists the measurement
points, sampling locations, and measurement results. Details of the ambient sampling methods and
results are provided in Appendix H.
The samples were taken between 10:24 a.m. and 1:04 p.m. on Tuesday, May 3, 2022. The 15-minute
Leq values ranged from 45.0 to 71.4 dBA. The lowest of these values was measured at Point 2, which
is located in front of a single-family residence along Winter Night Court, and south of the project site.
The maximum ambient noise level was located at Point 3, which is located in front of a single-family
residence along Citrus Avenue, and west of the project site.
Table 4.13-2
AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Point Sampling Location
Measurement Results (dBA)
15-Minute Leq Lmax L90
1
6730 Sunridge Court. Approximately 31 feet
south of the project site, on the sidewalk of a
single-family residence along Sunridge Court.
49.4 63.5 44.5
2
6725 Winter Night Court. Approximately 31
feet south of the project site, on the sidewalk of
a single-family residence along Winter Night
Court.
45.0 61.5 39.9
3
6688 Citrus Avenue. Approximately 21 feet
west of the project site, on the sidewalk in front
of a single-family residence along Citrus
Avenue.
71.4 84.1 51.9
4
6696 Stardust Lane. Approximately 42 feet east
of the project site, on the sidewalk in front of a
single-family residence along Stardust Lane.
51.3 69.1 44.5
5
Approximately 98 feet east of the project site,
on the sidewalk at the intersection of Oleander
Avenue and Sun Glory Way,
63.0 77.1 44.8
Source: UltraSystems, with Google Earth, 2022.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7167 Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.13-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Figure 4.13-2
AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7167 Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.13-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.13.4 Regulatory Setting
State of California
The most current guidelines prepared by the state noise officer are contained in Appendix D of the
General Plan Guidelines issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in 2017
(OPR, 2017). These guidelines establish four categories for judging the severity of noise intrusion on
specified land uses:
• Normally Acceptable: Is generally acceptable, with no mitigation necessary.
• Conditionally Acceptable: May require some mitigation, as established through a noise
study.
• Normally Unacceptable: Requires substantial mitigation.
• Clearly unacceptable: Probably cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
The OPR noise compatibility guidelines assign ranges of CNEL values to each of these categories. The
ranges differ for different types of sensitive receivers, and are shown in Table 4.13-3.
Table 4.13-3
CALIFORNIA LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE SOURCES
Land Use Category Noise Exposure (dBA, CNEL)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential – Low-Density Single-Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes
Residential – Multiple Family
Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotels
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7167 Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.13-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
City of Fontana General Plan Noise and Safety Element
The City of Fontana General Plan EIR Noise and Safety Element (Stantec, 2018a) has the following
goals, policies and actions that apply to proposed project:
Goal 1: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent planning
through 2035 (Stantec, 2018a, p.11.12).
Policies
• New sensitive land uses shall be prohibited in incompatible areas.
• 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.
Land Use Category Noise Exposure (dBA, CNEL)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and
Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture
Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply system or air conditioning will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the
noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: OPR, 2017.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7167 Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.13-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
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 2: The City of Fontana provides a diverse and efficiently operated ground transportation
system that generates the minimum feasible noise on its residents through 2035 (Stantec, 2018a,
p.11.13).
Actions
A. On-road trucking activities shall continue to be regulated in the City to ensure noise impacts
are minimized, including the implementation of truck-routes based on traffic studies.
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.
Goal 3: The City of Fontana’s residents are protected from the negative effects of “spill over” noise
(Stantec, 2018a, p.11.13).
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.
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
The City of Fontana’s Municipal Code (City of Fontana, 2021a) contains several provisions potentially
related to construction and operation of the proposed project. Prohibited noises enumerated in
Chapter 18 (Nuisances), Article II. - Noise include:
• Construction or repairing of buildings or structures. The erection (including excavating),
demolition, alteration or repair of any building or structure other than 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
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7167 Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.13-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Saturdays, except in case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety, and
then only with a permit from the building inspector, which permit may be granted for a period
not to exceed three days or less while the emergency continues and which permit may be
renewed for periods of three days or less while the emergency continues. If the building
inspector should determine that the public health and safety will not be impaired by the
erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or structure or the excavation of
streets and highways within the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and if he shall further
determine that loss or inconvenience would result to any party in interest, he may grant
permission for such work to be done on weekdays within the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.,
upon application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during the
progress of the work (City of Fontana, 2021a).
• 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 (City of Fontana, 2021a).
• 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 (City of Fontana,
2021a).
• Piledrivers, hammers, etc. The operation between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any
piledriver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric hoist or other
appliance, the use of which is attended by loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive noise (City
of Fontana, 2021a).
City of Fontana Conditions of Approval
The construction contractor shall use the following source controls at all times:
a. Construction shall be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on
Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and Holidays unless it is approved by the building
inspector for cases that are considered urgently necessary as defined in Section 18-63(7) of
the Municipal Code.
b. For all noise-producing equipment, use types and models that have the lowest horsepower
and the lowest noise generating potential practical for their intended use.
c. The construction contractor will ensure that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, is
properly operating (tuned-up) and lubricated, and that mufflers are working adequately.
d. Have only necessary equipment onsite.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7167 Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.13-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
e. Use manually-adjustable or ambient-sensitive backup alarms. When working adjacent to
residential use(s), the construction contractor will also use the following path controls,
except where not physically feasible, when necessary:
• Install portable noise barriers, including solid structures and noise blankets, between
the active noise sources and the nearest noise receivers.
• Temporarily enclose localized and stationary noise sources.
• Store and maintain equipment, building materials, and waste materials as far as
practical from as many sensitive receivers as practical.
4.13.5 Significance Thresholds
The City of Fontana has not published explicit thresholds for use in determining significance of noise
impacts under CEQA. In keeping with standard practice, two criteria were used for judging noise
impacts. First, noise levels generated by the proposed project must comply with all relevant federal,
state, and local standards and regulations. Noise impacts on the surrounding community are limited
by local noise ordinances, which are implemented through investigations in response to nuisance
complaints. It is assumed that all existing applicable regulations for the construction and operation
of the proposed project would be enforced. In addition, the proposed project should not produce
noise levels that are incompatible with adjacent noise-sensitive land uses.
The second measure of impact used in this analysis is a significant increase in noise levels above
existing ambient noise levels as a result of the introduction of a new noise source. An increase in
noise level due to a new noise source has a potential to adversely impact people. The proposed
project would have a significant noise impact if it would do any of the following:
• Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards recommended in the City
of Fontana General Plan Noise Element.
• Include construction activities in or within 500 feet of residential areas between 6:00 p.m. of
one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day, without a permit.
• Increase short-term noise exposures at sensitive receivers during construction by 5 dBA Leq
or more.
• Contribute, with other local construction projects, to a significant cumulative noise impact.
• Increase operational exposures at sensitive receivers (mainly because of an increase in traffic
flow) by 5 dBA Leq or more.
4.13.6 Impact Analysis
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?
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7167 Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.13-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Less than Significant Impact
Construction activities, especially with heavy equipment operation, would create noise effects on and
adjacent to the construction site. Long-term noise impacts include project-generated onsite and
offsite operational noise sources. Onsite noise sources from the operation of the condominium homes
would include the use of mechanical equipment such as air conditioners and landscaping and
building maintenance activities. Offsite noise would be attributable to project-induced traffic, which
would cause an incremental increase in noise levels within and near the project vicinity. Each is
described below.
Short-Term Construction Noise
Noise impacts from construction activities are a function of the noise generated by the operation of
construction equipment and onroad delivery and worker commuter vehicles, the location of
equipment, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Using calculation methods
published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA, 2018), UltraSystems estimated the average
hourly exposures at the single-family residence nearest the project site. The distances used for the
calculation were measured from the residence to the approximate center of activity of each
construction phase, since that would be the average location of construction equipment most of the
time. For the purpose of this analysis, it was estimated that the construction of the proposed project
would begin in July 2022 and end in February 2023.
The types and numbers of pieces of equipment anticipated in each phase of construction and
development were estimated by running the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod),
Version 2020.4.0, and having the model generate land use-based default values. The CalEEMod
equipment default values are based on a construction survey performed by the SCAQMD (BREEZE
Software, 2021). Table 4.13-4 lists the equipment expected to be used. For each equipment type, the
table shows an average noise emission level (in dB at 50 feet, unless otherwise specified) and a “usage
factor,” which is an estimated fraction of operating time that the equipment would be producing noise
at the stated level.19,20 Equipment use was matched to phases of the construction schedule.
19 Equipment noise emissions and usage factors are from Knauer, H. et al., 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise
Handbook. U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology, Administration, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, FHWA-HEP-06-015 (August 2006), except where otherwise noted.
20 Scraper, crane, and cement and mortar mixer, and roller noise emissions data from County of Ventura, Construction
Noise Threshold Criteria and Control Plan. Amended July 2010. This document was also source of usage factors for
cranes, cement and mortar mixers, pavers, paving equipment and rollers. Rubber tired dozer noise emissions data
from measurements made by Anderson (2007, p. 47) at construction sites.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7167 Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.13-12
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Table 4.13-4
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE CHARACTERISTICS
Construction Phase Equipment Type Number
of
Pieces
Maximum
Sound
Level
(dBA @
50 feet)
Usage
Factor
Composite
Noise
(dBA @ 50
feet)
Site Preparation
Graders 1 85 0.41
84.2 Scrapers 1 88 0.14
Rubber-Tired Dozers 1 79 0.40
Off-Highway Trucks 1 75 0.40
Grading
Graders 1 85 0.41
84.2 Off-Highway Trucks 1 75 0.40
Rubber-Tired Dozer 1 79 0.40
Scrapers 1 97 0.14
Utility Trenching and
Installation
Excavators 1 80 0.40 77.2 Off-Highway Trucks 1 75 0.40
Building
Construction
Crane 1 83 0.08
81.9 Forklift 2 67 0.30
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 85 0.37
Welders 1 74 0.45
Paving
Graders 1 85 0.41
82.2 Pavers 1 77 0.50
Off-Highway Trucks 1 75 0.40
Architectural Coating Air Compressor 1 81 0.48 77.8
Source: FTA, 2018
Table 4.13-5 summarizes the results of the construction noise analysis. For sensitive receivers 1, 2
and 4, noise attenuation by existing walls was taken into account. In addition, attenuation by
intervening buildings reduced exposures at the high school. For all sensitive receivers, the greatest
exposures would occur during site preparation. The highest total short-term noise exposure
(ambient plus construction-related) would be 72.3 dBA Leq, at residences on Citrus Avenue. (About
98% of this would be due to the existing background.) The City of Fontana Municipal Code does not
have any numerical limits for exposure due to construction noise. We therefore look to the
significance criteria defined in Section 4.13.5. The relevant criterion is “Increase short-term noise
exposures at sensitive receivers during construction by 5 dBA Leq or more.” For sensitive receivers 1,
2 and 4, the increase would exceed 5 dBA without the incorporation of the standard conditions of
approval presented in Section 4.13.4. With the incorporation of those standard conditions, impacts
at sensitive receivers 1, 2 and 4 would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.13-13
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Table 4.13-5
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE EXPOSURES AT NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEIVER
For Site Preparation Phase
Sensitive Receiver Distance
(feet)
1-Hour Leq (dBA)
Existinga Projectedb Change
1 - 6730 Sunridge Court 258 49.4 61.5 12.1
2 - 6725 Winter Night Court 264 45.0 61.8 16.8
3 - 6688 Citrus Avenue 450 71.4 72.3 0.9
4 - 6696 Stardust Lane 346 51.3 59.7 8.4
5 - A.B. Miller High School 1,665 63.0 63.1 0.1
Source: UltraSystems, 2022
a One-hour average measured ambient noise level.
aExisting plus construction-related.
Operational Noise
Onsite
Onsite noise sources from the condominium homes would include operation of air conditioners,
parking lot activities, and truck deliveries and departures. Noise levels from these sources are
generally lower than from the traffic on streets bordering the project site. Furthermore, § 18-63 of
the City of Fontana Development Code limits onsite noise impacts of 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. to 6:00 p.m. on a weekday and the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 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. The operational noise levels would be within both the City’s daytime and nighttime residential
noise standards of 70 dBA and 65 dBA, respectively. Therefore, operational noise would be less than
significant.
Mobile Sources
The principal noise source in the project area is traffic on local streets. The project may contribute to
a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity due to project-generated vehicle
traffic on neighborhood roadways and at intersections. A noise impact would occur if the project
contributes to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels affecting sensitive receivers along
roadways that would carry project-generated traffic.
Access to the project site would be available via the western portion of the of project site along Citrus
Avenue. As a worst case, it is assumed that all project traffic will travel on Citrus Avenue immediately
east and west of Baseline Avenue. According to the City of Fontana General Plan, the average daily
traffic (ADT) on Citrus Avenue between Baseline Avenue and the 210 Freeway is 24,800 vehicle trips
(Stantec, 2018a, Exhibit 9.5). The Project is forecast to generate a net total of 458 daily vehicle trips
(actual vehicles) (RTK Engineering Group, Inc, 2022, p. 2). It would thus increase traffic by about
1.8%. Given the logarithmic nature of the decibel, traffic volume needs to be doubled in order for the
noise level to increase by 3 dBA, the minimum level perceived by the average human ear (ICF Jones
& Stokes, 2009). A doubling is equivalent to a 100% increase. Because the maximum increase in
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.13-14
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
traffic at any intersection is far below 100%, the increase in roadway noise experienced at sensitive
receivers would not be perceptible to the human ear. Therefore, roadway noise associated with
project operation would not expose a land use to noise levels that are considered incompatible with
or in excess of adopted standards, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact
Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Vibration can result from a source (e.g., subway
operations, vehicles, machinery equipment, etc.) that causes the adjacent ground to move, thereby
creating vibration waves that propagate through the soil to the foundations of nearby buildings. This
effect is referred to as groundborne vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root-mean-
square (RMS) velocity is usually used to describe vibration levels. PPV is defined as the maximum
instantaneous peak of the vibration level, while RMS is defined as the square root of the average of
the squared amplitude of the level. PPV is typically used for evaluating potential building damage,
while RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) is typically more suitable for evaluating human response (FTA,
2018, pp. 110-111).
The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 VdB. The vibration
velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level
of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible
levels for most people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such
as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical
outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled
trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is
rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB to 100 VdB, which is the
general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings (FTA, 2018, p. 120). For this
analysis the significance threshold for PPV was set to 0.12 inch per second, which has been associated
with “buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage” (FTA, 2018, p. 186). The human
significant annoyance threshold was set to 80 VdB, following the FTA’s recommendations for
“infrequent events” (FTA, 2018, p. 126). Infrequent events are defined as occurring fewer than 30
times per day (FTA, 2018, p. 125). Since equipment must operate over a large area, it is unlikely that
it would be at the property line near any given sensitive receiver more than 30 times per day.
Construction Vibration
Construction activities for the project have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne
vibration. The operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that propagate though the
ground and diminishes in intensity with distance from the source. Vibration impacts can range from
no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration
at moderate levels, to slight damage of buildings at the highest levels. The construction activities
associated with the project could have an adverse impact on both sensitive structures (i.e., building
damage) and populations (i.e., annoyance).
The construction vibration analysis used formulas published by the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) (FTA, 2018, p. 185). For a standard reference distance of 25 feet, peak particle velocity is found
from:
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.13-15
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
PPV = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
where
PPVref = Reference source vibration at 25 feet
D = Distance from source to receiver
The vibration level (VdB) for a standard reference distance of 25 feet is found from:
VdB = Lvref – 30 log(D/25)
where
Lvref = Reference source vibration level at 25 feet
D = Distance from source to receiver
The FTA has published standard vibration levels for construction equipment operations, at a distance
of 25 feet (FTA, 2018, p. 185). The smallest distance from onsite project construction activity to a
residential receiver would be about 29 feet, and the smallest distance from a loaded truck would be
41 feet. The calculated vibration levels expressed in VdB and PPV for selected types of construction
equipment at distances of 25, 29 and 41 feet are listed in Table 4.13-6.
As shown in Table 4.13-6, the maximum estimated vibration levels of construction equipment at a
sensitive receiver would be 0.044 inch per second, which is less than the FTA damage threshold of
0.12 inch per second PPV for fragile historic buildings, and 79 VdB, which is below the FTA threshold
for human annoyance of 80 VdB. Construction vibration impacts would therefore be less than
significant.
Table 4.13-6
VIBRATION LEVELS OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment
PPV
at 25 feet
(in/sec)
Vibration
Decibels
at 25 feet
(VdB)
PPV
at 29 feet
(in/sec)a
Vibration
Decibels
at 29 feet
(VdB)a
Loaded trucks 0.076 86 0.044 79
Jack hammer 0.035 79 0.030 77
Small bulldozer 0.003 58 0.0026 56
Source: FTA, 2018 and UltraSystems, 2022.
aDistance for loaded trucks is 41 feet.
Operational Vibration
Operation of the proposed project would not involve significant sources of ground-borne vibration
or ground-borne noise. Thus, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant
impact.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.13-16
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact
The closest public airport to the project site is the Ontario International Airport, located
approximately 9.0 miles to the southwest. No portion of the project site lies within the 65-dBA CNEL
noise contours of that airport (City of Ontario, 2011). Therefore, the project would not expose people
residing or working in the project area to a safety hazard or excessive noise levels associated with
airports and no impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.14 – POPULATION AND HOUSING ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.14-17
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned growth in an area either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact
Existing and forecasted demographic data for the City of Fontana for 2021 and 2045 are shown below
in Table 4.14-1. The population in the city is forecast to increase approximately 34 percent and the
number of households 47 percent, and employment is forecast to increase 29 percent during that
period (CDF, 2021; SCAG, 2020; USCB, 2022). The estimated total number of housing units in the City
in 2021 was 55,909, consisting of 44,676 (80% of total) single-family detached, 1,337 (2%) single-
family attached, 8,348 (15%) multifamily, and 1,548 (3%) mobile homes (CDF, 2021).
The proposed project would induce direct population growth with construction of 14 residential
buildings with a total of 68 three-bedroom condominium units.
Table 4.14-1
CITY OF FONTANA DEMOGRAPHIC FORECAST
2021 2045 Difference
(2045 – 2020)
Percent Difference
(2045 – 2020)
Population 213,944 286,700 72,756 34.0%
Households 53,073 77,800 24,727 46.6%
Employment 58,173 75,100 16,927 29.1%
1 A household is equivalent to an occupied housing unit
Sources: CDF, 2021; SCAG, 2020; US Census Bureau, 2021
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has established a Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (2021 RHNA) for the City of Fontana for the period 2021 to 2029 enumerated in
Table 4.14-2 below. Note that the total RHNA for Fontana for the 2021-2029 period is 17,519 units,
which is considerably faster increase than the 24,727 households forecast to be added over the 24
years from 2021 to 2045.
❖ SECTION 4.14 – POPULATION AND HOUSING ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.14-18
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Table 4.14-2
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT, CITY OF FONTANA, 2021-2029
Income Category Percent of San Bernardino
County Median Income
Units
Very Low Income <50 5,109
Low Income 50-80 2,950
Moderate Income 80-120 3,035
Above Moderate Income >120 6,425
Total Not applicable 17,519
Sources: SCAG 2021a; SCAG 2021b
The proposed project, consisting of 68 three-bedroom condominium units, is estimated to house 273
persons based on the average household size in the city of Fontana of 4.02 persons in 2021 (CDF,
2021).
A project may have an adverse population and housing impact if it would exceed regional forecasts
for the relevant jurisdiction. The estimated project occupancy at project completion, 273 residents,
is approximately 0.38% of the forecast population increase of 72,756 persons in the City of Fontana
between 2021 and 2045. The proposed 68 residential units would be approximately 0.28% of the
forecast increase of 24,727 households during the same period.21 Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact
No housing exists onsite and no one currently resides on the project site. Therefore, the project would
not displace any housing or people and the project would not necessitate the construction of
replacement housing. No impact would occur.
21 Growth in households between 2021 and 2045 is used because no forecast of housing units in Fontana in 2045 is
available. A household is an occupied housing unit. In Fontana in 2021 the occupancy rate was approximately 95%
(that is, 53,073 households out of 55,909 housing units).
❖ SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.15-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.15 Public Services
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
a) Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact
Fire prevention, emergency response and administrative services for the city of Fontana are provided
by the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) through a contract with the San Bernardino County
Fire Department. The FFPD also provides emergency medical and rescue services, investigation and
mitigation of hazardous materials events, disaster and other responses. There are seven fire stations
in Fontana, a Hazardous Materials Response Team, and firefighters with special expertise in
wildfires. (City of Fontana, 2018c, p. 8.6). The FFPD is staffed with 140 full time personnel (City of
Fontana, 2021c, p.407). The FFPD has a response time goal for all service calls to arrive on scene in
six minutes or less (City of Fontana, 2021c, p. 407).
The nearest station to the project site is Fire Station 78, which serves the northern areas of the city
of Fontana, at 7110 Citrus Avenue, approximately 0.8 mile south of the project site (City of Fontana,
2022e). Station 78 daily staffing includes one Captain, one Engineer, two Firefighter Medics, and one
Firefighter and is equipped with one medic engine and one squad vehicle (City of Fontana, 2022d).
The project proposes development of 68 three-bedroom condominium units in 14 two-story
buildings on an approximately 4.6-acre site. Travel time to the project site from Station 78 is
approximately one minute (Google Maps, 2022), thus the FFPD would be able to respond to the site
well within the six-minute response time goal (City of Fontana, 2021c, p. 407).
The project would be required to be in compliance with applicable portions of the City of Fontana
Municipal Code, Section 5-425: Fire Prevention. Furthermore, the adequacy of existing water
pressure and water availability in the project area would be verified by the FFPD during the proposed
project’s plan check review process. Compliance with the above-mentioned codes and FFPD
standards is mandatory and routinely conditioned upon projects. The project, once operational,
would be inspected periodically by the FFPD per §17620 of the California Health and Safety Code.
❖ SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.15-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
The Fontana Fire Protection District collects development mitigation fees of $380 per three-bedroom
unit for fire facilities, which would be available to fund additional fire protection facilities as needed
(City of Fontana, 2022i). The project proposes a fire department turn around area at the east end of
the project site by Buildings 7 and 8 along with construction of a new six-inch fire water line from
Citrus Avenue to the project site. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on
fire protection services.
b) Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact
The City of Fontana Police Department provides police and law enforcement services in the project
area. The FPD has 207 sworn officers. FPD is comprised of four separate divisions: Office of the Chief
of Police; Administrative Services; Field Services; and Special Operations (City of Fontana, 2021c, p
381). The nearest police station to the project site is located at 17005 Upland Avenue, approximately
2.5 miles southeast of the project site (City of Fontana, 2022f). Given the city’s population in 2022
was estimated at 213,739 (City of Fontana, 2022g), the FPD has an approximate service to population
ratio of 0.97 sworn officers per 1,000 residents. Project development would add a maximum of 273
residents to the city, which would increase the City’s population from the 2022 estimate of 213,739
to 214,012, but the service to population ratio remains at 0.97 sworn officers per 1,000 residents,
thus not significantly affecting the existing service capacity of the FPD.
FPD target response time for Priority 1 (Emergency calls like subject not breathing, shots fired, and
other immediate risk to life/safety) is 4:20 (City of Fontana, 2021c, p382, 2021d, p 517).
New multi-family housing developments undergoing development review in Fontana must
participate in the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program (City of Fontana, 2022h). Through this
program, the Department provides recommendations for improving the safety of the developments
using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design strategies (City of Fontana, p.9, 2013).
FPD operations are funded mostly through the general fund (City of Fontana, 2021c, p 385). The City
of Fontana charges multifamily residential projects a development impact fee of $486 per three-
bedroom unit (City of Fontana, 2022i) to mitigate any impact on police services. Therefore, less than
significant impacts on police protection services would occur.
c) Schools?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is in the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD), which spans most of the City of
Fontana. The FUSD operates 30 elementary schools (K-5), seven middle schools (6-8), five high
schools, two alternative education schools, and one adult/community education program (FUSD, p.6
2022a). Districtwide enrollment in the 2020-2021 school year was 35,035 (FUSD, p16 2022a). The
project site is located within the boundaries of the three schools described below in Table 4.15-1.
❖ SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.15-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Table 4.15-1
SCHOOLS SERVING THE PROJECT SITE
School Grade
Levels
Address Enrollment
2020-2021
school year
Class-
rooms
Capacity
(Students)1
Remaining
Capacity
Kathy Binks
Elementary School
K-5,
7358 Cypress
Avenue
565 32 676 111
Wayne Ruble
Middle School
6-8 6762 Juniper
Ave
1,310 55 1,196 -114
A.B. Miller High
School
9-12 6821 Oleander
Avenue
2,218 169 3,458 1240
1 District Standard
Sources: FUSD, 2015a, 2022c, d, e;
The project is estimated to generate 27 students, as shown below in Table 4.15-2. After accounting
for project student generation, estimated remaining capacity is 98 students at Kathy Binks
Elementary School, -119 students at Wayne Ruble Middle School, and 1,231 students at A.B. Miller
High School (refer to Table 4.15-3 below).
Table 4.15-2
ESTIMATED PROJECT STUDENT GENERATION
School Level Student
Generation
Factor per
Household
Total Student Generation
Elementary (K-5) 0.1905 13
Middle (6-8) 0.0704 5
High (9-12) 0.1303 9
Total 27
Source: FUSD, 2022 p. 17
Table 4.15-3
PROJECT IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS’ CAPACITIES
School Enrollment,
2019-2020
school year
Capacity
(Students)
Remaining
Capacity
Enrollment plus
project student
generation (see
Table 4.15-2)
Remaining
Capacity after
Project Student
Generation
Kathy Binks
Elementary
School
565 676 111 578 98
Wayne Ruble
Middle
school/WRMS
1,310 1,196 -114 1,315 -119
A.B. Miller High
School
2,218 3,458 1240 2,227 1,231
Sources: FUSD, 2015a, 2022c, d, e;
❖ SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.15-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), which passed in 1998, provides a comprehensive school facility financing and
reform program, and enabled a statewide bond issue to be placed on the ballot. The provisions of SB
50 allow the state to offer funding to school districts to acquire school sites, construct new school
facilities, and modernize existing school facilities. SB 50 also establishes a process for determining
the amount of fees developers may be charged to mitigate the impact of development on school
facilities resulting from increased enrollment. Under this legislation, a school district could charge
fees above the statutory cap only under specified conditions, and then only up to the amount of funds
that the district would be eligible to receive from the state. Pursuant to §65996 of the California
Government Code, development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be “full and complete school
facilities mitigation.”
FUSD charges developer fees for multifamily residential units of $4.79 per square foot of assessable
space, as authorized by California Education Code §65996. On February 23, 2022, the State Allocation
Board’s (SAB) biennial inflation adjustment increased the maximum residential School Fee
authorized by §17620 of the Education Code from $4.08 to $4.79 per residential building square foot
for school districts (FUSD, 2022 p. 1). Project impacts on school facilities would be less than
significant after payment of developer fees for schools. No mitigation is required.
d) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact
The City of Fontana Department of Community Services (FDCS) provides the recreation programs
and maintains city parks. The FDCS operates and maintains 34 parks totaling approximately 1,572
acres of Open Space (1,195 acres of parks and approximately 377 acres of additional open space and
trails) (City of Fontana 2018c p. 7.6, 15.6). The City of Fontana General Plan sets forth several
categories of parks, including neighborhood parks, with a service radius of 0.5 miles and community
parks, with a service radius of 1.5 miles (City of Fontana, 2018c p. 7.11). The city’s parkland standard
is three acres of developed park land and two acres of open space per 1,000 residents (City of
Fontana, 2018c p. 7.11). The city’s population in 2022 was estimated at 213,739 (City of Fontana,
2022g). Thus, the city has 5.59 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which is above the city’s
standard of five acres per 1,000 residents (City of Fontana, 2018c p. 7.5).
Project development would add a maximum of 273 residents to the city, which would increase the
City’s population from the 2022 estimate of 213,739 to 214,012. The ratio of parkland to population
after project development would be 5.58 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The project proposes
recreational facilities for residents including bicycle parking, a pet-friendly green space and an
outdoor kitchen/BBQ. Project recreational facilities would reduce project-generated demands on
existing city park facilities. In addition, the proposed project would pay development impact fees
required by the city of $6,819 per three-bedroom unit, some of which would be allocated to park
facilities and the community center (City of Fontana, 2022i). Project impacts on park facilities would
be less than significant after payment of applicable development impact fees, and no mitigation is
required.
e) Other Public Facilities?
❖ SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.15-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Less Than Significant Impact
Library
Library services in the city are provided by the San Bernardino County Library System, which is
comprised of 32 branch libraries. Within the city of Fontana, there are three libraries: the Fontana
Lewis Library and Technology Center located at 8437 Sierra Avenue; the Summit Branch Library
(SBL) located at 15551 Summit Avenue; and the Kaiser High School Library located at 11155 Almond
Avenue (San Bernardino County Public Library, 2022). The Summit Branch Library is located
approximately 1.25 miles northwest of the project site. Project development would add a maximum
of 273 residents to the city, which would increase the City’s population from the 2022 estimate of
213,739 to 214,012, a 0.12% increase. Project development would increase use of and demands for
collection items at the SBL. The project would pay development impact fees required by the city of
$102 per three-bedroom unit for the library (City of Fontana, 2022i); project impacts on library
facilities and services are expected to be less than significant.
Hospitals
The nearest hospital to the project site is Kaiser Permanente at 9961 Sierra Ave, Fontana CA 92335
5 mile southeast of project site, a 314-bed facility that includes a 51-bed emergency department
(Kaiser Permanente, 2013). Adequate hospital facilities are present in the project region for project
residents, and project development would not require construction of new or expanded hospitals.
Impacts would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.16 - RECREATION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.16-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.16 Recreation
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
X
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
Less than Significant Impact
Recreational services in Fontana are provided by the City’s Department of Facilities and Parks, which
maintains over 40 parks, sports facilities, and community centers (City of Fontana, 2022a). The City’s
park acreage standard is five acres of public park land per 1,000 residents. The City currently has
approximately 1,359 acres total in parks and land for public use, enough to meet this performance
standard (Stantec, 2018a, p. 7.10). Existing parks within one mile of the project site are:
• Ralph Lewis Sports Complex, 6198 Citrus Avenue, 0.5-mile northwest of the project; spans
19.5 acres; facilities include football fields, soccer field, snack bar, and restrooms.
• Koehler Park, 15352 Walnut Street, 0.9 mile to the west; encompasses 10 acres; facilities
include ball fields, barbecue areas, basketball, picnic shelters, picnic tables, playground,
restrooms, snack bar, soccer field, and tennis courts.
• Almeria Park, 7250 Almeria Avenue, 0.7 mile to the southwest; spans 8.5 acres; facilities
include ball fields, picnic tables, restrooms, and trails (Fontana, 2022).
Demand for parks is generated by the population in the parks’ service areas. The project involves
development of a 68-unit condominium complex. At buildout the project is estimated to house 273
persons based on the average household size in the city of Fontana of 4.02 persons in 2021 (CDF,
2021). Therefore, project development would create a demand for 1.37 acres of parkland based on
the City’s five acres per 1,000 residents standard. The project would include 82,984 square feet of
usable open space, including 66,094 square feet of common open space. The proposed open space
onsite would not be parkland open to the public, and thus is not considered to reduce project-
generated demand for parkland.
❖ SECTION 4.16 - RECREATION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.16-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
The city charges development impact fees for park facilities; the fee for multi-family units of three or
more bedrooms is $6,819 per unit (City of Fontana, 2022i). Project impacts on parkland and park
facilities would be less than significant after payment of development impact fees for park facilities.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Less Than Significant Impact
The project includes public and private open space. Project development may contribute to demand
for future development of park facilities financed in part by project development impact fees. The
sites of such potential future parks are currently unknown, and thus any attempt at assessing impacts
of such development would be speculative. Such development would be subject to separate CEQA
review. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.17-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.17 Transportation
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? X
The following analysis is based on the Citrus Avenue Residential Project Trip Generation & Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment for the proposed project conducted by RK Engineering Group, Inc.
dated February 11, 2022 (RK Engineering, 2022) (refer to Appendix I). The trip generation
assessment estimates the combination of existing and future vehicular trips from the project site
based on implementation of the proposed project. The trip generation estimates are based on the ITE
Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact
The following City and County plans, ordinances and policies would apply to the project.
City of Fontana Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
The 2017 Fontana ATP is used to implement infrastructure improvements for better connectivity
throughout Fontana, to surrounding cities, and to the region, by providing safe and comfortable
walking and bicycling linkages (Alta Planning and Design and City of Fontana, 2017). The proposed
project would not create walking or bicycling linkages, and therefore the proposed project would not
conflict with the ATP.
City of Fontana Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program
The City’s DIF program was adopted pursuant to Government Code §§ 66000 et seq. Fontana’s
Development Services Department oversees the use of the DIF fees, which fund projects in the City’s
capital improvement program (Stantec, 2018b). The proposed project is not part of the DIF program,
and therefore the proposed project would not conflict with the DIF program.
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.17-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP)
The intent of the CMP is to provide the analytical basis for transportation decisions through the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process, a multi-year capital improvement
program of transportation projects on and off the State Highway System. The San Bernardino County
CMP, published by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), defines a network
of state highways and arterials in the county and provides guidelines regarding level of service (LOS)
standards, impact criteria, and a process for mitigation of impacts on CMP facilities (Stantec, 2018b,
p. 5.13-14). With certain exceptions, the minimum acceptable LOS for CMP facilities is defined as
LOS E. More specifically, the CMP states, “In no case shall the LOS standards established be below the
LOS E or the current level, whichever is farthest from LOS A. When the LOS on a segment or at an
intersection fails to attain the established LOS standard, a deficiency plan shall be adopted pursuant
to Section 65089.4” (San Bernardino Associated Governments, 2016, p. 1-2). The San Bernardino
County CMP was last updated in 2016.
The proposed project would front Citrus Avenue. Access to the project site would be available via a
50-foot driveway through a keypad-operated gate in the western portion of the of project site along
Citrus Avenue. There is no separate access for pedestrians from the public right-of-way (ROW). The
project frontage does not include any pedestrian, cyclist, or vehicular improvements in the ATP, DIF,
or CMP.
The project site’s primary connections to the nearest regional transportation corridor, the I-210
Freeway, is via Citrus Avenue, which abuts the western portion of the project site (Google Earth Pro,
2022). Omnitrans Route 10, which connects Fontana and San Bernardino, runs north along Citrus
Avenue to Walnut Street, approximately 0.25 mile south of the project site, where it turns eastward
towards San Bernardino. No Class I, II or III bikeways are located along Citrus Avenue. Therefore,
there would be no conflict with present or future bicycle or pedestrian facilities.
As mentioned above, the project would have primary access along Citrus Avenue. Per the General
Plan DEIR for the city’s General Plan Update 2015-2035, segments of Citrus Avenue in the City of
Fontana operates at LOS E; however, the section of Sierra Avenue that is located west of the project
site, between Walnut Street and South Highland Avenue, does not exceed LOS C, the City’s standard
for desirable LOS (Stantec, 2018b, pp. 5.13-8 to 5.13-9). As discussed further below, automobile delay
generally does not constitute an environmental impact, based on recent changes to CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines, nonetheless, the service level is not expected to change once the proposed project
is constructed and operational due to the limited number of daily trips, with 458 daily trips including
27 AM peak hour trips and 35 PM peak hour trips created by the project (refer to Appendix I). Since
the estimated amount of traffic to be generated by the project would not exceed 50 peak hour trips,
the proposed project would not affect the current level of service.
Given that the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the City General Plan’s
Circulation Element, the City’s ATP, and San Bernardino’s CMP, or interfere with public transit or
bicycle transportation, project impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)
Less than Significant Impact
Section 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts, of the CEQA Guidelines
describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Section
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.17-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
15064.3(b) includes criteria for analyzing transportation impacts. The VMT, which focuses on the
overall miles traveled by vehicles within a region, is the new metric for transportation analysis and
has replaced automobile delay (Level of Service -LOS), which is no longer used as a criterion for
determining a significant environmental effect under CEQA (City of Fontana, 2020). For land use
projects, “Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate
a significant impact.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3).
On June 9, 2020, the City of Fontana adopted VMT Thresholds for determining transportation impacts
pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. This adoption was required by Senate Bill (SB) 743 and the recent
changes to Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines. For the purpose of CEQA analysis of VMT and
traffic impacts associated with projects proposed in the City of Fontana, the city also adopted Traffic
Impact Analysis Guidelines for VMT and Level of Service Assessment (City of Fontana, October 2020).
The City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for VMT Assessment provides project screening criteria
and guidance for analysis of VMT assessments. The following VMT screening criterion was utilized
for the proposed project.
Project Net Daily Trips Less Than 500 ADT: The City presumes that projects that generate fewer
than 500 average daily trips (ADT) would not cause a substantial increase in the total citywide or
regional VMT and would therefore have a less than significant impact on VMT. The proposed project
is forecast to generate a net total of 458 daily vehicle trips (actual vehicles), and is thus presumed to
have a less than significant impact on VMT. Pursuant to the City’s TIA Guidelines (City of Fontana,
2020), a further project-level VMT assessment is not required for the proposed project. Therefore,
the project VMT impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is needed.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Less than Significant Impact
The proposed project would not alter the surrounding roadways. Vehicular access to the project
would be provided by one driveway from Citrus Avenue. The intersection of the proposed driveway
with Citrus Avenue would be perpendicular and would not cause hazards due to a geometric design
feature. The project’s circulation system, including driveways and parking areas, would be designed
to meet the development standards of the city and would not result in uses or design features that
would create traffic hazards. Therefore, impacts regarding increases in hazards due to geometric
design features or incompatible uses would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
During the project construction phase, lanes and sidewalks may be temporarily closed off. To ensure
that circulation and emergency access during construction is adequate, the City requires preparation
and implementation of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for all projects that require
construction in the public ROW. Therefore, the proposed project would implement mitigation
measure TRANS-1. With implementation of mitigation measure TRANS-1, impacts with regard to
emergency access during construction would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.17-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Operation
The project would comply with applicable City regulations, such as the requirement to comply with
the City’s Fire Code with regard to providing adequate emergency access. Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the City of Fontana would review project site plans, including location of all
buildings, fences, access driveways and other features that may affect emergency access. The project
site plan provides fire lanes for adequate emergency access. Onsite access and sight-distance
requirements would be in accordance with City design requirements. The City’s review process and
compliance with applicable regulations and standards would ensure that adequate emergency access
would be provided at the project site at all times. Therefore, the proposed project would not result
in inadequate emergency access and there would be no impacts in this regard.
Mitigation Measure
MM TRANS-1 The Transportation Management Plan (TMP) must be reviewed and approved by the
City’s Traffic Engineer prior to the start of construction activity in the public right-of-
way (ROW). The typical TMP requires items such as the installation of K-rail between
the construction area and open traffic lanes, the use of flagmen and directional
signage to direct traffic where only one travel lane is available or when equipment
movement creates temporary hazards, and the installation of steel plates to cover
trenches under construction. The TMP shall stipulate that emergency access must be
maintained at all times.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
After implementation of mitigation measure TRANS-1 described above, the project would have less
than significant construction-phase impacts on emergency access.
❖ SECTION 4.18 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.18-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource 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
§ 5020.1(k)?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource that is determined to be a
significant resource to a California
Native American tribe pursuant to
the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resource Code
§ 5024.1(c)?
X
Information from UltraSystems’ Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory, dated June 2, 2022 for the
proposed project (refer to Appendix D) is included in the analysis below.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource 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 § 5020.1(k)?
No Impact
A traditional cultural site within a half-mile buffer of the project boundary is documented in the
Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search. The NAHC
recommended contacting the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation for information
regarding the identity and location of the site; letters and telephone calls to the Gabrielino – Kizh
Nation did not result in any information on the SLF site (see Section 4.2 and Attachment C in
Appendix D to this IS/MND). No resources as defined by Public Resources Code § 21074 have been
identified (refer to Attachment D: “Native American Heritage Commission Records Search and Native
American Contacts” in Appendix D to this IS/MND). Additionally, the project site has not been
recommended for historic designation for prehistoric and tribal cultural resources (TCRs). No
specific tribal resources have been identified by local tribes responding to inquiries for the Cultural
Resources Inventory.
No prehistoric archaeological resources were observed during the archaeological field survey
conducted April 12, 2022, by Stephen O’Neil, M.A., RPA as part of the cultural resources investigation
(Section 4.3, Appendix D). The results of the pedestrian assessment indicate that it is unlikely that
prehistoric resources will be adversely affected by construction of the project. Cultural resource
study findings at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) (the local California Historic
❖ SECTION 4.18 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.18-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Resources Information System facility) indicate there are no prehistoric or historic resources within
the project parcel’s boundary. (Refer to Appendix D).
No tribal cultural resources onsite are 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
§ 5020.1(k). Therefore, the project would have no impact in this regard.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource that is determined to be a significant resource to a California Native
American tribe pursuant to the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code § 5024.1(c)?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) requires meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes
on potential impacts on Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), as defined in Public Resources Code
§ 21074. TCRs are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe that are either eligible or listed in the California Register
of Historical Resources or local register of historical resources (CNRA, 2007).
As part of the AB 52 process, Native American tribes must submit a written request to the lead agency
to be notified of projects within their traditionally and culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must
provide written, formal notification to those tribes within 14 days of deciding to undertake a project.
The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receiving this notification if they want
to engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin the consultation process
within 30 days of receiving the tribe’s request. Consultation concludes when either (1) the parties
agree to mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource, or (2) a party,
acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes mutual agreement cannot be reached.
Government Code § 65352.3(a) requires consultation with Native Americans on General Plan
proposals for the purposes of preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects
described in § 5097.5 and § 5091.993 of the Public Resources Code that are located within the City’s
jurisdiction. The SB 18 process requires that the City attempt to contact the tribes for the purpose of
opening consultations between the City and tribal government. The tribe must respond to the lead
agency within 90 days of receiving this notification if they want to engage in consultation on the
project (Public Resources Code § 21080.3.a(s)).
The City of Fontana (the lead agency) has initiated AB 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18 outreach to local
tribes for the Citrus Avenue Condominiums project. Letters were sent by the City of Fontana’s Public
Works Department (City) to all applicable Native American Tribes. Alejandro Rico, Associate Planner,
City of Fontana, has taken the lead for this process (Alejandro Rico, personal communication; July 7,
2022). The letters conveyed that the recipient has 30 days from the receipt of the letter to request
AB 52 consultation and 90 days from the receipt of the letter to request SB 18 consultation regarding
the project.
The letters were sent via certified mail the week of July 5, 2022 to the following tribes:
• Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson/Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director/Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Andrew Salas, Chairperson/Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation
❖ SECTION 4.18 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.18-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
• Anthony Morales, Chairperson/Gabrieleno Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
• Sandonne Goad, Chairperson/Gabrielino Tongva Nation
• Robert Dorame, Chairperson/Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
• Christina Conley, Tribal Consultant & Administrator/Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
• Charles Alvarez, Councilmember/Gabrielino Tongva Tribe
• Ann Brierty, THPO/Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Robert Martin, Chairperson/Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation Officer/Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
• Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman/Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
• Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair/Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson/Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
• Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson/Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
• Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson/Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
• Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department/Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
• Lee Claus, Director Cultural Resources, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.
• Jessica Mauck, Cultural Resources Department, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.
• Michael Mirelez, Cultural Resources Coordinator, Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.
As of this writing, the 30 days to request AB 52 consultation and 90 days to request SB 18
consultation regarding the project have concluded. The City received no requests from the tribes for
consultation and thus no consultations occurred as a result.
A site was documented in the Native American Heritage Commission’s SLF search. However, there
has been no response to date to inquiries to the Gabrielino – Kizh Nation, the tribe recommended by
the NAHC to contact, regarding this site. No resources as defined by Public Resources Code § 21074
have been identified (refer to Attachment C: “Native American Heritage Commission Records Search
and Native American Contacts” in Appendix D to this IS/MND). Additionally, the project parcel has
not been recommended for historic designation for prehistoric and TCR sites. No specific tribal
resources have been identified. No tribes requested consultations regarding the project. Therefore,
no mitigation would be required for TCRs and impacts are expected to be less than significant.
No prehistoric or archaeological resources were observed during the field survey. Information
regarding results of previous cultural resources surveys within the half-mile buffer zone will be
included upon receipt from the SCCIC.
Land at the project site has remained relatively undisturbed due to use for farming into the mid-20th
century, while the immediate area has been residential since the 1980s. No human remains have
been previously identified or recorded onsite. Therefore, while the potential for subsurface
prehistoric cultural deposits is considered to be low, the relatively undisturbed nature of the land in
a region known to have been heavily used for habitation and natural resource gathering by the local
Luiseño tribe (see Section 2.2.2 in Appendix D) suggests the potential for the presence of cultural
material.
The project proposes grading. Grading activities associated with development of the project would
involve new subsurface disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of unknown
human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. In the unlikely event of an
unexpected discovery, implementation of mitigation measures TCR-1 dealing with associated
❖ SECTION 4.18 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.18-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
funerary objects and TCR-2 dealing with human remains are recommended to ensure that impacts
related to the accidental discovery of human remains would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM TCR-1: 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. If funerary objects are
discovered during grading or archeological excavations, they shall be treated
in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact and the
construction contractor and/or qualified archeologist shall consult with the
designated tribe. [To Be Determined.]
MM TCR-2: As specified by California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5, if human remains
are found on the project site during construction or during archaeological
work, the San Bernardino County Coroner’s office shall be immediately
notified and no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any
nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur
until the Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition
pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. The Coroner would determine,
within two working days of being notified, if the remains are subject to his or
her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American,
he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
within 24 hours. The NAHC would make a determination as to the Most Likely
Descendent.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM TCR-1 and MM TCR-2 above, the proposed project
would result in less than significant impacts to human remains and associated funerary objects.
As stated above, no TCR mitigation measures would be required.
❖ SECTION 4.19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.19-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 whi1ch could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid
waste?
X
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact
As discussed in Section 3.0 the proposed project would require offsite improvements including
sewer, domestic water, fire water, irrigation, and dry utilities connections to existing utility
infrastructure in Citrus Avenue Condominiums.
Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance – The Fontana Water Company (FWC) operates and
maintains sewers in parts of Fontana including the project site vicinity. Municipal wastewater
❖ SECTION 4.19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.19-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
treatment services are provided by Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), which serves
approximately 875,000 people over 242 square miles in Western San Bernardino County.
Wastewater from Fontana Water Company’s service area is treated outside of the service area. IEUA’s
Regional Water Recycling Plant 4 (RP 4) is located near the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and 6th
Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and treats local wastewater generated by the City of Fontana.
RP-4 treats an average flow of 10 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater and was expanded to
a capacity of 14 MGD in 2009. The project proposes offsite sewer improvements to connect the sewer
lines from the project site to the existing sewer network in Citrus Avenue. All sewer line sizes and
connections are subject to review by the City.
Wastewater generation is estimated as 100 percent of indoor water use. The FWC, which provides
water to portions of the City of Fontana including the project site, used a default indoor water use
rate of 55 gallons per person per day, or gallons per capita day (gpcd) in determining its 2020 water
use target.22 The project at completion is estimated to house a approximately 273 persons. Thus,
project operation is estimated to generate a maximum of 48,400 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater.
The project applicant will work with the City’s Public Works Department for necessary approvals and
ensure compliance with applicable requirements. Sufficient wastewater treatment capacity is
available in the region for project wastewater generation, and project development would not
require construction of a new or expanded wastewater treatment facility. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Domestic Water – As detailed in Threshold 4.19 b) below, the project site is in the FWC service area.
Water supplies for the Fontana Service Area consist of imported water from Lytle Creek surface flow,
and from wells in the Lytle Basin, Rialto Basin, Chino Basin, and another groundwater basin known
as No Man's Land. (FWC, 2022). As analyzed in Threshold 4.19 b), the project would result in a
nominal increase in water demand compared to existing conditions and therefore the project would
have a less than significant impact regarding domestic water supplies.
Fire Water - The project proposes construction of a new six-inch fire water line from Citrus Avenue
to the project site. Final design of water facilities would be determined based on the approved Fire
Department plan to assess whether the existing mains are adequately sized to provide the needed
fire flow. As analyzed in Threshold 4.19 b), the project would result in a nominal increase in water
demand compared to existing conditions and therefore, the project would have a less than significant
impact regarding fire water supplies.
Stormwater - Stormwater runoff would be collected by downspouts and area drains and discharged
to the existing drainage system. Stormwater generated on the project site drains to the west toward
Citrus Avenue, which is tributary to the Walnut Avenue Master storm drain system. the onsite runoff
will flow into grate inlets/catch basins via proposed gutters and storm drains and then into the
proposed onsite Contech Chamber System-1,2 for low flow retention and infiltration for water
quality volume. For larger storm events, flows would overflow the Contech infiltration/retention
chamber system-1,2, drains to the proposed manhole at the southwest corner of the site via storm
drain and discharge via proposed 24” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) lateral which will tie in to the
existing 48” RCP master storm drain system in Citrus Avenue. The proposed new development site
is consistent with drainage pattern in the area. It flows to the existing 48” RCP master storm drain
system in Citrus Avenue which ultimately drains to existing master storm drain system (60” RCP,
Line D2) in Walnut Avenue. The proposed drainage system is sufficient to drain onsite water into the
proposed future 48” RCP (per the City of Fontana Storm Drain Improvement Plans to be built by the
22 The 2020 water use target was calculated in accordance with the Water Conservation Act of 2009, SBX 7-7.
❖ SECTION 4.19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.19-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
property developer) in Citrus Avenue (Allard Engineering, 2021). This storm drain eventually
discharges into Etiwanda Channel. Therefore, the project would not result in any significant impact
to the stormwater sewer system.
Electric Power: Electric power for the City of Fontana is provided by Southern California Edison
(SCE) (City of Fontana, 2022). The proposed project is in a developed area, and infrastructure for
providing electric power to the area is well established. SCE typically utilizes existing utility corridors
to reduce environmental impacts and has energy-efficiency programs to reduce energy usage and
maintain reliable service throughout the year (Southern California Edison, 2018, p. 45). Total
electricity consumption in SCE’s service area is forecast to be 111,672 gigawatts per hour (GWh) in
2022 and 122,931 GWh in 2030 (CEC, 2020, Form 1.2); one GWh is equivalent to one million kilowatt-
hours.
Electrical utilities would be undergrounded. An existing overhead power line next to the west site
boundary along Citrus Avenue would be removed and undergrounded. Construction would need to
occur in the public right-of-way during installation of a new utility connections to the project site.
The project would be constructed in accordance with applicable Title 24 regulations and would not
necessitate the construction or relocation of electric power facilities. Therefore, a less than significant
impact would occur.
Natural Gas: Natural gas would be supplied to the project site by Southern California Gas Company
(SoCal Gas), which provides natural gas to the City of Fontana (City of Fontana Utilities, 2020).
Construction activities, including the construction of new buildings and facilities, typically do not
involve the consumption of natural gas. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to have a
demand for natural gas during project construction.
Telecommunications Facilities: Spectrum provides cable television and broadband services to the
area. Other providers, including AT&T, also serve residents of the area. It is expected that facilities of
one or more telecommunications providers would be extended into the project site from existing
lines in adjacent roadways. The proposed project would not interfere with operation of
telecommunications facilities, and therefore a less than significant impact would occur.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant Impact
Water Supplies and Demands
The FWC supplies water to most of the City of Fontana, including the project site. FWC is both a water
wholesaler and water retailer; it serves three retail service areas, including the Fontana Service Area.
FWC’s water supply is produced from Lytle Creek surface flow, and from wells in the Lytle Basin,
Rialto Basin, Chino Basin, and another groundwater basin known as No Man’s Land. Water from the
California State Water Project is purchased from the IEUA and San Bernardino Valley Municipal
Water District. A portion of the water supply can be purchased from Cucamonga Valley Water District
during water shortages or under emergency situations.
At approximately 273 persons, estimated project water demand would be 15,015 gallons per day, or
approximately 16.82 acre-feet per year (afy), as shown below in Table 4.19-2. The forecast FWC
❖ SECTION 4.19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.19-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
2025 retail water supplies are 45,593 afy and the forecast FWC retail demands are 44,593 afy (FWC-
2020-UWMP June 2020), leaving a projected excess of 1,000 afy. The estimated project water
demand is only approximately 1.68% of the projected excess water supply. Therefore, less than
significant impacts are anticipated.
Table 4.19-2
ESTIMATED PROJECT WATER DEMAND
Unit Water
Demand Factor
Gallons Per Day
(GDP)/per person1
Residents
Estimated Water
Demand in gallons
per day
Estimated Water
Demand (gallons
per year)
Estimated
Water Demand
(acre-feet per
year)
55 273 15,015 5,480,475 16.82
1The FWC, which provides water to portions of the City of Fontana including the project site, used a default indoor water
use rate of 55 gallons per person per day.
Source: UltraSystems, 2022.
Water Treatment
FWC area surface water is treated at FWC’s Sandhill Water Treatment Plant, which is a 29 MGD
treatment plant that is comprised of a 12 MGD Conventional filtration treatment facility and 17 MGD
Diatomaceous Earth filtration treatment facility. The source water for this treatment plant is local
Lytle Creek surface water and State Water Project supplies from Northern California. Therefore,
based on the information above, sufficient water treatment capacity is available in the region for
project water demands, and thus project impacts regarding water demand would be less than
significant.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact
As described under Threshold 4.19a above, the project will connect to the city sewer system and no
new treatment facilities or expanded entitlements will be required. There would be sufficient
capacity available to meet the wastewater treatment demands of the project. The existing
wastewater treatment facility could accommodate the additional wastewater estimated to be
generated by the proposed project. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact
in this regard and no mitigation is necessary.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impact
Solid Waste
The city contracts with Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc., for collection and disposal of the city’s solid
waste. The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill serves the City. Mid-Valley contains 498 acres with a
❖ SECTION 4.19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.19-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
maximum permit capacity of 101,300,000 cubic yards, over 61 million of which remain unfilled.
Table 4.19-3 provides additional information about the landfill’s capacity.
Table 4.19-3
LANDFILLS SERVING FONTANA
Facility and
Nearest
City/Community
Remaining
Capacity,
cubic yards
Daily
Permitted
Disposal
Capacity, tons
Actual Daily
Disposal,
tons1
Residual Daily
Disposal
Capacity, tons
Estimated
Closing Date
Mid-Valley
Sanitary Landfill
61,219,377 7,500 2,955 1,845 2045
1 Daily disposal calculated based on annual disposal tonnage assuming 300 operating days per year: that is, six days per
week less certain holidays.
Source: CalRecycle. 2021a.
Construction
Project construction would generate solid waste requiring disposal at local landfills. Fontana-
generated solid waste is disposed of at Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, which has remaining disposal
capacity of 1,845 tons per day or 673,425 tons per year. Materials generated during construction of
the project would include paper, cardboard, metal, plastics, glass, concrete, lumber scraps and other
materials. Section 4.408 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; California
Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) requires that at least 65% of the nonhazardous construction
and demolition waste from residential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for
reuse. Project construction would include recycling and/or salvaging at least 65% of construction
and demolition waste in accordance with the 2019 CALGreen. Sufficient disposal capacity would
remain at the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill for solid waste generated by project construction. Impacts
would be less than significant.
Operation
Multifamily residential units in California generate an average of approximately four pounds of solid
waste per day, according to data collected by CalRecycle. Thus, the proposed 93 residential units are
estimated to generate 372 pounds of solid waste per day or 68 tons per year, as shown below in
Table 4.19-4. As noted earlier, the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill has remaining disposal capacity of
1,845 tons per day or 673,425 tons per year. Estimated project operational solid waste disposal of
68 tons per year is approximately 0.01 percent of remaining disposal capacity at Mid-Valley Sanitary
Landfill. Sufficient landfill capacity is available in the region for estimated project solid waste
generation, and project impacts on solid waste disposal capacity would be less than significant.
Table 4.19-4
ESTIMATED PROJECT-GENERATED SOLID WASTE
Land Use Generation Rate*
Approximate Waste
(pounds/year)
Approximate
Waste
(tons/year)
Multifamily
Residential
4 pounds per dwelling
unit per day 99,280 50
*(CalRecycle, 2022).
❖ SECTION 4.19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.19-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact
In 1989, the California Legislature enacted the California Integrated Waste Management Act
(AB 939), in an effort to address solid waste problems and capacities in a comprehensive manner.
The law required each city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year
2000. The city developed a SRRE in 1997 that aims at recycling, composting, special waste disposal,
and education and public information programs.
The San Bernardino Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (SBCIWMP) outlines the goals,
policies, and programs the County and its cities would implement to create an integrated and
cost-effective waste management system that complies with the provisions of AB 939 and its
diversion mandates. The Infrastructure and Green Systems Element of the City of Fontana General
Plan outlines programs to reduce, recycle and properly divert solid waste from sanitary landfills
(Stantec, 2018a, p. 10.8).
Solid waste generated by the project would be collected by Burrtec Waste Industries, the designated
waste hauler, and transported offsite to transfer facilities and landfills for reuse, recycling and/or
disposal, as appropriate (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.12-20). Burrtec delivers solid waste to the Mid-Valley
Landfill, which operates under a permit from San Bernardino County Department of Public Health,
Solid Waste Management Division which requires regular reporting and monitors compliance.
Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341; Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increases the statewide waste diversion
goal to 75 percent by 2020, and mandates recycling for commercial and multi-family residential land
uses. The project would include storage areas for recyclable materials in accordance with AB 341.
Assembly Bill 1826 (AB 1826; California Public Resources Code Sections 42649.8 et seq.) requires
recycling of organic matter by businesses, and multifamily residences of five of more units,
generating such wastes in amounts over certain thresholds. Organic waste means food waste, green
waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is
mixed in with food waste. Multifamily residences are not required to have a food waste diversion
program. The project would include recycling of organic wastes as required for multifamily
residences under AB 1826. The proposed project would comply with applicable local, state and
federal solid waste disposal standards; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.20 - WILDFIRE ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.20-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.20 Wildfire
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified
as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact
As shown in Figure 4.9-2 in Section 4.9 of this IS/MND, the project site is not located in a State
Responsibility Area (SRA) (i.e., where the State is responsible for the costs of wildfire prevention and
suppression). The nearest SRA to the project site is in unincorporated San Bernardino County
approximately 2.3 miles to the north. The project site is also not located in a Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) (i.e., where cities or counties are
responsible for the costs of wildfire prevention and suppression). The nearest VHFHSZ in LRA to the
project site is about 1.3 miles to the north in the City of Fontana (see Figure 4.9-3; CAL FIRE, 2021).
Since the project is not located in or near either defined area, the proposed project would have no
impact in this regard.
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?
❖ SECTION 4.20 - WILDFIRE ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.20-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
No Impact
The project site is not located in or near any VHFHSZs. No slopes are on or near the project site which
could exacerbate wildfire risks. Warm, dry, seasonal Santa Ana winds occur occasionally in southern
California, typically between October and March (City of Fontana, 2017). However, Fontana is no
more prone to Santa Ana winds than are most other lowland places in southern California. Thus, the
project would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Since the project is not located in or near either defined area, the
proposed project would have no impact in this regard.
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact
The project site is not located in an SRA (CAL FIRE, 2022), nor is the project site in or near a VHFHSZ
within an LRA. The project would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that
may exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact in this regard.
d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact
The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as VHFHSZs
within an LRA. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes. The project site is flat, is not in an area with high slopes or unstable
ground conditions, and is not within a landslide hazard zone. Therefore, the project would have no
impact in this regard.
❖ SECTION 4.21 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.21-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the project have:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
a) Would the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Section 4.4 of this document addresses impacts on biological resources. The project site is located
in an urbanized setting and provides low habitat value and low occurrence potential for special-
status plant and wildlife species identified in the BSA. Based on a literature review and query from
publicly available databases (hereafter, wildlife inventory; USFWS 2022a, b, CNDDB 2022) for
reported occurrences within a ten-mile radius of the project site, there were 16 listed and 25
sensitive wildlife species identified by one of the following means: reported in the wildlife inventory;
❖ SECTION 4.21 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.21-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
recognized as occurring based on survey observations and knowledge of the area; or observed during
other surveys. Of those 41 total species, six listed and 14 sensitive wildlife species were determined
to have at least a low potential to occur. It is anticipated that construction of the project will not have
a significant impact on any of those special-status wildlife species. There were nine listed and 26
sensitive plant species identified as occurring based on survey observations or knowledge of the
area; or observed during other surveys within a ten-mile radius. Of those 35 total plant species, one
listed and three sensitive plant species were determined to have a low potential to occur. The project
site lacks suitable habitat, or is outside the elevation or geographic range of all but four special-status
plant species documented in the plant inventory. No special-status plant species were observed
during the windshield surveys, including the four special-status plant species determined to have a
low potential to occur. In addition, the project site contains a high coverage of non-native annual
grasses, therefore likely deterring the establishment of special-status plants on the project site.
Considering that none of the four special-status plant species determined to have a low potential to
occur within the BSA were observed, it is anticipated that construction of the project will have less
than a significant impact on special-status plant species within the BSA.
The project site and BSA do not contain stands of trees with contiguous canopies to provide good
cover for nests, but the large on-site bushes could offer some low-quality potential nesting habitat. A
potential direct impact might result from the removal of onsite trees, which may support species such
as small birds. With the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, the project would
have a less than significant impact on special-status wildlife species,
Section 4.5 of this document addresses potential impacts on Cultural Resources. The project would
be built on vacant land. Based on the SCCIC cultural resources records search, it was determined that
there are no prehistoric or historic cultural resources previously recorded within the project site
boundary. Within the half-mile buffer zone, there have been three historic era structures and one
historic water pump and distribution center. The pedestrian field survey undertaken for this project
noted the remains of two mid-20th Century era structures with one being built between 1959 and
1966, Because neither of the two observed demolished structures meet the criteria required to
qualify as a significant historic resource, there would be no substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5, and therefore the project would have no
impact in this regard.
The result of the pedestrian survey was negative for both prehistoric and historic sites and isolates
on the project site. Based on the results of the records search and tribal consultation it is unlikely that
cultural resources or tribal resources would be adversely affected by construction of the project. No
human remains have been previously identified or recorded onsite. It is unlikely that undisturbed
unique archaeological resources exist on the project site. However, grading activities associated with
development of the project would cause new subsurface disturbance and could potentially result in
the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources. Mitigation measures CUL 1 through CUL 3
are recommended to reduce potential impacts on archeological resources and human remains to a
less than significant level.
Section 4.7 of this document addresses potential impacts on Paleontological Resources. The Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) completed a search of its paleontology records for
the project region on April 16, 2022. The LACM did not identify any fossil localities on the project
site; but identified seven fossil localities in the project region. Excavations or grading may encounter
fossil remains. Any substantial excavations below the uppermost layers should be closely monitored
to quickly and professionally collect any specimens. This impact would be potentially significant.
❖ SECTION 4.21 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.21-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
However, with implementation of MM GEO-1, potential impacts to paleontological resources would
be reduced to a less than significant level.
Section 4.18 of this document addresses potential impacts on Tribal Cultural Resources. Tribal
cultural resources could be buried in site soils. Project site grading and project construction could
damage such resources. With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM TCR-1 and MM TCR-2
above, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to human remains and
associated funerary objects. Would the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant Impact
The proposed project would be consistent with regional plans and programs that address
environmental factors such as air quality, water quality, and other applicable regulations that have
been adopted by public agencies with jurisdiction over the project for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating environmental effects.
Sections 4.3 and 4.13 of this Initial Study address potential impacts related to Air Quality and Noise,
respectively. As detailed in Section 4.3, air quality impacts associated with project construction and
operation would be less than significant and do not warrant mitigation. As detailed in Section 4.13,
construction and operational noise impacts associated with the project site were found to be less
than significant and do not warrant mitigation.
The project would create employment opportunities (both during the construction and operational
phases); employees from the local workforce would be hired during both the construction and
operational phases of the project. The project is not of the scope or scale to induce people to move
from outside of the project area to work at the proposed project. The proposed project would induce
direct population growth with construction of 14 residential buildings with a total of 68 three-
bedroom condominium units. The proposed 68 residential units would be approximately 0.28% of
the forecast increase of 24,727 households during the same period.23 Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant. Would the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction lighting impacts on surrounding residences were determined to be significant without
mitigation. Implementation of mitigation measure AES-1 would reduce this impact to less than
significant.
Project site clearance, grading, and construction would have potentially significant impacts on
sensitive species and nesting birds Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would
reduce these impacts to less than significant.
Archaeological resources may be buried in site soils and could be damaged by project ground-
disturbing activities. This impact would be significant without mitigation. Implementation of
23 Growth in households between 2021 and 2045 is used because no forecast of housing units in Fontana in 2045 is
available. A household is an occupied housing unit. In Fontana in 2021 the occupancy rate was approximately 95%
(that is, 53,073 households out of 55,909 housing units).
❖ SECTION 4.21 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 4.21-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
mitigation measure CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce this impact to less than significant. Impacts on
human remains that may be buried in site soils were determined to be significant without mitigation.
Implementation of mitigation measure CUL-3 would reduce that impact to less than significant.
Fossils could be buried in site soils. Project ground-disturbing activities could damage fossils.
Implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 would reduce this impact to less than significant.
During the project construction phase, lanes and sidewalks may be temporarily closed off. To ensure
that circulation and emergency access during construction is adequate, the City requires preparation
and implementation of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for all projects that require
construction in the public ROW. Therefore, the proposed project would implement mitigation
measure TRANS-1. With implementation of mitigation measure TRANS-1, impacts with regard to
emergency access during construction would be less than significant.
As discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.20 of this document, after the implementation of mitigation
measures, potential adverse environmental effects were found to be less than significant on human
beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur.
Additional mitigation measures may be added here depending on the results of the City’s AB 52/SB
18 process with the Native American Tribes. As of the time of this writing, the AB 52/SB 18 process
was still in progress.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 5-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
5.0 REFERENCES
Alexandrowicz, J. Steven, Anne Q. Duffield-Stoll, Jeanette A. McKenna, Susan R. Alexandrowicz, Arthur
A. Kuhner, and Eric Scott, 1992. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Investigations Within
the North Fontana Infrastructure Area, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.
Archaeological Consulting Services. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center,
California State University, Fullerton.
Allard Engineering, 2021a. Preliminary Drainage Report, Citrus Avenue and South Highland Avenue,
APN: 0240-011-17, Fontana, CA. November 4, 2021.
Allard Engineering, 2021b. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for: PRL Citrus Ave. APN No.
0240-011-17, WQMP Citrus Avenue & South Highland Avenue. November 9, 2021.
Alta Planning and Design and City of Fontana, 2017. City of Fontana Active Transportation Plan
(ATP). Accessed online at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/27009/ATP-
Final-Report, accessed on May 14, 2022.
Andresen Architecture, Inc., 2022. Citrus Condominiums Site Plan. March 2, 2022.
ARB, 2020. State Area Designations. California Air Resources Board.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations.
Accessed May 27, 2022.
ARB, 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019. Trends of Emissions and Other
Indicators. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA. July 28, p. 2.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-
19.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2022.
ARB, 2022a. Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA. May
10. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/2022-draft-sp.pdf. Accessed June 6,
2022.
ARB, 2022b, EMFAC2021(v1.0.2) emissions inventory web platform tool. Accessed online at EMFAC
(ca.gov), on July 20, 2022.
AT&T, 2022. Tower Locations, Accessed online at
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?ie=UTF&msa=0&mid=1_qQaL6OE7Yg94UAiqC3
aLhw4gJ8&ll=34.050578256513354%2C-117.17692818594045&z=11 on May 27, 2022.
BREEZE Software, 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model. User’s Guide, Version 2020.4.0.
Prepared for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, in collaboration with
South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts. May 2022.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2022. Public Airports. Accessed online at:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/6a152cc396434c989adb89fb3132bc41_0, on March 25,
2022.
CEC (California Energy Commission), 2021. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part
6). Adopted August 11, 2021. Accessed online at
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 5-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=243997&DocumentContentId=77865,
on July 21, 2022.
CGS (California Geological Survey), 2008a. Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland
Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production-Consumption Region,
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Special Report 206, Plate 1. Accessed
online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_206/SR206_Plate1.pdf, on March
22, 2022.
CGS (California Geological Survey), 2008b. Update of Mineral Land Classification for Portland Cement
Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production-Consumption Region, San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Accessed online at:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_206/SR_206_Text.pdf, on March 22, 2022.
CGS (California Geological Survey), 2008c. Updated Aggregate Resource Sector Map for Portland
Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production-Consumption Region,
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Special report 206, Plate 2. Accessed
online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_206/SR206_Plate2.pdf, on March
22, 2022.
CalRecycle, 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Accessed online at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, accessed on March
24, 2022.
CalRecycle, 2021a. SWIS Facility Detail: Mid- Valley Sanitary Landfill. Accessed online at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662, on
March 30, 2022.
CASGEM (California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program). 2022. Well Details for
State Well Number 01N05W32N001S. Available at https://www.casgem.water.ca.gov/.
Accessed on March 8, 2022.
CBWCD (Chino Basin Water Conservation District) 2022a. Where Does Our Water Come From?
https://www.cbwcd.org/386/Where-Does-Our-Water-Come-From
CBWCD (Chino Basin Water Conservation District) 2022b. The Chino Groundwater Basin. Available
at: https://www.cbwcd.org/387/The-Chino-Groundwater-Basin
CDFW. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant
Populations and Natural Communities. California Natural Resources Agency, CDFW. March
20, 2022.
CDFW. 2022b. CDFW California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Life History Accounts and Range Maps.
Available at https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range. Accessed on
March 20, 2022.
CDFW. 2022c. CDFW BIOS. Natural Areas Small – California Essential Habitat Connectivity (CEHC)
[ds1073]. Available at https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/. Accessed on March 22, 2022.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 5-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
CEMA, CGS, and USC (California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and
University of Southern California). 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning:
County of Los Angeles, California. Scale 1:24,000. Available at
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.
CGS, 2022b. Tsunami Maps. Accessed online at
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps , accessed on March 6, 2022.
City of Fontana. 1993. Code of Ordinances. Chapter 28, Article III. Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH28VE_
ARTIIIPRHESISPTR
City of Fontana, 2013. Available at CPTED Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.
Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/7417/CPTED-
Guidelines?bidId= accesswed on May 31, 2022
City of Fontana, 2017a. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. June 2017. Approved and
adopted August 14, 2018. CC Resolution No. 2018-072. Accessed online at: at
https://fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan, on
May 31, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2021. Comprehensive Fee Schedule (p. 114 of 278)
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/19039/2021-2022-User-Fee-
Report?bidId=, accessed on April 20,2022.
City of Fontana, 2021a. General Plan Land Use Map. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General-Plan-Land-Use-Map-3-2-
2021?bidId=, accessed on March 16, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2021a. Municipal Code. Accessed online at
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH18NU
accessed on June 6, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2021b. City of Fontana, State of California, Zoning District Map, 3/2/2021. Accessed
online at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/30623/Zoning-District-Map-3-
2-21?bidId=, accessed on March 16, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2021c. Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Years 2021/2022-2022/2023. Accessed
online at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/36088/FY21-22-and-FY22-23-
Adopted-Operating-Budget-PDF, on May 18, 2022
City of Fontana. 2022. Stations and Equipment. Accessed online at:
https://www.fontana.org/639/Stations-Equipment, on June 6, 2022.
City of Fontana. 2022a. Facilities & Parks. Accessed online at:
https://www.fontana.org/156/Facilities-Parks, on April 4, 2022.
City of Fontana. 2022b. Almeria Park. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/697/Almeria-
Park, on April 8, 2022.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 5-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
City of Fontana, 2022a. Crime-Free Multi-Housing. https://www.fontana.org/313/Crime-Free-
Multi-Housing, accessed on April 28, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2022.b Trash and Recycling Services. Accessed online at:
https://www.fontana.org/541/Trash-and-Recycling-Services, on March 24, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2022c. Utilities. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/3032/Utilities, on
March 17, 2022.
City of Fontana. 2022d. Stations and Equipment. Accessed online at:
https://www.fontana.org/639/Stations-Equipment, on March 30, 2022.
City of Fontana. 2022e. Nearest Fire Station. Accessed online at:
https://fontanaca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5fe8e97ef3ee4c91
aa49942467b9acf2, on May 18, 2022
City of Fontana, 2022f. Police Department. https://www.fontana.org/2808/Contact-Us. Accessed on
May 19, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2022g. Demographics. https://www.fontana.org/761/Business-Resources Accessed
on May 19, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2022h. Police Department Crime-Free Multi-Housing.
https://www.fontana.org/313/Crime-Free-Multi-Housing. Accessed on May 31, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2022i. Development Fees. Accessed online at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2271/Development-Impact-Fees?bidId=
on June 1, 2022
County of San Bernardino et al., 2011. San Bernardino County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
Plan. September. Accessed online at:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GreenhouseGas/FinalGHGFull.pdf, on May 20,
2022.
Digalert.com. 2022. Utilities contact lookup. Accessed online at:
https://newtinb.digalert.org/direct/, on March 24, 2022.
Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR). 2020. Mines Online. Accessed online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html, on March 22, 2022.
Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR). 2022. Mines Online. Accessed online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html, on March 22, 2022.
DOC, 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed online at:
DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2003. Bulletin 118: California’s Groundwater,
Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin (Groundwater Basin Number 8-002). Accessed
online at: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118, on
March 9, 2022.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 5-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2022. Division of Safety of Dams, California Dam
Breach Inundation Maps. Accessed online at: https://fmds.water.ca.gov/maps/damim/, on
March 11, 2022.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for San
Bernardino County, California and Incorporated Areas (Map Number 06071C7915H).
Effective August 28, 2008. Available at
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=6697%20Citrus%20Avenue%2C%20F
ontana%2C%20CA%00#searchresultsanchor, on March 10, 2022.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 2020a. Glossary: Flood Zones Available at:
https://www.fema.gov/glossary/flood-zones Accessed on March 20, 2022.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 2022. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer.
Accessed online at: https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/national-flood-hazard-layer, on
March 10, 2022.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), 2020b. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for City
of Fontana, California, and Incorporated Areas (FIRM 06071C7920H). Accessed online at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=6251%20Sierra%20Ave%2C%20Font
ana%2C%20CA%2092336#searchresultsanchor, on March 5, 2022.
Fontana City Hall, 2022. Accessed online at https://www.fontana.org/639/Stations-Equipment, on
April 3,2022.
FWC (Fontana Water Company). 2022. Water Sources. Available at:
https://www.fontanawater.com/water-quality-supply/water-sources.
FPD (The Fontana Police Department),2022. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/3073/Welcome-to-the-Fontana-Police-Department, accessed on
June 6, 2022.
FTA, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Accessed online at
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 , on June 6, 2022.
FUSD (Fontana Unified School District), 2015. Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan (January 2015).
Accessed online at
https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Shared/master_plans/Facilities.pd
f on May 31, 2022
FUSD (Fontana Unified School District), 2022a. Developer Fee Justification Study for Residential &
Commercial/Industrial Development June 22, 2022 (Public Review May 18, 2022 through
June 22, 2022). Accessed online at,
https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/4/Fontana%20Unified%
20Developer%20Fee%20Justification%20Study%202022.pdf on May 27, 2022.
FUSD (Fontana Unified School District), 2022b. Developer fees. Accessed online at
https://www.fusd.net/Page/639, accessed on April 5, 2022.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 5-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
FUSD (Fontana Unified School District), 2022b. New School Boundaries 2019-202. This is a web map
using address 6697 Citrus Ave, Fontana, CA, 92336, USA to determine schools’ attendance.
Accessed online at
https://fusd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=4faad1b570994ad09e390405
51077c2e on May 27, 2022
FUSD (Fontana Unified School District), 2022c. Kathy Binks Elementary School 2020-2021 School
Accountability Report Card (January 2022). Accessed online at,
https://www.axiomanalytix.com/SARC/_SupportFiles/SARCIndexPDFs/36677100113423_
20-21_1.pdf on May 27, 2022.
FUSD (Fontana Unified School District), 2022d. Wayne Ruble Middle School 2020-2021 School
Accountability Report Card (January 2022). Accessed online at
https://www.axiomanalytix.com/SARC/_SupportFiles/SARCIndexPDFs/36677100102509_
20-21_1.pdf on May 31, 2022
FUSD (Fontana Unified School District), 2022e. A B Miller High School 2020-2021 School
Accountability Report Card (January 2022). Accessed online at
https://www.axiomanalytix.com/SARC/_SupportFiles/SARCIndexPDFs/36677103630555_
20-21_1.pdf on May 31, 2022
Geological Society of America (GSA). 2018. Geologic Time Scale. Accessed online at:
https://www.geosociety.org/documents/gsa/timescale/timescl.pdf, on May 26, 2022.
Google Earth Pro V 7.3.2.5491 (March 5, 2022). City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California,
U.S.A. 34.°07’57.12”N-117°27’08.31”W. Eye alt 4765 ft. Available at
https://earth.google.com/web/. Accessed on March 5, 2022.
Hogan, Michael, Bai Tang, and Josh Smallwood, 2004. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
Report; Fontana Auto Mall Overlay Zone; City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.
Submitted to: W. Dean Brown, The Planning Consortium, Orange, California. Submitted by:
CRM TECH, Riverside, California. SB-04207. On file at Eastern Information Center, University
of California, Riverside.
ICF International and LSA, 2021. San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan –
Appendices. Final. March. Accessed online at: https://www.gosbcta.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/09/San_Bernardino_Regional_GHG_Reduction_Plan_Appendices_Ma
r_2021.pdf, on May 20, 2022.
ICF Jones & Stokes, 2009. Technical Noise Supplement. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes, Sacramento,
California for California Department of Transportation, Division of Environmental Analysis,
Sacramento, California. June 6, 2022.
LSA Associates, Inc., 2021. San Bernardino County Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update. June
2021. LSA Project No. SBE2002. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 21, 2021.
Accessed online at:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/LUS/GreenhouseGas/GHG_2021/GHG%20Reduction%
20Plan%20Update-Greenhouse%20Gas%20Reduction%20Plan%20Update%20-
%20Adopted%209-21-2021.pdf, on May 20, 2022.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 5-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Ontario, City of. 2011. ALUCP for Ontario International Airport. Accessed online at:
https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-2.pdf,
on March 25, 2022.
OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research), 2017. General Plan Guidelines: 2017 Update.
Accessed online at http://opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html , accessed on
June 6, 2022.
RECO Equipment. 2020. Tips for Choosing the Right Bulldozer. February 24. Accessed online at
https://www.recoequip.com/blog/tips-for-choosing-the-right-bulldozer--21530, on July 20,
2022.
Rico, Alejandro, 2022. Personal communications from A. Rico, City of Fontana Planning Department,
to Stephen O’Neil, UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. Subject: AB 52 consultation. July 7,2022.
RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board). 1995. 1995 Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa
Ana River Basin (Region 8). updated in February 2008, June 2011, and February 2016.
Accessed online at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/, on June 5,
2022.
San Bernardino County Public Library, 2022. Locations. Accessed online at:
http://www.sbclib.org/LibraryLocations.aspx, on May 20, 2022.
Sawyer et al., J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition.
California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, CA. 1300 pp.
SCAQMD, 2022. Site Survey Report for Fontana. May 19. Accessed online at
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-monitoring-
network-plan/aaqmnp-fontana.pdf?sfvrsn=11. Accessed on June 7, 2022.
Schooldigger, 2022. Accessed online at https://www.schooldigger.com/go/CA/search.aspx, on April
17, 2022.
Shuford, W.D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked
assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate
conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists,
Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Sibley, David Allen. 2000. National Audubon Society, The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New
York.
SoCalGas (Southern California Gas Company), 2020. Natural Gas Transmission. Accessed online at:
https://www.socalgas.com/stay-safe/pipeline-and-storage-safety/natural-gas-
transmission on May 27, 2022.
Stantec et al, 2018a. Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015 – 2035. Adopted on November 13,
2018. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---
2035, on May 31, 2022.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 5-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Stantec, 2018b. Draft General Plan EIR. Accessed online at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-
Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update on May 31, 2022.
Stantec. 2018c. Fontana General Plan Update Background Report. Accessed online at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26739/Appendix-One---Background-
Report, on April 8, 2022.
SWRCB (California State Water Resources Control Board). 2019. State Wetland Definition and
Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Adopted April 2,
2019, revised April 6, 2021. Available at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/wrapp.html.
USDA NRCS (United State Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service)
2022a. Web Soil Survey. Available at
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed on March 21,
2022.
USDA NRCS (United State Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service).
2022b. State Hydric Soils List. Available at:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316619.html Accessed
March 20, 2022.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022. WATERS GeoViewer. Available at
https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer. Accessed on March 9, 2022.
USEPA, 2021a. Nonattainment Areas for the 2015 Ozone Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=d37c4a84a023422e8a24
272dd8875f56. Accessed May 27, 2022.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2022a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC),
IPaC Resource List. Available at https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed on March 17 2022.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. 2022b. Official Species List:
Consultation Code: 2022-0021300. Carlsbad, California. March 17, 2022.
USFWS. 2022c. USFWS ECOS: Environmental Conservation Online System Species Reports. Available
at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species-reports. Accessed on March 20, 2022.
USFWS. 2022d. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) website, National Wetlands Mapper. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed on March 6, 2022.
USFWS. 2022e. USFWS Critical Habitat Portal: http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/. Latest database search
conducted on March 10, 2022.
USGS (U.S. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey), 1996. Devore Quadrangle,
California, 7.5-Minute Series [map]. Scale 1:24,000. Prepared for U.S. Topo: The National Map.
Available at https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/..
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 5-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2022. National Hydrography Dataset. Available at
https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/. Accessed on September 8, 2021.
West Yost, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. San Gabriel Valley Water Company – Fontana
Division. Final Report, June 2021. Accessed online at: https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/10/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf, on May 20, 2022.
WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). 2021. 1981-2010 Monthly Climate Summary. Fontana
Kaiser, California (Coop Station 043120). Retrieved from: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-
bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3120. Accessed on May 10, 2022.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife.
Vol. I-III. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. Updated
September, 2000. Available at https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range.
❖ SECTION 6.0 – LIST OF PREPARERS ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 6-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
6.1 CEQA Lead Agency
Alejandro Rico, Associate Planner
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335
T: (909) 350-6558
E: arico@fontana.org
6.2 Project Applicant
PRL INC.
16866 Seville Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
T: (909) 356-1815
E: rallard@allardeng.com
6.3 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc.
6.3.1 Environmental Planning Team
Betsy Lindsay, MURP, ENV SP, Project Director
Robert Reicher, MBA, Senior Project Manager-Consultant
Billye Breckenridge, BA, ENV SP, Assistant Project Manager/GIS Manager
Michael Milroy, MA, Project Manager
6.3.2 Technical Team
Amir Ayati, Staff Scientist
Megan Black, M.A., Archaeological Technician
Allison Carver, BS, Senior Biologist
Stephen Chesterman, BEng, Principal GIS Consulting
Gulben Kaplan, MS, GIS Analyst
Swarna Kumaresan, MS, Environmental Engineer
David Luhrsen, BS, Word Processing
Audrey McNamara, BA, Biologist
Stephen O’Neil, MA, RPA, Cultural Resources Manager
Michael Rogozen, D. Env, Senior Principal Engineer
Isha Shah, M.S., Staff Engineer/Scientist
Andrew Soto, BA, Word Processing/Technical Editing
Michelle Tollett, BA, ISA, Senior Biologist, Biological Resources Group Manager
❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 7-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with
§ 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and § 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires all state
and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs whenever approval of a project
relies upon a MND or an EIR. The MMRP ensures implementation of the measures being imposed to
mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental impacts identified through the use of
monitoring and reporting. Monitoring is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project
oversight; reporting generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the
decision-making body or authorized staff person.
It is the intent of the MMRP to: (1) provide a framework for document implementation of the
required mitigation; (2) identify monitoring/reporting responsibility; (3) provide a record of the
monitoring/reporting; and (4) ensure compliance with those MM that are within the responsibility
of the City and/or Applicant to implement.
The following table lists impacts, mitigation measures adopted by the City of Fontana in connection
with approval of the proposed project, level of significance after mitigation, responsible and
monitoring parties, and the project phase in which the measures are to be implemented.
Only those environmental topics for which mitigation is required are listed in this Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 7-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
Table 7.0-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
4.1 Aesthetics
Threshold 4.1 d)
Would the project
create a new source of
substantial light or
glare which would
adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the
area?
MM AES-1
During project construction the project applicant shall place construction staging
areas as far away as possible from adjacent residences so as to minimize, to the
maximum extent possible, any potential lighting impacts to nearby residences. The
lighting used during project construction shall consist of the minimum amount of
light necessary for safety and security on the project site.
Project
Applicant
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. During
Construction
4.4 Biological Resources
Threshold 4.4 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
Game Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife
Service?
MM BIO-1: Pre-Construction Breeding Bird Survey
To be in compliance with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, and to avoid impacts
or take of migratory non-game breeding birds, their nests, young, and eggs, the
following measures shall be implemented. The measures below will help to reduce
direct and indirect impacts caused by construction on migratory non-game breeding
birds to less than significant levels.
• Project activities that will remove or disturb potential nest sites, such as open
ground, trees, shrubs, grasses, or burrows, during the breeding season would
be a potential significant impact if migratory non-game breeding birds are
present. Project activities that will remove or disturb potential nest sites shall
be scheduled outside the breeding bird season to avoid potential direct impacts
on migratory non-game breeding birds protected by the MBTA and Fish and
Game Code. The breeding bird nesting season is typically from February 15
through September 15, but can vary slightly from year to year, usually
depending on weather conditions. Removing all physical features that could
potentially serve as nest sites will also help to prevent birds from nesting
within the project site during the breeding season and during construction
activities.
• If project activities cannot be avoided during February 15 through September
15, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction breeding bird survey
Project
Applicant and
Qualified
Biologist
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. Before and
During
Construction
❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 7-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
for breeding birds and active nests or potential nesting sites within the limits
of project disturbance. The survey shall be conducted at least seven days prior
to the onset of scheduled activities, such as mobilization and staging. It shall
end no more than three days prior to vegetation, substrate, and structure
removal and/or disturbance.
• If no breeding birds or active nests are observed during the pre-construction
survey or they are observed and shall not be impacted, project activities may
begin and no further mitigation shall be required.
• If a breeding bird territory or an active bird nest is located during the pre-
construction survey and will potentially be impacted, the site shall be mapped
on engineering drawings and a no-activity buffer zone shall be marked (fencing,
stakes, flagging, orange snow fencing, etc.) a minimum of 100 feet in all
directions or 500 feet in all directions for listed bird species and all raptors. The
biologist shall determine the appropriate buffer size based on the type of
activities planned near the nest and the type of bird that created the nest. Some
bird species are more tolerant than others of noise and activities occurring near
their nest. This no-activity buffer zone shall not be disturbed until a qualified
biologist has determined that the nest is inactive, the young have fledged, the
young are no longer being fed by the parents, the young have left the area, or
the young will no longer be impacted by project activities. Periodic monitoring
by a biologist shall be performed to determine when nesting is complete. Once
the nesting cycle has finished, project activities may begin within the buffer
zone.
• If listed bird species are observed within the project site during the pre-
construction survey, the biologist shall immediately map the area and notify
the appropriate resource agency to determine suitable protection measures
and/or mitigation measures and to determine if additional surveys or focused
protocol surveys are necessary. Project activities may begin within the area
only when concurrence is received from the appropriate resource agency.
• Birds or their active nests shall not be disturbed, captured, handled or moved.
Active nests cannot be removed or disturbed. However, nests can be removed
or disturbed if determined inactive by a qualified biologist.
MM BIO-2: Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) Project
Applicant and
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 7-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
Prior to project construction activities, a qualified biologist shall prepare and
conduct a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) that shall describe
the biological constraints of the project. All personnel who will work within the
project site shall attend the WEAP prior to performing any work. The WEAP shall
include, but not be limited to the following: results of pre-construction surveys;
description of sensitive biological resources potentially present within the project
site; legal protections afforded the sensitive biological resources; BMPs for
protecting sensitive biological resources (i.e., restrictions, avoidance, protection,
and minimization measures); individual responsibilities associated with the
project; and a training on grading to reduce impacts to biological resources. A
condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to
conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall
include a description of the species of concern and its habitats and the general
provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act). The penalties associated with
violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are being implemented
to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes
to the project site boundaries within which the project activities must be
accomplished. The program shall also include the reporting requirements if
workers encounter a sensitive wildlife species (i.e., notifying the biological monitor or the construction foreman, who shall then notify the biological monitor).
Training materials shall be language-appropriate for all construction personnel.
Upon completion of the WEAP, workers shall sign a form stating that they attended
the program, understand all protection measures, and shall abide all the rules of the
WEAP. A record of all trained personnel shall be kept with the construction foreman
at the project field construction office and shall be made available to any resource
agency personnel. If new construction personnel are added to the project later, the
construction foreman shall ensure that new personnel receive training before they
start working. The biologist shall provide written hard copies of the WEAP and
photos of the sensitive biological resources to the construction foreman.
The appropriate agencies shall be notified if a dead or injured protected species is
located within the project site. Written notification shall be made within 15 days of
the date and time of the finding or incident (if known) and must include: location of
Qualified
Biologist
3. Before and
During
Construction
❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 7-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
the carcass; a photograph; cause of death (if known); and other pertinent
information.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.5 b)
Would the project
cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
MM CUL-1Archaeological Monitoring: At least 30-days prior to grading permit
issuance and before any grading, excavation, and/or ground-disturbing activities on
the site take place, the project permittee/owner shall retain a Lead Archaeologist
who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for
Archaeology to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any
unknown archaeological resources. Prior to grading, the project permittee/owner
shall provide to the City verification that a certified archaeological monitor has been
retained. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a
cultural resources evaluation.
The Project Archaeologist shall manage and oversee monitoring for all initial ground
disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the project site including
clearing, grubbing, tree removals, mass or rough grading, trenching, stockpiling of
materials, rock crushing, structure demolition and etc. The Project Archaeologist
shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground
disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of
cultural resources in coordination with any required special interest or tribal
monitors.
A final report documenting the monitoring activity and disposition of any recovered
cultural resources shall be submitted to the City of Fontana and the South Central
Coastal Information Center within 60 days of completion of monitoring.
Qualified
Archaeologist
and Project
Contractor
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
Planning
Department
2. City of Fontana
Planning
Department
3. During
construction
activities
MM CUL 2
If archaeological resources are discovered during construction activities, the
contractor shall halt construction activities in the immediate area and notify the City
of Fontana. The project Lead Archaeologist will be notified and afforded the
necessary time to recover, analyze and curate the find(s). The qualified
archaeologist shall recommend the extent of archaeological monitoring necessary
to ensure the protection of any other resources that may be in the area. Any
identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A L)
form and filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center. Construction
Qualified
Archaeologist
and Project
Contractor
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
Planning
Department
2. City of Fontana
Planning
Department
3. During
construction
activities
❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 7-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
activities may continue on other parts of the project site while evaluation and
treatment of prehistoric archaeological resources takes place.
Threshold 4.5 c):
Would the project
disturb any human
remains, including
those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
MM CUL 3
If human remains are encountered during excavations associated with this project,
all work shall stop within a 30-foot radius of the discovery and the San Bernardino
County Coroner will be notified (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The
Coroner shall determine whether the remains are recent human origin or older
Native American ancestry. If the coroner, with the aid of the supervising
archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, they shall contact the
NAHC. The NAHC shall be responsible for designating the Most Likely Descendant
(MLD). The MLD (either an individual or sometimes a committee) shall be
responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by § 7050.5 of
the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD shall make recommendations within
24 hours of their notification by the NAHC. These recommendations may include
scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items
associated with Native American burials (§ 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code).
Project
Construction
Contractor
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
Planning
Department
2. City of Fontana
Planning
Department
3. During project
construction
activities
4.7 Geology and Soils
Threshold 4.7 f):
Would the project
directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological
resource or site or
unique geologic
feature?
MM GEO 1
Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall provide a letter to the
City of Fontana Planning Department, or designee, from a qualified paleontologist
stating that the paleontologist has been retained to provide services for the project.
The paleontologist shall develop, as needed, a Paleontological Resources Impact
Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) to mitigate the potential impacts to unknown buried
paleontological resources that may exist onsite for the review and approval by the
City. The PRIMP shall require that the paleontologist perform paleontological
monitoring of any ground disturbing activities within undisturbed native sediments
during mass grading, site preparation, and underground utility installation. The
project paleontologist shall reevaluate the necessity for paleontological monitoring
after 50 percent or greater of the excavations have been completed. In the event
paleontological resources are encountered, ground-disturbing activity within 50
feet of the area of the discovery must cease. The paleontologist shall examine the
materials encountered, assess the nature and extent of the find, and recommend a
course of action to further investigate and protect or recover and salvage those
resources that have been encountered. Criteria for discard of specific fossil
Qualified
Paleontologist
and Project
Contractor
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
Planning
Department
2. City of Fontana
Planning
Department
3. During
construction
activities
❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 7-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
specimens shall be made explicit. If the qualified paleontologist determines that
impacts to a sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be
avoided by project planning, then recovery shall be applied. Actions may include
recovering a sample of the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring
work and halting construction if a significant fossil needs to be recovered, and/or
cleaning, identifying, and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes.
Recovery, salvage and treatment shall be done at the Applicant’s expense. All
recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification
and permanent preservation by the paleontologist. Resources shall be identified and
curated into an established accredited professional repository. The paleontologist
shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the
resource.
4.17 Traffic
Threshold 4.17 d)
Would the project
result in inadequate
emergency access?
MM TRANS-1
The Transportation Management Plan (TMP) shall be reviewed and approved by the
City’s Traffic Engineer prior to the start of construction activity in the public right-
of-way (ROW). The typical TMP requires items such as the installation of K-rail
between the construction area and open traffic lanes, the use of flagmen and
directional signage to direct traffic where only one travel lane is available or when
equipment movement creates temporary hazards, and the installation of steel plates
to cover trenches under construction. The TMP shall stipulate that emergency
access must be maintained at all times.
Project
Applicant
Contract
Specifications
1. City of Fontana
Planning
Department
2. City of Fontana
Planning
Department
3. During
construction
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.18 b):
Would the project
cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource that is
determined to be a
significant resource to a
California Native
MM TCR-1
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. If funerary objects are discovered during grading or archeological
excavations, they shall be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain
intact and the construction contractor and/or qualified archeologist shall consult
with the tribe [to be determined].
Qualified
Archaeologist
and Project
Contractor
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
Planning
Department
2. City of Fontana
Planning
Department
3. During
construction
❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7167/Citrus Avenue Condominium Project Page 7-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2022
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
American tribe
pursuant to the criteria
set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resource
Code § 5024.1(c)?
MM TCR-2
As specified by California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5, if human remains are
found on the project site during construction or during archaeological work, the San
Bernardino County Coroner’s office shall be immediately notified and no further
excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected
to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the Coroner has made the necessary
findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98.
The Coroner shall determine, within two working days of being notified, if the
remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to
be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall make a determination as to
the Most Likely Descendent.
Qualified
Archaeologist
and Project
Contractor
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
Planning
Department
2. City of Fontana
Planning
Department
3. During
construction