HomeMy WebLinkAboutMCN No. 22-077 Fontana Foothill Apartments Project - Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared for
Frontier Enterprises
2151 East Convention Center Way, Suite 114
Ontario, California 91764
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
November 2022
Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared for
Frontier Enterprises
2151 East Convention Center Way, Suite 114
Ontario, California 91764
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
November 2022
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.
Table of Contents
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration i
Table of Contents
Initial Study .............................................................................................................................................1
1. Project Title .........................................................................................................................1
2. Lead Agency Name and Address .........................................................................................1
3. Contact Person and Phone Number ...................................................................................1
4. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address .................................................................................1
5. Project Location ..................................................................................................................1
6. Description of Project Site ..................................................................................................4
7. General Plan Designation ....................................................................................................4
8. Zoning..................................................................................................................................4
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ....................................................................................4
10. Description of Project .........................................................................................................6
11. Required Approvals .......................................................................................................... 17
12. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ....................................................... 17
13. Tribal Consultation ........................................................................................................... 17
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................................ 19
Determination ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Environmental Checklist ...................................................................................................................... 21
1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 21
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................. 25
3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 27
4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 41
5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 47
6 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 51
7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 57
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................. 63
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... 71
10 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 77
11 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................... 81
12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 83
13 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 85
14 Population and Housing ................................................................................................... 99
15 Public Services ................................................................................................................ 101
16 Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 107
17 Transportation ............................................................................................................... 109
18 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 115
19 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................... 119
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
ii
20 Wildfire .......................................................................................................................... 125
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................... 129
References ......................................................................................................................................... 133
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 133
List of Preparers ......................................................................................................................... 138
Tables
Table 1 Project Summary .................................................................................................................6
Table 2 Health Effects Associated with Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants ............................... 28
Table 3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in San Bernardino County of SCAB .................. 29
Table 4 Ambient Air Quality at the Nearest Monitoring Stations ................................................ 30
Table 5 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds ..................................................................... 31
Table 6 SCAQMD LSTs for Construction in SRA 34 ....................................................................... 32
Table 7 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions......................................................... 34
Table 8 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions .......................................................... 35
Table 9 Unmitigated Project LST Construction Emissions ............................................................ 37
Table 10 Mitigated Project LST Construction Emissions ................................................................ 39
Table 11 2020 Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption ............................................................... 52
Table 12 2020 Annual Gasoline and Diesel Consumption .............................................................. 52
Table 13 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Construction (gallons) ........................................... 53
Table 14 Estimated Project Annual Operational Energy Consumption .......................................... 54
Table 15 Construction GHG Emissions ........................................................................................... 66
Table 16 Combined Annual Emissions ........................................................................................... 66
Table 17 Consistency with Applicable SCAG RTP/SCS GHG Emission Reduction Strategies .......... 68
Table 18 Project Consistency with Applicable Policies from the Fontana General Plan ................ 69
Table 19 AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage .......................................... 87
Table 20 Vibration Annoyance Potential (Maximum PPV in in/sec) .............................................. 88
Table 21 Project Site Vicinity Sound Level Monitoring Results ...................................................... 89
Table 22 Sound Level Monitoring Traffic Counts ........................................................................... 89
Table 23 Noise Standards ............................................................................................................... 94
Table 24 Existing and Proposed ADT Volume ................................................................................. 97
Table 25 Project Consistency with Fontana Circulation System Plans ......................................... 111
Table 26 Normal Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison (acre-feet per year [AFY]) ......... 122
Table 27 Single and Multiple Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY) ............... 122
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................2
Figure 2 Project Location ..................................................................................................................3
Figure 3 Site Photographs .................................................................................................................5
Figure 4 Site Plan ...............................................................................................................................8
Table of Contents
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration iii
Figure 5 13 Plex Ground level ...........................................................................................................9
Figure 6 13 Plex Second Floor ........................................................................................................ 10
Figure 7 13 Plex Third Floor ........................................................................................................... 11
Figure 8 16 Plex Ground level ........................................................................................................ 12
Figure 9 16 Plex Second Floor ........................................................................................................ 13
Figure 10 16 Plex Third Floor ........................................................................................................... 14
Figure 11 Conceptual Recreation Center ......................................................................................... 15
Figure 12 Conceptual Pool Area ....................................................................................................... 16
Figure 13 Noise Measurement Locations ........................................................................................ 90
Appendices
Appendix A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix B CalEEMod Data Output
Appendix C Cultural Resources Technical Study
Appendix D Energy Use Calculations
Appendix E Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix F Noise Study
Appendix G Transportation Analysis
Appendix H Site Feasibility Study
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
iv
This page intentionally left blank.
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 1
Initial Study
1. Project Title
Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Fontana
Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Salvador Quintanilla, Associate Planner
squintanilla@fontana.org
(909) 350-6656
4. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
Frontier Enterprises
2151 East Convention Center Way, Suite 114
Ontario, California 91764
Contact: Tim Nguyen, Acquisitions & Development
5. Project Location
The Fontana Foothill Apartments Project (hereafter refer to as “project” or “proposed project”) site
is located at 17795 Foothill Boulevard near the intersection of Alder Avenue and Foothill Boulevard
in the City of Fontana, California.
The project site encompasses approximately seven acres and is identified as Assessor Parcel
Numbers (APNs) 0246-011-24, 0246-011-25, 0246-011-26, 0246-011-11, 0246-011-27, 0246-011-33
and 0246-011-37. Regional vehicular access to the project site is provided by Interstate 10 (I-10),
Interstate 15 (I-15) and State Route 210 (SR-210). The project site is locally accessible by Foothill
Boulevard. If approved, the site will be accessible for project residents via Alder Avenue. Regional
mass transit service is provided by OmniTrans, with the closest bus stops being at the intersection of
Alder Avenue and Foothill Boulevard serving OmniTrans bus route 14. Figure 1 shows the location of
the project site in the region and Figure 2 depicts the location of the site in its neighborhood
context.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
2
Figure 1 Regional Location
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 3
Figure 2 Project Location
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
4
6. Description of Project Site
The project site is currently vacant with concrete slabs and asphalt parking area. The project site is
located in an urbanized area primarily developed with residential, and commercial land uses. The
project site is generally flat, with elevations ranging from 1,294 to 1,310 feet above mean sea level
(amsl) and consists of vacant, nonnative grassland and an existing degraded parking lot. According
to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the project, the site has historically
been used for agricultural purposes from at least 1938 until at least 1949. The site appears to have
been occupied with structures from at least 1953 until at least 2016. Figure 3 provides current site
photographs.
7. General Plan Designation
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Multi-Family Medium/High Density
Residential (R-MFMH). Typical development in this residential category includes mixed-use or multi-
family housing, such as condominiums, townhomes, and apartments. The designation emphasizes
the intensification of development and encourages reduced reliance on motor vehicles while
creating activity centers such as active commercial and employment centers located near major
community facilities and along arterial corridors.
8. Zoning
The project site has a zoning designation of Multi-Family/High Density Residential (R-4), which
permits densities of 24.1-39 dwelling units per acre.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project site is in an urban area and is surrounded by residential and commercial uses consisting
of a Foothill Boulevard and beyond a residents and commercial use to the north, commercial uses
east, residential use to the south and commercial uses and Alder Avenue to the west. The project
site is located along Omnibus route 14 that runs along Foothill Boulevard. There is a bus stop
approximately 315 feet from the project entrance.
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 5
Figure 3 Site Photographs
Photograph 1. Center of site looking north. Photograph 2. Center of site looking south.
Photograph 3. Center of site looking northwest. Photograph 4. Center of site looking east.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
6
10. Description of Project
The 17795 Foothill Boulevard Project (hereafter referred to as proposed project or project) involves
the construction of 15, three story buildings containing 201 multi-family residential units within a
gated community, and a leasing office/recreation area. The project would contain 94 one-bedroom
units, 101 two-bedroom units and six three-bedroom units for a total of 201 units. Figure 4 shows
the proposed conceptual site plan.
The 15 buildings would be split between two lay outs, 13 total 13-plex layout buildings and two 16-
plex layout buildings. The 13-plex layout building would contain 11,197 square feet divided into five
one-bedroom units, and eight two-bedroom units. Additionally, two of the eight two-bedroom units
would be accessible units on the ground floor. The 16-plex layout would be 13,182 square foot
building. The 16 units would be composed of seven one-bedroom units, two accessible one-
bedroom unit, one accessible two-bedroom unit and six two-bedroom units. Floor plans for the
13-plex lay out can be seen in Figure 5 through Figure 7 and the 16-plex lay out can be seen in
Figure 8 through Figure 10.
Project amenities would include a pool and approximately 4,792 square feet of total open space
including a 646-square foot fitness center, and a 623-square foot clubroom. The 15 buildings would
contain ground floor parking garages that would provide a total of 182 parking spaces. Additional
parking would be provided on the project site including 19 carport spaces and 151 uncovered
spaces.
The project site would be accessible for residents and visitors via Foothill Boulevard and a gated
entrance on Alder Avenue. Pedestrians would be able to access the project site via the sidewalks
along Foothill Boulevard. Table 1 provides the details of the proposed buildings. Figure 11 and
Figure 12 illustrate the conceptual recreation center and conceptual pool area.
Table 1 Project Summary
Buildings
15 House Structures
One bedroom
Two bedroom
Three bedroom
94 units
101 units
6 units
Total Housing Units 201
Gross Density 28.7 dwelling units/acre
Building Breakdown
13 plex layout
One-bedroom Units 5 units
Two-bedrooms Units 6 units
Two-bedroom Accessible Units 2 units
16 plex layout
One bedroom 7 units
Two bedrooms 6 units
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 7
Buildings
One-bedroom Accessible Units 2 units
Two-bedroom Accessible Units 1 unit
Parking
Garage Spaces 182 spaces
Carport Spaces 19 spaces
Uncovered Spaces 151 spaces
Total Parking 352 spaces
Landscaping, Open Space, and Other Uses
Ground Level
Entry Lobby and Leasing 580 sf
Clubroom 623 sf
Fitness Room 646 sf
Prep Kitchen 87 sf
Office 280 sf
Copy/Storge Room 174 sf
Restrooms 423 sf
Maintenance Room 248 sf
Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing Room 102 sf
Mailbox Area 363 sf
Outdoor Event Area 401 sf
Entry Porch Area 69 sf
Outdoor Hallway 155 sf
Pool Area
Pool Equipment 244 sf
Showers 51 sf
Storage 29 sf
Total 3,994 sf
sf = square feet
Construction
Construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction, asphalt
paving, and architectural coating. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to occur over
an approximately two-year period beginning in June 2023 and ending in June 2025. Construction
would occur Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and Saturdays
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. pursuant to the Fontana Municipal Code (FMC)
construction standards.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
8
Figure 4 Site Plan
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 9
Figure 5 13 Plex Ground level
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
10
Figure 6 13 Plex Second Floor
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 11
Figure 7 13 Plex Third Floor
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
12
Figure 8 16 Plex Ground level
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 13
Figure 9 16 Plex Second Floor
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
14
Figure 10 16 Plex Third Floor
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 15
Figure 11 Conceptual Recreation Center
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
16
Figure 12 Conceptual Pool Area
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 17
11. Required Approvals
The proposed project would require approval of a Tentative Parcel Map, Design Review approval,
and approval of this IS-MND by the City of Fontana.
12. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
The City of Fontana is the lead agency for the proposed project and no approvals are required from
any other agency.
13. Tribal Consultation
Five tribes have requested notification of projects in Fontana: the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians,
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation), Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians, Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, and San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians. Pursuant to
PRC Section 21080.3.1, the City mailed consultation letters to these tribes on August 4, 2022.
The City received a response from the Kizh Nation on August 4, 2022 requesting consultation to
discuss the proposed project in further detail. In addition, the City received a response from the
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation on August 23, 2022. For further discussion of tribal cultural
resources in this IS-MND please refer to Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Section 5, Cultural
Resources. The City of Fontana will continue to comply with all applicable tribal consultation
requirements of PRC Section 21080.3.1 and all other applicable regulations as the proposed project
moves through the required review and approval process.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
18
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 19
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least
one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
■ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources
□ Noise □ Population/Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Resources
□ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire ■ Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than
significant with mitigation incorporated” impact on the environment, but at least one
effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Environmental Checklist Aesthetics
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 21
Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? □ □ □ ■
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from a publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality? □ □ ■ □
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? □ □ ■ □
A scenic vista is defined as a public viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued
landscape for the benefit of the general public. Public views are those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point, such as a roadway or public park. The California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) manages the California State Scenic Highway Program, which designates
State scenic highways. A scenic highway becomes officially designated when the local governing
body applies to and is approved by Caltrans for scenic highway designation and adopts a Corridor
Protection Program that preserves the scenic quality of the land that is visible from the highway
right of way (Caltrans 2021).
The City of Fontana lies within a desert valley floor, with the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and
the Jurupa Hills to the south. Elevations range from approximately 1,700 feet above mean sea level
(amsl) in the northern portion of the valley and 1,000 feet amsl in the southern portion. The project
site is in a highly urbanized area that includes residential and commercial uses. The project site’s
surroundings reflect 20th-century suburban models of community design, characterized by
separated land uses and limited connectivity (City of Fontana 2018a).
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
22
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
The San Gabriel Mountains are located north of the city, approximately 6.5 miles north of the
project site. These mountains are the city’s most prominent visual feature, rising above the
community with scenic views toward the mountains. The San Gabriel Mountains can primarily be
seen along roadway corridors and in breaks between development in the project area. Panoramic
views also exist from the base of the mountains toward Fontana. The Jurupa Hills are the highest
point in the city and offer scenic vistas of the San Gabriel Mountains and surrounding valleys,
particularly from Martin Tudor Jurupa Hills Regional Park, located approximately 4.5 miles
southwest of the project site. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, views of the San Gabriel
Mountains and Jurupa Hills are primarily available from the northernmost and southernmost
portions of the city. Other significant natural landforms in Fontana include Lytle Creek and other dry
washes that have intermittent water flow from the mountains and are visible from the I-15 corridor
in the northern portion of the city (City of Fontana 2018a).
The proposed project would change the appearance of the project site by constructing housing on
seven acres of vacant land. However, the project site is not within the vicinity of the scenic vista
areas discussed in the City’s General Plan EIR, such Martin Tudor Jurupa Hill Regional Park or the
base of the San Gabriel Mountains. Views of the project site are not readily available from these
scenic vistas due to the distance and intervening development between the project site and the
scenic vistas, Figure 3 provides current site photographs. Therefore, the proposed project would not
result in a significant impact to the public views available at scenic vistas in the project vicinity.
Furthermore, the proposed project would not substantially obscure public views of the San Gabriel
Mountains or the Jurupa Hills from nearby roadways or other public viewing areas. Views of the San
Gabriel Mountains to the north of the project site would continue to be available by Alder Avenue
and other nearby north-south corridors. Similarly, distant views of the Jurupa Hills, located to the
southwest of the project site, would continue to be available from Alder Avenue. Therefore, the
proposed project would not significantly obstruct or affect scenic vistas and public views in the city.
Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
The project site is not within or adjacent to a designated State scenic highway, as identified by
Caltrans. The nearest designated State scenic highway is a portion of Angeles Crest Highway (State
Route 2 or SR-2), located approximately 25 miles northwest of the project site. Due to the distance
from the project site and intervening development, the project site is not visible from SR-2.
Furthermore, the project site does not contain any scenic resources such as natural habitats or rock
outcroppings, nor is it in proximity to any such resources. Additionally, as described in Section 5,
Cultural Resources, the project site does not contain any historic buildings. Therefore, there would
be no impacts related to scenic resources near a designated State scenic highway.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Aesthetics
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 23
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
The project site is surrounded by residential and commercial development and is located in an
urbanized area of the city. The project would involve development of a vacant seven-acre site with
15, three-story buildings containing 201 multi-family residential units within a gated community,
and a leasing office/recreation area. The project site is zoned Multi-Family/High Density Residential
(R-4) (which permits a residential density of 24.1-39 dwelling units per acre), with a General Plan
land use designation of Multi-Family High Residential. The proposed uses are permitted under the
existing land use and zoning designations. Furthermore, the project would be designed to comply
with all applicable development standards regulating scenic quality within the FMC. Standards
include building scale, frontage and site layout, street scape, open space, parking, signage, lighting,
landscaping and architecture. As illustrated in the above discussion and in Figure 2, the proposed
project would be consistent with the applicable land use designation, zoning requirements, and City
of Fontana General Plan policies related to scenic quality.
While development of the project would change the appearance and use of the project site relative
to its existing conditions, it would not degrade the visual character or quality of the site. Rather, the
project would change the existing vacant area by developing a unified community with high-quality
visual features such as new shade trees and drought tolerant landscaping and a mix of building sizes
with complementary architectural treatment. Furthermore, the project would be compatible with
surrounding developments including the Orchards Apartments located approximately 0.5 mile to
the west of the project site, the Maple Hill Appartements located approximately 0.5 mile to the
east, and Club Royal Apartments located approximately 0.7 mile to the east. Therefore, the project
would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations regarding scenic quality and would
not significantly impact scenic quality in the area. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in the area?
The project is in an urban area of the city that is primarily developed with residential buildings and
commercial uses. The main sources of light and glare in the project area are streetlights and exterior
lighting associated with residential and commercial structures, as well as transient lighting from
vehicle headlights on nearby major roadways such as Alder Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The
development of the project would increase the intensity of lighting on the project site, from that of
the existing vacant area to the proposed multi-family residential community. New sources of light
and glare from the project include reflective windows, outdoor landscaping and safety lighting, and
light and glare from the increase in vehicles accessing the project site. All outdoor lighting would
comply with the development standards in the City’s Zoning and Development Code, Section 30-471
and Section 30-476(5) of the FMC requires low-level security lighting for all multiple-family
residential common parking areas, and for all other uses anticipated to have night-time activity. In
addition, all lights must be directed and shielded to prevent light and glare from spilling over onto
adjacent properties, thereby avoiding an adverse effect, and the lighting design must be compatible
with the architectural style of related buildings. Therefore, upon compliance with the City’s lighting
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
24
regulations, the project would have a less than significant impact related to light and glare in the
area.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 25
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC
Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined
by PRC Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract?
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined
in PRC Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
26
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?
Based on the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the project
site, the site was utilized for agricultural purposes from at least 1938 until 1949. However, the ESA
indicates that the property was depicted as developed on the 1975 topographic map sheet
(Appendix A).
Today the project site consists of a vacant lot with concrete slabs and a degraded parking lot. The
site has a land use designation of Multi-Family/High Density Residential (R-4) and is in an urbanized
area primarily developed with residential and commercial land uses. The Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation (DOC) identifies the project site
as Urban and Built-Up land (DOC 2021). In addition, there is no nearby Prime Farmland, Farmland of
Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance (DOC 2022). Therefore,
the project would not conflict with any landed zoned for agricultural use, forest land, timberland,
timberland zoned Timberland Production, or a Williamson Act contract. The project would not
directly or indirectly result in loss or conversion of forest land or farmland. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 27
3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ ■ □
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard? □ □ ■ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? □ ■ □ □
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? □ □ ■ □
Overview of Air Pollution
The federal and State Clean Air Acts (CAA) mandate the control and reduction of certain air
pollutants. Under these laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other
pollutants. Some pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust
stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide, volatile organic
compounds (VOC)/reactive organic gases (ROG),1 nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter with
diameters of ten microns or less (PM10) and 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, and lead.
Other pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as
ozone, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between
VOC and NOX. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone, and sulfate and nitrate particulates
(smog). Air pollutants can be generated by the natural environment, such as when high winds
suspend fine dust particles.
Air pollutant emissions are generated primarily by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources
can be divided into two major subcategories:
Point sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack.
Examples include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat.
1 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic
carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term VOC is used in this IS-MND.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
28
Area sources are widely distributed and include such sources as residential and commercial
water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and some
consumer products.
Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative
emissions, and can also be divided into two major subcategories:
On-road sources that may be legally operated on roadways and highways.
Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment.
Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes the non-desert
portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County. SCAB is
under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the SCAB is classified as being in
“attainment” or “nonattainment.” In areas designated as nonattainment for one or more air
pollutants, a cumulative air quality impact exists for those air pollutants. The human health
associated with these criteria pollutants, as presented in Table 2, already occurs in those areas as
part of the environmental baseline condition.
Table 2 Health Effects Associated with Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Adverse Effects
Ozone (1) Short-term exposures: pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals, and risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary
morphology and host defense in animals; (2) long-term exposures: risk to public health
implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in
animals after long-term exposures, and pulmonary function decrements in chronically
exposed humans; (3) vegetation damage; and (4) property damage.
Carbon monoxide (CO) Reduces oxygen delivery leading to: aggravation of chest pain (angina pectoris) and other
aspects of coronary heart disease; decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; impairment of central nervous system functions; and possible increased risk to fetuses.
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (1) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive
groups; (2) risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical and
cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; and (3) contribution to atmospheric
discoloration.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms that may include wheezing, shortness of
breath, and chest tightness during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma.
Suspended particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5)
(1) Excess deaths from short- and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction;
(4) adverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality;
(6) increased respiratory symptoms in children such as cough and bronchitis; and (7)
increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease, including asthma).
Lead (1) Short-term lead poisoning overexposures can cause anemia, weakness, kidney damage, and brain damage; (2) long-term exposures to lead increases risk for high blood pressure, heart disease, kidney failure, and reduced fertility.
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2021
Environmental Checklist Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 29
As the local air quality management agency, SCAQMD, must monitor air pollutant levels to ensure
that the NAAQS and CAAQS are met. If they are not met, the SCAQMD must develop strategies for
their region to meet the standards. The strategies to achieve attainment status are included as part
of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The SCAB is in nonattainment for ozone and PM2.5
federal standards. Also, the SCAB is in nonattainment for the State standard for PM10 and
designated unclassifiable or in attainment for all other federal and State standards (CARB 2020). The
proposed project is in San Bernardino County which is with the SCAB and under the jurisdiction of
the SCAQMD. This nonattainment status results from several factors, the primary ones being the
naturally diverse meteorological conditions that limits the dispersion and diffusion of pollutants, the
limited capacity of the local airshed to eliminate air pollutants, and the number, type, and density of
emission sources within the SCAB. The attainment status for San Bernardino County portion of SCAB
is included in Table 3.
Table 3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in San Bernardino County of SCAB
Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation
O3 Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Sources: CARB 2020, USEPA 2022
The SCAQMD operates a network of air quality monitoring stations throughout the SCAB. The
monitoring stations aim to measure ambient concentrations of pollutants and determine whether
ambient air quality meets the California and federal standards. SCAQMD has divided the air basin
into general forecast and air monitoring areas. Current air quality information is obtained from the
same, or closest monitoring area (or source receptor area [SRA]) where the proposed project is
located. The project site is in SRA 34 along with the closest monitoring station, which is the Fontana-
Arrow Highway (located at 14360 Arrow Boulevard in Fontana), approximately four miles southwest
of the project site. This station collects 8-hour ozone, hourly O3, NO2, PM2.5, and PM10
measurements. Table 4 indicates the number of days each federal and State standard exceeded at
Fontana-Arrow Highway. As shown for the 2018 through 2020, O3 measurements exceeded the
federal and State O3 standards. PM10 measurements exceeded the State standard in the years 2018
through 2020. Also, PM2.5 measurements exceeded the federal PM2.5 standard exceedances in 2019
and 2020. No other State or federal standards were exceeded at these monitoring stations. Since CO
and SO2 are in attainment with the SCAB region, they are not monitored at the nearest air
monitoring stations and therefore ambient air quality is not reported for these two pollutants.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
30
Table 4 Ambient Air Quality at the Nearest Monitoring Stations
Pollutant 2018 2019 2020
8-Hour Ozone (ppm), 8-Hour Average 0.111 0109 0.111
Number of Days of State exceedances (>0.070 ppm) 69 67 89
Number of days of federal exceedances (>0.070 ppm) 69 67 89
Ozone (ppm), Worst Hour 0.141 0.124 0.151
Number of days of State exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 38 41 56
Nitrogen Dioxide (ppm) - Worst Hour 0.063 0.076 0.066
Number of days of State exceedances (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Number of days of federal exceedances (>0.10 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter 10 microns, µg/m3, Worst 24 Hours 64.1 88.8 76.8
Number of days of State exceedances (>50 µg/m3) 8 11 6
Number of days above federal standard (>150 µg/m3) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter <2.5 microns, µg/m3, Worst 24 Hours 29.2 81.3 57.6
Number of days above federal standard (>35 µg/m3) 0 3 4
Measurements were taken from Fontana-Arrow Highway monitoring station
Source: CARB 2022b
Air Quality Management Plan
Since the SCAB currently exceeds ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS standard, the SCAQMD is required to
implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to achieve attainment of the NAAQS. The SCAQMD
2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) is a regional blueprint designed to meet the
NAAQS and demonstrate how attainment will be reached. The 2016 AQMP represents a thorough
analysis of existing and potential regulatory control options, includes available, proven, and cost-
effective strategies, and seeks to achieve multiple goals in partnership with other entities promoting
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and toxic risk, as well as efficiencies in energy use,
transportation, and goods movement. The 2016 AQMP determines that, with implementation of the
proposed control strategy, the SCAB can expect to reach attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard by July 15, 2024, and the 2012 annual PM2.5 by 2025. The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 did not meet
the attainment date of December 31, 2019, which required SCAQMD to revise the plan to meet
standard as early as possible. SCAQMD expects the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 to achieve attainment status
by 2023 (SCAQMD 2017; SCAQMD 2020). SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP, an update to the 2016 AQMP, is
being prepared and would be developed to address current nonattainment pollutants, such as the
2006 24-hour PM2.5.
Air Emission Thresholds
The SCAQMD approved the CEQA Air Quality Handbook in 1993. Since then, the SCAQMD has
provided supplemental guidance on their website to address changes to the methodology and
nature of CEQA. Some of these changes include recommended thresholds for emissions associated
with both construction and operation of the project are used to evaluate a project’s potential
regional and localized air quality impacts (SCAQMD 2019).
Environmental Checklist Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 31
Regional Thresholds
Table 5 presents the significance thresholds for regional construction and operational-related
criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions being used for the purposes of this analysis.
Table 5 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
75 pounds per day of VOC 55 pounds per day of VOC
100 pounds per day of NOX 55 pounds per day of NOX
550 pounds per day of CO 550 pounds per day of CO
150 pounds per day of SOX 150 pounds per day of SOX
150 pounds per day of PM10 150 pounds per day of PM10
55 pounds per day of PM2.5 55 pounds per day of PM2.5
VOC: volatile organic compound; NOX: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOX: sulfur oxides; PM10: particulate matter measuring
10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5: particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns in diameter or less
Source: SCAQMD 2019
Localized Significance Thresholds
In addition to the above regional thresholds, the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significance
Thresholds (LSTs) in response to concern regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in
local communities. LSTs have been developed for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 and represent the
maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an air quality exceedance of
the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive
receptor. LSTs take into consideration ambient concentrations in each SRA, distance to the sensitive
receptor, and project size. LSTs have been developed for emissions generated in construction areas
up to five acres in size. LSTs only apply to emissions in a fixed stationary location and are not
applicable to mobile sources, such as cars on a roadway (SCAQMD 2009a).
The project site is within SRA 34 (Central San Bernardino Valley). SCAQMD provides LST lookup
tables for project sites that measure one, two, or five acres. The project site is approximately seven
acres. Therefore, the LST analysis conservatively uses five-acre LSTs. LSTs are provided for receptors
at a distance of 82 feet (25 meters) 164 feet (50 meters), 328 feet (100 meters), 656 (200 meters),
1,640 feet (500 meters) from the project disturbance boundary to the sensitive receptors. The
border of construction activity would occur immediately adjacent to single-family residences located
to the south, east, and west of the project site. According to the SCAQMD’s publication, Final LST
Methodology, projects with boundaries located closer than 82 feet to the nearest receptor should
use the LSTs for receptors located at 82 feet (SCAQMD 2009a). Therefore, the analysis below uses
the LST values for 82 feet. LSTs for construction in SRA 34 on a five-acre site with a receptor 82 feet
away are shown in Table 6.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
32
Table 6 SCAQMD LSTs for Construction in SRA 34
Pollutant
Allowable Emissions from a Five+-acre Site
for a Receptor 82 Feet Away (lbs/day)
Gradual conversion of NOX to NO2 1501
CO 1,746
PM10 14
PM2.5 62
lbs/day = pounds per day; NOx = nitrogen oxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a
diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns
1The screening criteria for NOx were developed based on the 1-hour NO2 CAAQS of 0.18 ppm. Subsequently to publication of the
SCAQMD’s guidance the USEPA has promulgated a 1-hour NO2 NAAQS of 0.100 ppm. This is based on a 98th percentile value, which is
more stringent than the CAAQS. Because SCAQMD’s LSTs have not been updated to address this new standard, to determine if project
emissions would result in an exceedance of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, an approximated LST was estimated to evaluate the federal 1-hour NO2 standard. The revised LST threshold is calculated by scaling the NO2 LST for by the ratio of 1-hour NO2 standards (federal/state)
(i.e., 270 lbs/day * (0.10/0.18) =150 lbs/day).
2The screening criteria for PM2.5 were developed based on an Annual CAAQS of 15 mg/m3. Subsequently to publication of the
SCAQMD’s guidance the annual standard was reduced to 12 mg/m3. Because SCAQMD’s LSTs have not been updated to address this new standard, to determine if project emissions would result in an exceedance of the annual PM2.5 CAAQS, an approximated LST was estimated. The revised LST threshold is calculated by scaling the NO2 LST for by the ratio of 1-hour NO2 standards (federal/state) (i.e.,
8lb/day * (12/15) =6.4 lbs/day).
Source: SCAQMD 2009a
Toxic Air Containments Thresholds
SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds for the emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs)
based on health risks associated with elevated exposure to such compounds. For carcinogenic
compounds, cancer risk is assessed in terms of incremental excess cancer risk. A project would
result in a potentially significant impact if it would generate an incremental excess cancer risk of
10 in 1 million (1 x 10-6) or a cancer burden of 0.5 excess cancer cases in areas exceeding a one-in-
one-million risk. In addition, non-carcinogenic health risks are assessed in terms of a hazard index. A
project would result in a potentially significant impact if it would result in a chronic and acute
hazard index greater than 1.0 (SCAQMD 2019).
Methodology
Air pollutant emissions generated by project construction and operation were estimated using the
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod uses project-specific
information, including the project’s land uses, square footage for different uses (e.g., residential and
parking), and location, to model a project’s construction and operational emissions. The analysis
reflects the construction and operation of the project as described under Initial Study Section 6,
Description of Project Site, and Section 10, Description of the Project.
Construction emissions modeled include emissions generated by construction equipment used on
the project site and vehicle trips associated with construction, such as worker and vendor trips.
According to the project applicant, construction would start in June 2023. The applicant provided
the construction schedule and default CalEEMod construction equipment, worker trips, and vendor
trips were used for the model. Construction would occur over approximately two years, and any
excavated soil on-site would be balanced. The project would remove existing concrete and asphalt
during the grading phase. Based on aerial Google Earth measurements, 138,365 square feet of
Environmental Checklist Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 33
asphalt and concrete would be removed, adding approximately 641 hauling trips.2 It is assumed that
all construction equipment used would be diesel-powered and the project would comply with all
applicable regulatory standards. Construction activities of the project would comply with SCAQMD
Rule 403 for dust control measures and Rule 1113 for architectural coating VOC limits. In addition,
construction equipment and vehicles would be restricted to five minutes of idling or less.
Operational emissions modeled include mobile source emissions (i.e., vehicle emissions), energy
emissions, and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by vehicle trips to and
from the project site. Trip generation rates were sourced from the Traffic Analysis prepared by
Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Urban Crossroads, Inc 2022). The trip generation rates in CalEEMod were
adjusted to be consistent with the scoping agreement between City staff and Urban Crossroads for
the Traffic Analysis (see Appendix G), which is 1,416 vehicle trips per day. Due to rounding,
CalEEMod overestimates vehicle trips by one trip per day, resulting in a conservative estimate of
mobile emissions. Emissions attributed to energy use include natural gas consumption by appliances
as well as for space and water heating. Area source emissions are generated by landscape
maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings.
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
A project may be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would generate population, housing, or
employment growth exceeding forecasts used in the development of the AQMP. The 2016 AQMP,
the most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, incorporates local city general plans and the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)’s 2016 RTP/SCS socioeconomic forecast
projections of regional population, housing, and employment growth (SCAQMD 2017, SCAG 2016).3
The population growth forecasts in SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS estimate that the City of Fontana’s
population would increase to 280,900 people in 2040, which is an increase of 80,700 people from
the city’s population in 2012 (SCAG 2016). The project involves the development of 201 residential
units with garage and uncovered parking, and a recreational/leasing office area on the project site.
Based on Department of Finance (DOF) average household size of 4.02 persons per residential unit
in the City of Fontana, the project would potentially add an estimated 808 residents to the city’s
population (DOF 2021). The project would account for one percent of City’s total projected
population growth through year 2040. Therefore, potential population growth generated by the
project would be within the SCAG growth forecast.
The employment growth forecasts in SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS for City of Fontana estimate that the
total number of jobs would increase from 47,000 in 2012 to 70,800 in 2040, for an increase of
23,800 jobs (SCAG 2016b). This analysis conservatively assumes that all 808 new residents would
add to the existing labor pool in the region. The proposed project would account for less than four
percent of the city’s projected employment growth through year 2040; therefore, would be
consistent with the 2016 SCAG’s RTP/SCS.
In addition, the AQMP provides strategies and measures to reach attainment with the thresholds for
8-hour and 1-hour ozone and PM2.5. As shown in Table 7 and Table 8 on the following pages, the
project would not generate criteria pollutant emissions that would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for
ozone precursors (ROG and NOX) and PM2.5 Since the project would also be consistent with
2 138,365 SF divide by 27 to convert to cubic yards, then divide 16 cubic yard CalEEMod default hauling capacity per trip, then multiply by
2 to account for return trip = 641 hauling trips
3 On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council formally adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (titled Connect SoCal). However, the SIPs were adopted prior to this date and relies on the demographic and growth forecasts of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS; therefore, these forecasts are utilized in the analysis of the project’s consistency with the AQMP.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
34
population and housing, growth projections for the City, the project would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Potential impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
The SCAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for ozone and PM2.5 and a State
nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAB is designated unclassifiable or in
attainment for all other federal and State standards.
Construction Emissions
Project construction would generate temporary air pollutant emissions associated with fugitive dust
(PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy construction equipment and construction
vehicles. In addition, construction equipment would release VOC emissions during the drying of
architectural coating and paving phases. Table 7 summarizes the estimated maximum daily
emissions of pollutants during project construction. As shown therein, construction-related
emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, project construction would not 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. Impacts would be
less than significant.
Table 7 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
Construction Year VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2023 5 46 55 <1 15 8
2024 7 26 42 <1 4 2
2025 7 24 41 <1 4 2
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day) 7 46 55 <1 15 8
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = Volatile organic compounds; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter.
Notes: Some numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding considerations.
Source: CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix B, see Table 2.2 “Overall Operation-Mitigated” emissions. Highest of Summer and Winter
emissions results are shown for all emissions. The mitigated emissions account for project sustainability features and/or compliance with specific regulatory standards.
Environmental Checklist Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 35
Operational Emissions
Operation of the project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with area
sources (e.g., architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping equipment), energy
sources (i.e., use of natural gas for space and water heating), and mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips
to and from the project site). The SCAQMD regional thresholds are designed and recommended by
SCAQMD to be utilized to analyze both the potential for project-specific impacts and the significance
of the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts in the region. Table 8 summarizes the project’s
maximum daily operational emissions by emission source. As shown therein, operational emissions
would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, project operation
would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant.
Table 8 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions
Pollutant (lbs/day)
Emissions Source VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 5 <1 17 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile 4 5 41 <1 10 3
Total 9 6 58 <1 11 3
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = Volatile organic compounds; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter.
Notes: Some numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding considerations. Maximum on-site emissions are the highest
emissions that would occur on the project site from on-site sources, such as heavy construction equipment and architectural coatings, and excludes off-site emissions from sources such as construction worker vehicle trips and haul truck trips
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Sensitive Receptors
According to the SCAQMD, sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare
centers, long-term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement
homes (SCAQMD 1993). Off-site sensitive receptors nearest to the project site consist of single-
family residents located immediately south, east, and west of the project site. In addition, the
proposed project would introduce new sensitive receptors to the project site. Localized air quality
impacts to sensitive receptors typically result from CO hotspots, localized criteria air pollutant
emissions, and TACs, which are discussed in the following subsections.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO ambient air quality standard.
Localized CO hotspots can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots
can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the local CO
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
36
concentration exceeds the federal 1-hour standard of 35.0 parts per million (ppm) or the federal
and State 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm (CARB 2016).
The entire SCAB is in conformance with State and federal CO standards, and most air quality
monitoring stations no longer report CO levels. A detailed carbon monoxide analysis was conducted
during the preparation of the SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP. The locations selected for microscale
modeling in the 2003 AQMP included high average daily traffic (ADT) intersections in the SCAB that
are expected to experience the highest CO concentrations. The highest CO concentration observed
was at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue on the west side of Los Angeles
near Interstate 405. The concentration of CO at this intersection was 4.6 ppm, which is well below
the State and federal standards. The Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection has an ADT of
approximately 100,000 vehicles per day (SCAQMD 2003). The SCAB has been in attainment of
federal CO standards since 2007 (SCAQMD 2016). Monitoring stations within San Bernardino County
in 2020 recorded a max concentration of 1.7 parts per million for 1-hour CO and 1.2 parts per
million for 8-hour CO in Central San Bernardino Valley 1 (City of Fontana). The federal and State 8-
hour CO standards (9 ppm) and the federal and State 1-hour CO standards (35 ppm and 20 ppm,
respectively) were not exceeded (SCAQMD 2021).
According to the City of Fontana Traffic Volume Map, the 2021 traffic volumes west and east of the
Foothill Boulevard and Alder Avenue intersection, adjacent the project site, were 29,000 vehicles
per day (City of Fontana 2021). The project would add approximately 1,417 daily trips. Assuming all
trips traverse Foothill Boulevard and enter from the same intersection, total traffic through any
intersection would not exceed 30,417 vehicles per day. This is well below the SCAQMD’s CO analysis
of 100,000 vehicles per day; therefore, the project would not exceed the CO State and federal
standards. Impacts associated with CO hotspots would be less than significant.
Localized Significance Thresholds
The Final LST Methodology was developed to be used as a tool to analyze localized impacts
associated with project-specific level proposed projects. If the calculated emissions for the proposed
construction or operational activities are below the LST emission levels found on the LST mass rate
look-up tables (Appendix C of Final LST Methodology; SCAQMD 2009b) and no potentially significant
impacts are found to be associated with other environmental issues, then the proposed
construction or operation activity is not significant for air quality. The project analysis assumes main
construction activity would occur immediately adjacent to single-family residences. The allowable
emission for project utilizes the 82 feet receptor distance, and the project is in SRA 34 (Central San
Bernardino Valley). Table 9 summarizes the project’s maximum localized daily construction
emissions from the proposed project. As shown therein, localized construction emissions would
exceed SCAQMD LST thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore, project construction would result in
a potentially significant impact from localized criteria pollutant emissions.
Environmental Checklist Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 37
Table 9 Unmitigated Project LST Construction Emissions
Year
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum On-site Emissions 7 45 46 <1 14 8
SCAQMD LST N/A 150 1,746 N/A 14 6
Threshold Exceeded? N/A No No N/A Yes Yes
lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter
with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide
Notes: Some numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding considerations. Maximum on-site emissions are the highest emissions
that would occur on the project site from on-site sources, such as heavy construction equipment and architectural coatings, and
excludes off-site emissions from sources such as construction worker vehicle trips and haul truck trips
1 Maximum On-site emissions for PM10 is 14.1 lbs/day and rounded to 14 lbs/day in the table. See Appendix B for calculations.
Source: CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix B, see Table 3.2 – 3.6 “Overall Construction-mitigated” emissions. Highest of Summer and Winter emissions results are shown for all emissions. The mitigated emissions account for project sustainability features and/or
compliance with specific regulatory standards.
Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are defined by California law as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to
human health. The following subsections discuss the project’s potential to result in impacts related
to TAC emissions during construction and operation.
Construction
Construction-related activities would result in temporary project-generated emissions of diesel
particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site
preparation, grading, building construction, and other construction activities. DPM was identified as
a TAC by CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM (discussed in the
following paragraphs) outweighs the potential non-cancer health impacts (CARB 2022) and is
therefore the focus of this analysis.
Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period.
Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately two years. The dose to which
the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of
the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that
person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer
exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The
risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a
longer period of time.
The proposed project would be consistent with the applicable AQMP requirements and control
strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. However, given
the proximity to nearby sensitive receptors, due to the duration construction activities and the on-
site localized PM emission levels, potential impacts may occur. However, with incorporation of
Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the project would reduce DPM emissions by approximately 81 to
96 percent as compared to equipment that meet the Tier 2 off-road emissions standards, depending
on the specific horsepower rating of each piece of equipment. Thus, construction activities would
not expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations, and
construction-related health impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
38
Operation
CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) provides
recommended buffer distances between sensitive land uses and potential sources of air toxic
emissions (e.g., freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities,
dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities). The project would not be located within the
recommended siting distances for prominent TAC sources identified above. In addition, residential
land uses are not considered land uses that generate substantial TAC emissions based on reviewing
the air toxic sources listed in CARB’s guidelines. Therefore, the expected hazardous TACs generated
on-site (e.g., cleaning solvents, paints, landscape pesticides, etc.) for the proposed land uses would
be below thresholds warranting further study under the California Accidental Release Program. The
project would not expose off-site sensitive receptors to significant amounts of carcinogenic or toxic
air contaminants. Therefore, impacts associated with operational TACs would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure
AQ-1 Construction Emissions Reduction
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer and the Chief Building Official shall confirm
that the grading plan, building plans, and specifications stipulate that the following measures shall
be implemented:
All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or tracked) greater than 50 horsepower used during
construction activities shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 final standards Tier 4 certification can be for
the original equipment or equipment that is retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 Final standards.
Alternative Fuel (natural gas, propane, electric, etc.) construction equipment shall be
incorporated where available. These requirements shall be incorporated into the contract
agreement with the construction contractor. A copy of the equipment’s certification or model
year specifications shall be available upon request for all equipment on-site.
All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least three times per day
during excavation and construction.
Electricity shall be supplied to the site from the existing power grid to support the electric
construction equipment. If connection to the grid is determined to be infeasible for portions of
the project, a non-diesel fueled generator shall be used.
The project shall comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered
equipment and vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at a location, and the CARB In-Use
Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these would minimize emissions of TACs
during construction.
Significance After Mitigation
With incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the project would reduce PM10 and PM2,5 emissions
by approximately 25 and 32 percent, respectively, as compared to equipment that meet the Tier 2
off-road emissions standards, depending on the specific horsepower rating of each piece of
equipment. As shown in Table 10, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, criteria pollutant
emissions would be below LST thresholds. Therefore, construction activities would not expose
sensitive receptors to criteria pollutants and construction-related health impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
Environmental Checklist Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 39
Table 10 Mitigated Project LST Construction Emissions
Year
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum On-site Emissions 5 5 53 <1 11 5
SCAQMD LST N/A 150 1,746 N/A 14 6
Threshold Exceeded? N/A No No N/A No No
lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter
with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide
Notes: Some numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding considerations. Maximum on-site emissions are the highest emissions
that would occur on the project site from on-site sources, such as heavy construction equipment and architectural coatings, and
excludes off-site emissions from sources such as construction worker vehicle trips and haul truck trips
Source: CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix B, see Table 3.2 – 3.6 “Overall Construction-mitigated” emissions. Highest of Summer and Winter emissions results are shown for all emissions. The mitigated emissions account for project sustainability features and/or compliance with specific regulatory standards.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting
a substantial number of people?
During construction activities, heavy equipment and vehicles would emit odors associated with
vehicle and engine exhaust and during idling. However, these odors would be intermittent and
temporary and would cease upon completion, and odors disperse with distance. In addition, project
construction would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which specifies that a person
shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other
material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of
persons or to the public. Overall, project construction would not generate other emissions, such as
those leading to odors, affecting a substantial number of people. Construction-related impacts
would be less than significant.
With respect to operation, the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) identifies land uses
associated with odor complaints as agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, chemical and
food processing plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. Residential
uses are not identified on this list. In addition, solid waste generated by the proposed on-site uses
would be properly stored in lidded dumpsters and/or trash cans and collected by a contracted waste
hauler, ensuring that on-site waste would be managed and collected in a manner to prevent the
proliferation of odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate other emissions such as
those leading to odors affecting a substantial number of people, and no operational impact would
occur.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
40
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 41
4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ □ ■
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? □ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? □ □ □ ■
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? □ □ □ ■
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
42
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The undeveloped project site encompasses approximately seven acres and is in an urbanized area of
the city primarily developed with residential and commercial land uses. The literature review
identified 55 special status plants, 60 special status wildlife species, and nine sensitive natural
communities within a nine-quadrangle search of the project site. A biological survey was conducted
on March 18, 2022 between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. by Rincon biologist Sarah Toback.
The biological field survey involved walking transects across the entire project site to ensure
100 percent visual coverage. During the field investigation, no special status plant or wildlife species
were observed, and no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern were
observed on-site. The site supports one plant community, non-native grassland, and is classified as
disturbed. Ornamental trees, including pine trees (Pinus sp.) and tree of heaven (Ailanthus
altissima), line the perimeter of the project site. There are no existing structures on the project site.
Refer to Figure 4 for representative photographs of the project site.
The project site does not provide suitable habitat for any of the special status plants or wildlife
species identified in the literature review. Additionally, the project site is surrounded by urban
development and special status species and their habitats are absent from surrounding lands.
Therefore, special status species are not expected to occur on site. No active nests or birds
displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field survey. Although heavily disturbed, the
project has the potential to provide minimal foraging and nesting habitat for year-round and
seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area that are
adapted to disturbed areas and urban environments.
Migratory or other common nesting birds, while not designated as special status species, are
protected by the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and
may nest in the trees, shrubs, and grasses on-site. Therefore, construction of the project has the
potential to directly impact nesting birds by destroying a nest, or indirectly impact nesting birds
protected under the CFGC and MBTA by creating construction noise, dust, and other human
disturbances that may cause a nest to fail. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would
ensure compliance with the CFGC Section 3503 and the MBTA with respect to nesting birds by
reducing the impact through pre-construction nesting bird surveys and avoidance of active nests.
Furthermore, the site would include trees as part of the project’s landscaping and would continue to
provide nesting sites in an urban residential neighborhood, consistent with existing conditions.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 Nesting Bird Avoidance
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following measures shall be implemented no more than
seven days prior to the start of construction:
To avoid disturbance of nesting birds, including raptor species protected by the MBTA and
CFGC, construction activities related to the project, including, but not limited to, vegetation
removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird
breeding season (February 1 through August 31). If construction must begin during the breeding
season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than seven days
Environmental Checklist Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 43
prior to initiation of construction activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be
conducted on foot inside the project site, plus a 100-foot buffer, and in inaccessible areas (e.g.,
private lands) from afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted
by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in
Southern California.
If active nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be demarcated by a qualified biologist with
bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the
boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and
to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No parking, storage of materials, or
construction activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that
breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the
buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist.
A survey report by the qualified biologist documenting and verifying compliance with the
mitigation and with applicable State and federal regulations protecting birds shall be submitted
to the City. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods
when construction activities would occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent
impacts on these nests would occur.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Plant communities are considered sensitive biological resources if they have limited distributions,
have high wildlife value that include sensitive species, or are particularly susceptible to disturbance.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) ranks sensitive communities as “threatened” or
“very threatened.” The project is in a developed urban area and is not located within a vegetated or
open space area. The project site is defined by a non-native grassland community dominated by
non-native brome grasses (Bromus spp.) and other weedy/early successional plant species. Plant
species observed during the field investigations include common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia),
red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarum), long beaked filaree (Erodium botrys), cheeseweed (Malva
parviflora), and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima). These existing forb and grasses do not
constitute a sensitive natural community. Additionally, there is no riparian habitat on or near the
project site (USFWS 2022). Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse
effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities as none exist on the site or in
nearby areas. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
No riparian habitats, wetlands, or other water features have been identified on or adjacent to the
project site. The nearest mapped wetlands are located approximately one mile north of the project
site (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2022). Furthermore, the project site does not include
any discernable drainage courses, inundated areas, wetland vegetation, or hydric soils. As a result,
no State or federally protected wetlands or other waters that may be considered jurisdictional by
the CDFW, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
44
occur on or adjacent to the project site and regulatory approvals would not be required. Therefore,
the proposed project would not directly or indirectly have a substantial adverse effect on State or
federally protected wetlands or other jurisdictional waters. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Wildlife corridors are generally defined as connections between habitat areas that allow for physical
and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages may serve a
local purpose, such as between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature,
allowing movement across the landscape. Some habitat linkages may serve as migration corridors,
wherein animals periodically move away from an area and then subsequently return. Examples of
barriers or impediments to movement include housing and other urban development, roads,
fencing, or open areas with little vegetative cover.
As discussed above, the project site is in an urban area of the city surrounded by roads, residential
neighborhoods, and commercial development. The site is located approximately six miles from the
nearest open space and is separated from open space areas by existing development and roadways.
The project site does not contain any natural communities or habitat that would be expected to
support native wildlife nurseries or the movement of species. While the project site is undeveloped,
it consists of nonnative grasses of low habitat quality and does not form a native vegetation
community or constitute a valuable habitat area, nor does the site provide connections to any
nearby habitat areas, such as the San Gabriel Mountains. Therefore, the proposed project would not
result in impacts to the movement of native or migratory species or the use of native wildlife
nursery sites. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Article III, Section 28 of the FMC regulates the preservation, protection, and removal of trees on
public and private property in the city. The FMC provides permitting requirements for removals of
significant trees, heritage trees, and specimen trees. Significant trees in the City of Fontana include
southern California black walnut, coast live oak, deodora cedar, California sycamore, and London
plane. A heritage tree is a tree located on private and/or public property that meets the following
requirements:
Is of historical value because of its association with a place, building, natural feature, or event of
local, regional or national historical significance as identified by city council resolution; or
Is representative of a significant period of the city's growth or development (windrow tree,
European Olive tree); or
Is a protected or endangered species as specified by federal or state statute; or
Is deemed historically or culturally significant by the city manager or his or her designee because
of size, condition, location, or aesthetic qualities.
Specimen tree is defined as a mature tree (which is not a heritage or significant tree) which is an
excellent example of its species in structure and aesthetics and warrants preservation, relocation, or
Environmental Checklist Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 45
replacement. For removal of trees that are not considered significant, heritage, or specimen trees,
the FMC requires tree replacement or payment of a cash equivalent to the City’s tree fund.
Based on the results of the field survey, the project site contains one mature tree of heaven in the
northwestern portion of the project site along with several saplings interspersed throughout. This
tree is not included in the City’s list of significant trees, nor does the tree qualify as a heritage tree
or specimen tree. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources and there would be no impact.
NO IMPACT
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
The project site is not located within or near an area subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other approved habitat conservation plan at the
local, regional, or State levels (CDFW 2019). Therefore, no impact would occur, and no further
analysis of this issue is necessary.
NO IMPACT
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
46
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 47
5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5? □ ■ □ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ ■ □
CEQA requires a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on
historical resources (PRC Section 21084.1) and Tribal cultural resources (PRC Section 21074
[a][1][A]-[B]). Tribal cultural resources are discussed in Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources of this
IS-MND.
A historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California
Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); a resource included in a local register of historical
resources; or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead
agency determines to be historically significant (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[a][1-3]).
A resource shall be considered historically significant if it:
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage;
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition, if it can be demonstrated that a project would cause damage to a unique archaeological
resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these
resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources
cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Section 21083.2[a], [b]).
PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact,
object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the
current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is
a demonstrable public interest in that information;
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
48
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available
example of its type; or
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person.
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared a Cultural Resources Technical Study to evaluate project impacts
to historical and archaeological resources. The Cultural Resources Technical Study includes a cultural
resources records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), historical imagery
review, archival research, and a field survey of the project site, setting and surroundings. The
following analysis is based on the Cultural Resources Technical Study, which is provided in full as
Appendix C.
Rincon received results of a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System
(CHRIS) at the SCCIC located at California State University, Fullerton on May 4, 2022. The purpose of
the records search was to identify previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project
site and a 0.5-mile radius, and previously recorded cultural resources within the project site and a
0.5-mile radius. The CHRIS search included a review of the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP), CRHR, the Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory, the California
Inventory of Historic Resources, and the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list.
The SCCIC records search identified seven previously conducted cultural resources studies
performed within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, and one cultural resource previously recorded
within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. Two previous cultural resources studies included
portions of the project site, but neither identified historic resources. The record search results did
not identify any historical resources on the project site itself.
A Rincon archaeologist conducted a field survey of the project site on May 17, 2022 and again on
May 23, 2022. The southern and western portion of the project site had evidence of modern refuse
as well as refuse from unknown time periods. The survey also encountered a scatter of historic
bricks that were stamped with manufacturing marks, among other disassociated brick and concrete
objects.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
As detailed above, the project site contains no built environment historical resources. Rincon
completed a review of historical topographic maps and aerial imagery to ascertain the development
history of the project site. Historic topographic maps from 1896 depict a few structures, likely
houses, along Foothill Boulevard in the vicinity of the project site. By 1938, aerial imagery of the
proposed project property shows an orchard and a small residence near Foothill Boulevard. From
1948 to 1966, three houses fronting Foothill Boulevard appear on aerial images, but most of the
project site remains agricultural use and orchards. By 1985 most previous buildings had been
removed and buildings consistent with existing foundations have been constructed on the northern
portion of the site. Imagery from 2002 depicts structures are generally consistent with the remnant
foundations at the current project site. Imagery from 2018 depicts the project site in its current
condition (Appendix C). Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact to the
significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 49
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
A Rincon archaeologist conducted a field survey of the project site on May 17, 2022 and again on
May 23, 2022. The project site was intensively surveyed using transects spaced five to ten meters
apart and oriented north to south. The entire project site was subject to a 100 percent coverage
survey. Areas of exposed ground were inspected for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools,
tool-making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire-affected rock), ecofacts (marine shell and
bone), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, and
features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls,
postholes, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Ground disturbances such as
burrows and drainages were also visually inspected. The southern and western portion of the
proposed project property had evidence of modern refuse as well as refuse from unknown time
periods. The survey also encountered a scatter of historic bricks that were stamped with
manufacturing marks, among other disassociated brick and concrete objects.
As stated above, the southern and western portion of the proposed project property had evidence
of modern refuse as well as refuse from unknown time periods. The survey also encountered a
scatter of historic bricks that were stamped with manufacturing marks, among other disassociated
brick and concrete objects. The resource is a scatter of historic bricks that likely date to the early
20th century. A total of eight stamped bricks were encountered, among scattered refuse from
various undetermined ages. Seven of the bricks were stamped with “LACLEDE” or “LACLEDE KING”
while one was stamped with “ROYAL 72.” The LaClede Brick Manufacturing Company had its
inception in 1844, and was making high grade, dry press process fire bricks labeled “LACLEDE KING”
into the 1920s at least. These LaClede King stamped bricks were meant for high temperature uses,
often used for furnaces and kilns. Based on dates associated with the stamped bricks and general
land use patterns in the area, it is likely that this cultural resource (temporary field number Mariani
S-001H) dates to the early to mid-1920s (Appendix C). The resource as described lacks integrity of
original location and does not appear to be associated with any former structures on the project
site. The resource does not meet any of the criterion for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR, or local
designation. However, as there is evidence that project site has been used as a refuse dumping site
for various time periods, the area is sensitive for future unanticipated cultural resources. Therefore,
impacts to archaeological resources would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
CR-1 Archaeological Monitoring
The applicant shall retain a qualified archaeological to spot-check and/or monitor all project-related
ground disturbing activities. Archaeological monitoring shall be performed under the direction of an
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for
archeology (National Park Service 1983). Monitors will have the authority to halt and redirect work
should any archaeological resources be identified during monitoring. If archaeological resources are
encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and the find
evaluated for listing in the CRHR and NRHP. Archaeological monitoring may be reduced or halted at
the discretion of the project archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency, as warranted by
conditions such as encountering bedrock, sediments being excavated are fill, or negative findings
during the first 50 percent of ground-disturbance. If monitoring is reduced to spot-checking, spot-
checking shall occur when ground-disturbance moves to a new location within the project site and
when ground disturbance will extend to depths not previously reached (unless those depths are
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
50
within bedrock). The monitors shall submit a report to the City to document compliance within 30
days of completion of ground disturbing activities.
CR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources
In the event that archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing
activities, work in the immediate area should be halted within 50 feet of the find and an
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for
archeology (National Park Service 1983) should be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the
find is prehistoric, then a Native American representative should also be contacted to participate in
the evaluation of the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan
and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be eligible for the CRHR and
cannot be avoided by the proposed project, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may
be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts to historical resources.
Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires archaeological monitoring be conducted during ground disturbing
activities at the project site. Mitigation Measure CR-2 stipulates that if unanticipated archaeological
resources are encountered during ground disturbance, work in the immediate area of the find shall
stop and a qualified archaeologist should be contacted immediately. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures CR-1 and CR-2 would avoid or reduce the project’s potentially significant impacts to any
archaeological resources that may be found during ground disturbing activities.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
The project site is not part of a formal cemetery and is not known to have been used for disposal of
historic or prehistoric human remains. There are no known human remains on the site. Therefore,
human remains are not expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed project. In
the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during project construction, State Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires ground disturbance in the area of the find to halt until the
County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains
pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the proposed
project would not result in significant impacts due to disturbing human remains, and impacts would
be less than significant. Analysis of potential discovery of Native American human remains is
discussed further in Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this IS-MND.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Energy
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 51
6 Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ □ □ ■
The proposed project would consume energy during the construction and operation of the multi-
family residential units and leasing office/recreation area. The proposed project would install a
photovoltaic (PV) system to create electricity that would power the residential units and the leasing
office/recreation area to heat and cool the buildings. In addition, the proposed project would
consume gasoline and diesel fuels by on-road construction equipment during construction, including
haul and vendors trucks and operational vehicle mobile emissions to and from the project site.
Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) would provide
electricity and natural gas to the proposed project site.
Most of California’s electricity is generated in-state with approximately 30 percent imported from
the northwestern and southwestern states in 2020. However, California relies on out-of-state
natural gas imports for nearly 90 percent of its supply (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2021a
and 2021b). In addition, approximately 33 percent of California’s electricity supply in 2020 came
from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar photovoltaic, geothermal, and biomass (CEC
2021a). In 2018, Senate Bill 100 accelerated the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standards Program,
codified in the Public Utilities Act, by requiring electricity providers to increase procurement from
eligible renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60
percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045. Table 11 summarizes the electricity and natural gas
consumption for San Bernardino County, in which the project site would be located, and for SCE and
SoCalGas, as compared to statewide consumption.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
52
Table 11 2020 Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption
Energy Type San Bernardino County SCE/SoCalGas California
Proportion of SCE/SoCal Gas Consumption
Proportion of Statewide Consumption1
Electricity (GWh) 15,969 83,5332 279,159 19%2 6%
Natural Gas
(millions of therms)
527 5,2313 12,332 10%3 4%
GWh = gigawatt-hours
1 For reference, the population of San Bernardino County (2,187,665 persons) is approximately 5.6 percent of the population of California (39,185,605 persons) (California Department of Finance 2022). 2 Southern California Edison Provider
3 Southern California Gas Provider
Source: CEC 2021c
Petroleum fuels are primarily consumed by on-road and off-road equipment in addition to some
industrial processes, with California being one of the top petroleum-producing states in the nation
(CEC 2021d). Gasoline, which is used by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles, is
the most used transportation fuel in California with 12.6 billion gallons sold in 2020 (CEC 2021e).
Diesel, which is used primarily by heavy duty-trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats and
barges, farm equipment, and heavy-duty construction and military vehicles, is the second most used
fuel in California with 1.7 billion gallons sold in 2020 (CEC 2021e). Table 12 summarizes the
petroleum fuel consumption for San Bernardino County, as compared to statewide consumption.
Table 12 2020 Annual Gasoline and Diesel Consumption
Fuel Type San Bernardino County (million gallons) California (million gallons) Proportion of Statewide Consumption1
Gasoline 823 12,572 7%
Diesel 159 1,744 9%
1 For reference, the population of San Bernardino County (2,187,665 persons) is approximately 5.6 percent of the population of
California (39,185,605 persons) (DOF 2022).
Source: CEC 2021e
Methodology
Fuel consumption associated with project construction and operation was estimated based on the
CalEEMod outputs (Appendix B). The project assumptions for CalEEMod are described under
Section 3, Air Quality. The project’s fuel consumption during construction activities was estimated
based on the applicant-provided construction schedule. In addition, the default CalEEMod
assumption for the number of construction equipment and construction vehicle trips (e.g., worker
and vendor trips). The proposed project would require removing approximately 138,365 square feet
of asphalt and concrete based on aerial google earth measurements, adding 641 hauling trips. See
Appendix B for construction equipment and vehicle fuel consumption calculations.
Operational fuel consumption was based on the project’s anticipated average daily vehicle trips, and
the project’s residential consumptions of electricity and natural gas. Default CalEEMod assumption
for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per trip were used. Annual VMT is calculated and found in the
CalEEMod outputs. Operational fuel consumption is estimated by multiplying the annual VMT by the
Environmental Checklist Energy
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 53
default CalEEMod fleet mix and the average fuel economy. See Appendix B for the operational fuel
consumption calculations of the project.
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
The proposed project would use nonrenewable and renewable resources for the construction and
operation of the project. The anticipated use of these resources is detailed in the following
subsections. As supported by the discussion below, the proposed project would not result in the
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources that would result in a
significant environmental impact.
Construction Energy Demand
The project would require site preparation and grading, including hauling material off-site;
pavement and asphalt installation; building construction; architectural coating; and landscaping and
hardscaping. During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of petroleum-
based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site,
construction worker travel to and from the project site, and vehicles used to deliver materials to the
site. The consumption of electricity and natural gas to power the project’s off-road construction
vehicles and equipment would be negligible based on standard construction vehicle fleet mix fuel
consumption. As shown in Table 13, project construction would require approximately 69,538
gallons of gasoline and approximately 180,515 gallons of diesel fuel. These construction energy
estimates are conservative because they assume that the construction equipment used in each
phase of construction is operating every day of construction.
Table 13 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Construction (gallons)
Source Gasoline Diesel
Construction Equipment & Hauling Trips − 180,515
Construction Worker Vehicle Trips 69,538 −
See Appendix D for energy calculation sheets
Energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used
would be typical of similar-sized construction projects in the region. In addition, construction
contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-
road diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel
consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the USEPA Construction Equipment Fuel
Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel
consumption. Furthermore, per applicable regulatory requirements such as California’s Green
Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR, Title 24, Part 11), the project would comply with
construction waste management practices to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction and
demolition debris. These practices would result in efficient use of energy necessary to construct the
project. In the interest of cost-efficiency, construction contractors also would not utilize fuel in a
manner that is wasteful or unnecessary. Therefore, the project would not involve the inefficient,
wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy during construction, and the construction-phase impact
related to energy consumption would be less than significant.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
54
Operational Energy Demand
Natural gas for the proposed project would be provided by SoCalGas and electric service for the
proposed project would be provided by SCE. Operation of the proposed residential units would
increase area energy demand from greater electricity, natural gas, and gasoline consumption
compared to current conditions on the undeveloped site. Natural gas and electricity would be used
for heating and cooling systems, lighting, appliances, water use, and the overall operation of the
project buildings. Gasoline and diesel fuel consumption would be used for motor vehicle travel to
and from the project site.
Table 14 summarizes estimated operational energy consumption for the proposed project. As
shown therein, project operation would require approximately 215,064 gallons of gasoline and
36,937 gallons of diesel for transportation fuels. The project would require 1.2 GWh of electricity
per year from a PV system, therefore, electricity consumption is anticipated to have a net zero draw
from the grid. Natural gas use for appliances and HVAC systems would require approximately
31,252 U.S. therms per year. Residential vehicle trips would represent the greatest operational use
of energy associated with the proposed project.
Table 14 Estimated Project Annual Operational Energy Consumption
Source Energy Consumption1 MMBtu Conversion (MMBtu)
Transportation Fuels2
Gasoline 215,064 gallons 23,611
Diesel 36,937 gallons 4,708
Electricity 1.2 GWh 4,094
Natural Gas Usage 31,252 U.S. therms 2,906
Total Energy Consumption 35,319
MMBtu = million metric British thermal units; GWh = Gigawatt hours
1 Energy consumption is converted to MMBtu for each source
2 The estimated number of average daily trips associated with the project is used to determine the energy consumption associated with fuel use from operation of the project. According to CalEEMod calculations (see Appendix B), the project would result in approximately
4,842,275 annual VMT.
Source: Appendices A and D
The project would be required to comply with the standards established in the CCR Title 24, which
would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during
operation. CALGreen (CCR, Title 24, Part 11) requires implementation of energy efficient light
fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects. Furthermore, the 2019
Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) requires newly constructed buildings to meet
energy performance standards set by the CEC. These standards are specifically crafted for new
buildings to result in energy efficient performance so that the buildings do not result in wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.
To help achieve Title 24 reduction targets, the project applicant would be required to install a solar
PV system equal to the electricity usage of the project buildings. Therefore, the proposed project
would not lead to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Energy
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 55
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
New development on the project site would result in increased energy consumption through
electricity to power facilities, natural gas for heating and cooking, and petroleum use from motor
vehicles used by residents. The City has not adopted any local plans for renewable energy or energy
conservation; however, the City’s Infrastructure and Green Systems Element of the General Plan
includes the following goals, policies, and actions related to sustainability and energy efficiency:
Goal 7: Fontana is an energy efficient community.
Policy: Promote renewable energy and distributed energy systems in new development and
retrofits of existing development to work towards the highest levels of low-carbon energy-
efficiency.
Action A: Promote participation in renewable energy programs.
Action B: Regional and state programs provide a wide range of programs to assist
homeowners, other property owners, and businesses access renewable energy.
Action C: Promote state and regional retrofit programs for property owners.
Action D: Encourage customer participation in renewable energy programs offered by
Southern California Edison, such as Green Tariff and Enhanced Community Renewables
(ECR).
Action E: Work with the San Bernardino Regional Energy Partnership (SBREP) to access
assistance to city government in energy efficiency.
The project would also be subject to State requirements for energy efficiency, including the
mandatory measures for residential development contained in the 2019 CALGreen and Title 24
Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The proposed project would comply with Title 24 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards by including renewable energy on-site through the use of a solar PV
system to provide power to the low-rise residential buildings. Additionally, the project would
include water-efficient appliances and fixtures in every residential unit, as well as drought tolerant
landscaping and water efficient irrigation systems, in accordance with the CALGreen standards,
which would reduce the project’s water use and energy needed to provide water to the project.
These sustainability features align with the energy efficiency goals established in the City’s
Infrastructure and Green Systems Element. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or
obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and there would be a less
than significant impact.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
56
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 57
7 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? □ □ ■ □
2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □
3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ □ ■ □
4. Landslides? □ □ ■ □
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? □ □ ■ □
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse? □ □ ■ □
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property? □ □ ■ □
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? □ □ ■ □
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
58
a.1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
The project site is in a seismically active area of Southern California, and, therefore, could
experience strong ground shaking from local and regional faults. A fault that has ruptured in at least
the last 11,700 years is considered to have a higher potential of future seismicity and is considered
an active fault by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Faults with evidence of longer
earthquake frequency events are considered to have a lower potential of future seismicity.
According to California Geological Survey (CGS), the project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo
Fault Zone (CGS 2022). However, the site is situated in a region subject to strong earthquakes
occurring along active faults. which include, but are not limited to the San Jose, San Andreas,
Cucamonga, and San Jacinto faults, and the Elsinore, Whittier, and Chino Hills Blind Thrust fault
zones.
The closest known active faults to the site are the San Jacinto-San Bernardino fault which is located
at a distance of approximately five miles from the site, the Cucamonga fault which is located at a
distance of approximately six miles from the site, and the San Andreas-San Bernardino (M-1) fault
which is located at a distance of approximately 10 miles from the site. The closest fault, San Jacinto-
San Bernardino fault zone, is a “B” fault and is capable of producing a maximum magnitude
6.7 earthquake, while the Cucamonga fault is an “A” fault and is capable of producing a maximum
magnitude 6.9 earthquake. However, the San Andreas-San Bernardino fault (“A” fault) is capable of
producing a maximum magnitude 7.5 earthquake and is considered the “design fault” for this site.
The possibility of ground acceleration, or shaking at the project site, may be considered as
approximately similar to the Southern California region as a whole.
To reduce geologic and seismic impacts, the City regulates development through the requirements
of the California Building Code (CBC). The purpose of the CBC is to establish minimum standards to
safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare through structural strength, means of
egress, and general stability by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of
materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all building and structures within its
jurisdiction. The earthquake design requirements of the CBC consider the occupancy category of the
structure, site class, soil classifications, and various seismic coefficients. The CBC provides standards
for various aspects of construction, including but not limited to excavation, grading, earthwork,
construction, preparation of the site prior to fill placement, specification of fill materials, fill
compaction and field testing, retaining wall design and construction, foundation design and
construction, and seismic requirements. It includes provisions to address issues such as (but not
limited to) ground shaking. In accordance with California law, project design and construction would
be required to comply with provisions of the CBC. Because the project would comply with the CBC
and because the project would not exacerbate existing ground shaking hazards, impacts related to
seismically induced ground shaking and fault rupture would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 59
a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Liquefaction is a process whereby soil is temporarily transformed to fluid form during intense and
prolonged ground shaking or because of a sudden shock or strain. Typically, liquefaction occurs in
areas where there are loose soils and the depth to groundwater is less than 50 feet from the
surface. As stated in the Phase I ESA, groundwater was found to be at a depth exceeding 50 feet
below ground surface with a flow estimated to be directed to the south. Likewise, earthquakes can
cause landslides in areas with unstable slopes and terrain (Appendix A). The project site is not
located within in a mapped liquefaction or landslide area identified in the San Bernardino County
General Plan (County of San Bernardino 2010, CGS 2022). Due to the relatively flat topography of
the site and surrounding areas, the project site is not at risk of landslides.
Furthermore, design and construction of the project would conform to the current seismic design
provisions of the CBC, which incorporates the latest seismic design standards for structural loads
and materials, as well as provisions from the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, to
mitigate losses from an earthquake, including liquefaction, and provide for the latest in earthquake
safety. While the project would be susceptible to seismic activity given its location within a
seismically active area, the project site is not susceptible to liquefaction or landslides and would be
required to minimize this risk, to the extent feasible, through the incorporation of applicable CBC
standards. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse impacts related to
liquefaction or landslides, and impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The proposed project involves the construction of a new multi-family residential gated community
on a project site that is currently vacant with an existing parking lot. Construction activities have the
potential to result in soil erosion, particularly during grading and excavation activities. Fugitive dust
caused by strong wind and/or earth-moving operations during construction would be minimized
through compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, which prohibits visible particulate matter from crossing
property lines. Standard practices to control fugitive dust emissions include watering of active
grading sites, covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheeting, and covering soils in haul trucks with
secured tarps. In addition, the potential for project construction activities to result in increased
erosion and sediment transport by stormwater to surface waters would be minimized because the
project would be required to comply with a Construction General Permit, which is issued by the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The Construction General Permit requires the
development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which outlines best
management practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and topsoil loss from stormwater runoff (also refer
to the discussion in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality). Compliance with the Construction
General Permit would ensure that BMPs are implemented during construction and minimize
substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Upon completion of construction, the project site
would be stabilized with landscaping and paving, and operational activities would not result in soil
erosion. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
60
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Lateral spreading is the horizontal movement or spreading of soil toward an open face. Lateral
spreading may occur when soils liquefy during an earthquake event, and the liquefied soils with
overlying soils move laterally to unconfined spaces. Subsidence is the sudden sinking or gradual
downward settling of the earth’s surface with little or no horizontal movement. Subsidence is
caused by a variety of activities that include, but are not limited to, withdrawal of groundwater,
pumping of oil and gas from underground, the collapse of underground mines, liquefaction, and
hydrocompaction. Collapse potential refers to the potential settlement of a soil under existing
stresses upon being wetted.
As discussed under Impact 7.a.1 through 7.a.4, although the proposed project is in a seismically
active area, the project site is not located on unstable soils or a geologic unit at risk for liquefaction
or landslides. The project site consists of compact, relatively flat land that is surrounded by
developed land with no significant slopes that would present a landslide hazard. Furthermore,
construction and operation of the project would not involve activities known to cause or trigger
subsidence and is not anticipated to adversely affect soil stability or increase the potential for local
or regional landslides, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The project would comply with CBC
requirements. Because the project would not create or exacerbate conditions related to unstable
soils, impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Expansive soils are highly compressible, clay-based soils that tend to expand as they absorb water
and shrink as water is drawn away. According to the USDA online Web sol Survey map the soil on
the project site is made up of gravelly loamy sand with a 0 to 9 precent slope (USDA 2022). Sandy
and gravelly soils do not typically contain significant levels of clay that could adversely affect
building footings.
Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the most recent CBC
requirements, which have been developed to property safeguard structures and occupants from
land stability hazards, such as expansive soils. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would
be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
The project would be served by the city’s existing sewer system and no septic tanks are proposed
for the project. Therefore, there is no potential for adverse effects due to soil incompatibility with
septic tanks. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 61
g. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the evidence of once-living organisms preserved in the rock
record. They include both the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces
thereof (e.g., trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). Paleontological resources are not found in “soil”
but are contained within the geologic deposits or bedrock that underlies the soil layer. Typically,
fossils are greater than 5,000 years old (i.e., older than middle Holocene in age) and are typically
preserved in sedimentary rocks (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP] 2010). Fossils occur in a
non-continuous and often unpredictable distribution within some sedimentary units, and the
potential for fossils to occur within sedimentary units depends on several factors. It is possible to
evaluate the potential for geologic units to contain scientifically important paleontological
resources, and therefore evaluate the potential for impacts to those resources and provide
mitigation for paleontological resources if they are discovered during construction of a development
project.
An evaluation of the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units that underlie the project site
was conducted to assess the project’s potential for significant impacts to scientifically important
paleontological resources. The analysis was based on a review of existing information in the
scientific literature regarding known fossils within geologic units mapped at the project site and the
SVP (2010) system for assessing paleontological sensitivity. Sedimentary rock units can be assigned a
high, low, undetermined, or no potential for containing scientifically significant nonrenewable
paleontological resources. This criterion is based on rock units within which vertebrate or significant
invertebrate fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or likely to be present.
The potential for impacts to significant paleontological resources is based on the potential for
ground disturbance to directly impact paleontologically sensitive geologic units.
The project site was mapped at a scale of 1:100,000 by Morton and Miller (2006), who mapped a
single geologic unit, young alluvial fan deposits (Unit 5), underlying the project site. These deposits
consist of unconsolidated to slightly consolidated, coarse sand to boulders. Morton and Miller
(2006) divided young alluvial fan deposits into seven distinct units based on geographic location and
relative stratigraphic position. Unit 5 is one of the youngest of these units, being late Holocene in
age, which means it is too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to preserve paleontological
resources (SVP 2010). Therefore, young alluvial fan deposits (Unit 5) have low paleontological
sensitivity. Young alluvial fan deposits (Unit 5) may be underlain by older, higher sensitivity
sediments in the subsurface. However, the distance to surficial exposures of older sediments
(approximately 0.4 mile at the closest) and the relatively shallow excavation (up to 10 feet below
ground surface) required for this project mean that such sediments are unlikely to be encountered
during project construction. Therefore, ground disturbing activities associated with this project are
only expected to disturb sediments with low paleontological sensitivity, and potential impacts to
paleontological resources would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
62
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 63
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? □ □ ■ □
Overview of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and
oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and
storms) over an extended period of time. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative
sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contributing to the “greenhouse effect,” a natural
occurrence which takes place in Earth’s atmosphere and helps regulate the temperature of the
planet. Radiation from the sun hits Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface, in turn, radiates heat
back towards the atmosphere in the form of infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere
trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping into space and deflect it in all directions.
GHG emissions occur both naturally and as a result of human activities, such as fossil fuel burning,
decomposition of landfill wastes, raising livestock, deforestation, and some agricultural practices.
GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Different types of GHGs have
varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to
trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). GHGs absorb different
amounts of heat therefore, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to standardize the amount of
heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted. This is referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent”
(CO2e), which is the amount of a specific GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a
100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is
30 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change 2021).4
The United Nations IPCC expressed that the rise and continued growth of atmospheric CO2
concentrations is due to human activities in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (2021). Human
influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, which has led the climate to warm at an
4 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2021) Sixth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 30. However,
the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, as the analysis is based on consistency with the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, this analysis utilizes a GWP of 25 for methane.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
64
unprecedented rate in the last 2,000 years. It is estimated that between the period of 1850 through
2019, that a total of 2,390 gigatonnes of anthropogenic CO2 was emitted. It is likely that
anthropogenic activities have increased the global surface temperature by approximately
1.07 degrees Celsius between the years 2010 through 2019 (IPCC 2021). Furthermore, since the late
1700s, estimated concentrations of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have
increased by over 43 percent, 156 percent, and 17 percent, respectively, primarily due to human
activity (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2021). Emissions resulting from human
activities are thereby contributing to an average increase in Earth’s temperature. Potential climate
change impacts in California may include loss of snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days
per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (California Natural
Resource Agency 2018).
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to GHG emissions from the project
would be significant if the project would:
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment; and/or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.
The majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to directly influence
climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to
significant cumulative effects, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. As a
result, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution
towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064[h][1]).
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, projects can tier from a qualified GHG reduction
plan, which allows for project-level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison of the
project’s consistency with the GHG reduction policies included in a qualified GHG reduction plan.
This approach is considered by the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) in their white
paper, Beyond Newhall and 2020, to be the most defensible approach presently available under
CEQA to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions (AEP 2016).
In the latest guidance provided by the SCAQMD’s GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group
in September 2010, SCAQMD considered a tiered approach to determine the significance of
residential and commercial projects. The draft tiered approach is outlined in the meeting minutes,
dated September 29, 2010 (SCAQMD 2010). Since the City of Fontana does not have project specific
GHG thresholds, the project is evaluated based on the SCAQMD’s Tier 3 recommended/preferred
option threshold for all land use types of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year (SCAQMD 2010). The
SCAQMD’s interim thresholds used the Executive Order S-3-05-year 2050 goal as the basis for the
screening threshold, therefore, the approach would be consistent with SB 32 long-term emissions
reduction goal of 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050.
Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 65
Methodology
Calculations of CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions are provided to identify the magnitude of potential
project effects. The analysis focuses on CO2, CH4, and N2O because these make up 98 percent of all
GHG emissions by volume and are the GHG emissions the project would emit in the largest
quantities (IPCC 2014). Emissions of all GHGs are converted into their equivalent GWP in terms of
CO2 (i.e., CO2e). Minimal amounts of other GHGs (such as chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs]) would be
emitted; however, these other GHG emissions would not substantially add to the total GHG
emissions. GHG emissions associated with the proposed project were calculated using the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2020.4.0. GHG emissions associated with project
construction and operation were estimated using CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0, with the assumptions
described under Section 3, Air Quality, in addition to the following:
The project’s CalEEMod model uses default assumptions for energy, solid waste, area, and
mobile sources for the mid-rise apartment units and parking spaces.
The project would be constructed in accordance with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards; therefore, the project plans include a PV systems on all residences equal to the
expected electricity usage.
In accordance with SCAQMD’s recommendation, GHG emissions from construction of the
proposed project were amortized over a 30-year period and added to annual operational
emissions to determine the project’s total annual GHG emissions (SCAQMD 2008).
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Construction and operation of the project would generate GHG emissions. This analysis considers
the combined impact of GHG emissions from both construction and operation. Calculations of CO2,
CH4, and N2O emissions are provided to identify the magnitude of potential project effects.
Construction Emissions
Construction facilitated by the project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily from the
operation of construction equipment on-site, as well as from vehicles transporting construction
workers to and from the project site, and heavy trucks to transport building, concrete, and asphalt
materials. As shown in Table 15, construction associated with the project would generate 2,396 MT
of CO2e. Amortized over a 30-year period pursuant to SCAQMD guidance, construction associated
with the project would generate 80 MT of CO2e per year.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
66
Table 15 Construction GHG Emissions
Year Emissions (MT of CO2e)
2023 643
2024 1,164
2025 589
Total 2,396
Amortized over 30 years 80
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix B. See Table 2.1 “Overall Construction-Mitigated” emissions. Annual emissions results are shown for all emissions. The mitigated emissions account for project sustainability features and/or compliance with specific regulatory
standards.
Operational and Total Project Emissions
Operation of the project would generate GHG emissions associated with area sources (e.g.,
landscape maintenance), energy and water usage, vehicle trips, and wastewater and solid waste
generation. Annual operational emissions resulting from the project are summarized in Table 16.
The annual operational GHG emissions are combined with the amortized construction emissions.
The project proposed project would be approximately 1,934 MT of CO2e per year, which would not
exceed the SCAQMD’s screening-level threshold of 3,000 MT of CO2e per year for small projects.
Impacts would be less than significant
Table 16 Combined Annual Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e)
Construction1 80
Operational 1,854
Area 3
Energy 156
Mobile 1,588
Solid Waste 49
Water, Wastewater 58
Total 1,934
SCAQMD Numeric Threshold 3,000
Exceed Threshold? No
MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
1 Amortized construction related GHG emissions over 30 years Source: CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix B. See Table 2.2 “Overall Operation-Mitigated” emissions. Annual emissions results are shown for all emissions. The mitigated emissions account for project sustainability features and/or compliance with specific regulatory
standards.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 67
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
As discussed under Regulatory Setting, plans and policies have been adopted to reduce GHG
emissions in the Southern California region, including the State’s 2017 Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020-
2045 RTP/SCS, and City of Fontana’s General Plan. The project’s consistency with these plans and
applicable policies in the City’s General Plan is discussed in the following subsections. As discussed
herein, the project would not conflict with plans and policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions.
2017 Scoping Plan
The principal State plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,
and the follow up, SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020 and the goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Furthermore, AB 1279 sets the policy of the State to reach net zero GHG emissions no later than
2045, and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter. In addition, AB 1279
ensures that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85% below
the 1990 levels. As mentioned above under the analysis for Threshold a, the project would be below
SCAQMD’s interim threshold that considers the long-term GHG emissions pursuant to Executive
Order S-3-05 that would capture 90 percent of new development emissions. Pursuant to the SB 32
goal, the 2017 Scoping Plan was created to outline goals and measures for the State to achieve the
reductions. The 2017 Scoping Plan’s goals include reducing fossil fuel use and energy demand and
maximizing recycling and diversion from landfills. The project would be consistent with these goals
through project design, which includes complying with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and
Building Efficiency Energy Standards and installing PV solar panels. The project would be served by
SCE, which is required to increase its renewable energy procurement in accordance with SB 100
targets. In addition, the proposed project is in the vicinity of bus stops for Omnitrans bus route 14,
and the project would include internal walking paths that connect to existing sidewalks along
Foothill Boulevard and Alder Avenue and dedicated bicycle parking to enable multi-modal
accessibility to the site. Markets and convenience stores, such as 7-Eleven, El Torito Market, and
Neighborhood Liquor & Food Market are within 1,000 feet from the project site. Therefore, the
project is located in an area served by transit and within walking and biking distance of several
commercial destinations, which would reduce future residents’ VMT and associated fossil fuel
usage. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan.
SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
SB 375, signed in August 2008, directs each of the State’s 18 major MPOs to prepare a SCS that
contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the RTP. SCAG’s 2020-
2045 RTP/SCS includes a commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources by
promoting compact and infill development to comply with SB 375. The proposed residential project
would not conflict with any of the SCAG’s RTP/SCS goals, as outlined in Table 17.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
68
Table 17 Consistency with Applicable SCAG RTP/SCS GHG Emission Reduction Strategies
Strategy/Action Project Consistency
Focus Growth Near Destinations & Mobility Options
Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate multimodal access to work, educational and other destinations
Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance to reduce
commute times and distances and expand job
opportunities near transit and along center-focused
main streets
Plan for growth near transit investments and support
implementation of first/last mile strategies.
Prioritize infill and redevelopment of underutilized
land to accommodate new growth, increase amenities
and connectivity in existing neighborhoods
Encourage design and transportation options that
reduce the reliance on and number of solo car trips
(this could include mixed uses or locating and
orienting close to existing destinations)
Identify ways to “right size” parking requirements and
promote alternative parking strategies (e.g., shared
parking or smart parking)
Consistent. The project is an infill development and would
involve the construction of 201 multi-family residential
units and 352 parking spaces in a commercial area that
contributes to the job and housing balance. The proposed
project would be within walking and biking distance of
existing residential and commercial uses. In addition, the
project is located adjacent to Foothill Boulevard which is
serviced by Omnitrans bus route 14 located approximately
280 feet west of the project site at the intersection of
Foothill Boulevard and Alder Avenue. The project site is in
proximity to Omnitrans bus route which would encourage
other modes of transportation to and from the site.
Therefore, the proposed project would focus growth near
destinations and mobility options.
Promote a Green Region
Support local policies for renewable energy
production, reduction of urban heat islands and
carbon sequestration
Promote more resource efficient development focused on conservation, recycling and reclamation
Identify ways to improve access to public park space
Consistent. The project is an infill development and would
involve the construction of 201 multi-family residential
units, recreational/leasing office, and parking spaces.
Therefore, it would not interfere with regional wildlife
connectivity or convert agricultural land. The project
would comply with applicable conservation policies such as
the City’s General Plan, Title 24, and CALGreen, such as
implementing a PV system equal to the electricity usage
for the project. Therefore, the project would support
development of a green region.
Source: SCAG 2020
City of Fontana General Plan
The City’s Sustainability and Resilience Element and Infrastructure and Green Systems Element of
the General Plan contain the following policies that would reduce citywide levels of GHG emissions
at a project level. Table 18 shows the project’s consistency with relevant goals and policies of the
City’s General Plan.
Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 69
Table 18 Project Consistency with Applicable Policies from the Fontana General Plan
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Chapter 10: Infrastructure and Green Systems Element
Goal 7: Fontana is an energy-efficient community.
Policy: Promote renewable energy and distributed
energy systems in new development and retrofits of
existing development to work towards the highest
levels of low-carbon energy-efficiency.
Consistent. The project would incorporate all applicable
measures of the 2019 CALGreen Building Standards, such as
the following: 20 percent reduction in indoor water use and
use of indoor water-efficient irrigation systems, incorporation
of solar PV systems, and battery storage systems for the
proposed residential units. The solar PV system would equal
the amount of residential electricity usage of the project.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the
City of Fontana’s Goal 7 by project design of incorporating
energy efficient measures.
Chapter 12: Sustainability and Resilience Element
Goal 3: Renewable sources of energy, including solar and wind, and other energy-conservation strategies are available to city households and businesses.
Policy: Promote renewable energy programs for government, Fontana business, and Fontana residences.
Goal 5 Green building techniques are used in new development and retrofits
Policy: Promote green building through guidelines, awards, and nonfinancial incentives.
Goal 6 Fontana is a leader energy-efficient development and retrofits
Policy: Meet or exceed state goals for energy-efficient new construction.
Consistent. The project would incorporate all applicable
measures of the 2019 CALGreen Building Standards, and the
project would include a PV system equal to the electricity
usage of the project. Therefore, the project would comply with
Goal 3, Goal 5, and Goal 6 policies.
Goal 7 Policy: Continue to promote and implement
best practices to conserve water
Consistent. The project would be required to comply with the
City of Fontana’s low water usage irrigation system and use of
drip system and water-efficient appliances. Therefore, the
project would be consistent with Goal 7 policy.
Source: City of Fontana 2018a
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
70
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 71
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ □ ■ □
b. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment? □ □ ■ □
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school? □ □ ■ □
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? □ □ ■ □
e. For a project located in an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area? □ □ □ ■
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? □ □ ■ □
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires? □ □ □ ■
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
72
GeoTek Inc. prepared a Phase I ESA in February 2022 to evaluate present and historical land uses on
the site in order to identify any potential recognized environmental conditions (RECs).5 Based on the
findings of this Phase I ESA, GeoTek Inc. conducted a Limited Phase II ESA in February 2022. The full
Phase I ESA and Phase II ESA are available in Appendix A and Appendix E, respectively. The below
analysis is based on the results of the Phase I ESA and the Phase II.
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Project construction would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials such as vehicle fuels
and fluids that could be released should an accidental leak or spill occur. However, standard
construction BMPs for the use and handling of such materials, such as the use of secondary
containment, would be implemented to avoid or reduce the potential for such conditions to occur.
Furthermore, any use of potentially hazardous materials utilized during construction of the
proposed project would be subject to all local, State, and federal regulations regarding the handling
of potentially hazardous materials. The transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during
construction of the project would be subject to all applicable State and federal laws, such as the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, California
Hazardous Material Management Act, and hazardous waste management and cleanup under CCR
Title 22. Therefore, project construction would not create a significant hazard to the public and
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Operation of the proposed project would likely involve the use of common materials in the regular
maintenance of homes and landscaping, such as cleaning and degreasing solvents, fertilizers, and
pesticides. In addition, chemicals, such as chlorine, for the maintenance of the community pool
would potentially be stored on-site in a secured enclosure. However, these maintenance activities
would only require minor quantities of such products and would not involve the use of extremely
hazardous substances. Use of these materials would be subject to compliance with existing
regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the federal, State, and local agencies related to
storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. The transport, use, and storage of hazardous
materials during operation of the project would be subject to all applicable State and federal laws,
such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
California Hazardous Material Management Act, and hazardous waste management and cleanup
under CCR Title 22. Other than small quantities of materials used in the maintenance of the
residential community, operation of the proposed project would not involve the use or storage of
substantial quantities of hazardous materials, nor would the project generate large quantities of
hazardous waste. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environmental through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
5 REC is defined as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances of petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to
any release to the environment, (2) under conditions indicative of release to the environment, or (3) under conditions that pose a
material threat of a future release to the environment. The REC term does not include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment, and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.
Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 73
b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
As described above, construction of the project would involve the use of potentially hazardous
materials such as vehicle fuels and fluids that could be released should an accidental leak or spill
occur. However, as further discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the SWPPP for the
proposed project would include standard construction BMPs for the use and handling of such
materials to avoid or reduce the potential for such conditions to occur. Typical construction BMPs
include secondary containment and special storage for hazardous materials used on-site, the use of
drip pans under vehicles and equipment, and provisioning of spill kits and cleanup plans in the event
of an accidental spill. The transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during the construction
of the project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable State and federal laws, such as
the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, California
Hazardous Material Management Act, and hazardous waste management and cleanup under CCR
Title 22. In addition, as discussed under further Threshold 9.d, the project site does not have a
history of contamination, and on-site soil conditions would not pose a risk to the public or
construction workers from upset or accident hazardous materials release during ground disturbing
construction activities. Therefore, project construction would not create a significant hazard to the
public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Operation of the residential community would not involve the use or storage of significant
quantities of hazardous materials and any pool chemicals stored on-site would be kept in a locked,
protective cabinet or closet. Therefore, project operation is not anticipated to create a significant
hazard to the public or environment through the accidental release of hazardous materials. Impacts
would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?
The project site is in close proximity to several schools, but none are within 0.25 mile of the site. The
nearest schools are North Tamarind Elementary School located approximately 0.3 mile northwest of
the project site, Ted J. Porter School located approximately 0.4 mile to the southeast, and Eric Birch
High School located approximately 0.4 mile to the northeast. Additionally, Alder Middle School is
located approximately 0.8 mile north of the project site, Locust Elementary School located
approximately one mile to the northeast, Tokay Elementary School is located approximately
2.3 miles to the northwest, and Almeria Middle School is located approximately 2.5 miles to the
northwest.
During construction of the proposed project, hazardous and potentially hazardous materials would
be utilized for the transport and operation of vehicles and machinery. As discussed above, the
transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during the construction of the project would be
conducted in accordance with all applicable State and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, California Hazardous Material
Management Act, and hazardous waste management and cleanup under CCR Title 22. Compliance
with these regulations would reduce the potential of accidental spills or hazardous emissions during
construction. In addition, as discussed under Section 3, Air Quality, construction of the project, and
associated air pollutant emissions, would be temporary and would not result in air pollutant
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
74
emissions that exceed the applicable thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors with Mitigation
Measure AQ-1 incorporated.
Furthermore, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would only involve the use of
common cleaning and landscape maintenance materials comparable to those materials already in
use in the project site vicinity.
Although the project site is in close proximity to several schools, none are within 0.25 mile of the
site, and the project would not regularly store or use significant quantities of hazardous materials,
nor would it generate large quantities of hazardous waste. Therefore, the project would not emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials that could result in
significant impacts to nearby schools. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
A Phase I ESA and site reconnaissance were performed for the project site in December 2021.
During the site visit, no large-scale use of hazardous materials was noted and there were no
transformers, hydraulic equipment, or other uses identified that could pose a risk to site occupants
or the environment. Historical sources reviewed as part of the Phase I ESA include including aerial
photographs, topographic maps, building records, and city directories. Based on these recourses,
the site was utilized for agricultural purposes from at least 1938 until 1949. The project site was
occupied with structures from at least 1953 until 2016. The structures appear to have been
demolished between October 2016 and February 2018. Due to the agricultural history of the site,
the Phase I ESA concluded that performing limited site testing of near surface soils in order to test
for elevated concentrations of pesticides should be considered.
Based on the finding of the Phase I ESA a Limited Phase II ESA was conducted on February 25, 2022.
GeoTek Inc. collected seven soil samples from a depth of one to six inches below ground surface and
submitted the samples for organo-chlorinated pesticides (OCP). The Phase II concluded that while
there are minor amounts of OCP and arsenic, both are present in amounts that are well below the
residential screening limits. Additionally, there are no obvious sources of near surface
contamination as a result of previous pesticide use. Therefore, on-site soil conditions would not
pose a risk to the public or construction workers from upset or accident hazardous materials release
during ground disturbing construction activities.
Additionally, according to the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor Database, there
are not cleanup sites on or near the project site. Therefore, the project site is not included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The proposed
project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and impacts would be
less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 75
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or within an airport land use plan.
The airports nearest to the project site are the Ontario International Airport located approximately
nine miles to the southwest and the Riverside Municipal Airport located approximately 11 miles to
the southeast. Furthermore, there are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site.
Therefore, the project would not result in safety hazards related to airports for people residing or
working at the project site and its vicinity. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed project would involve the construction of a new residential community with
201 multi-family housing units. During construction, temporary and occasional lane closures on
Alder Avenue and Foothill Boulevard may be required, but two-way traffic would be maintained on
these roadways and at construction entry points. The City, as part of its requirements for obtaining
an excavation and traffic control permit, would require the contractor to submit a construction work
site traffic control plan for any street/lane closures to the City for review and approval prior to the
commencement of construction activities (City of Fontana 2021b). The submittal and approval of
the construction traffic control plan would ensure that construction would not interfere with local
traffic or emergency response and evacuation procedures.
Vehicles, including emergency response vehicles, would be able to access the project site via the
main entrance off Foothill Boulevard. The proposed project would not modify Foothill Boulevard,
other than by adding the entrance to the complex. In addition, the project would not result in
inadequate emergency access because it would be subject to Fire Department review of site plans,
site construction, and the actual structures prior to occupancy to ensure that required fire
protection safety features, including building sprinklers and emergency access, are implemented.
Therefore, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Potential impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The project site is in an urban area of the city. Undeveloped wildland areas are not located in
proximity to the project site. As further discussed in Section 20, Wildfire, the project site is not
located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) or Very High Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) for
wildland fires (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CALFIRE] 2022). The nearest
Very High FHSZ is located approximately 3.2 miles northwest of the project site on the opposite side
of I-15. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss
injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
76
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 77
10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality? □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin? □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or □ □ ■ □
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ ■ □
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation? □ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan? □ □ ■ □
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
78
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Construction of the proposed project could result in soil erosion due to earth-moving activities such
as excavation, grading, soil stockpiling, and the generation of water pollutants including trash,
construction materials, and equipment fluids. Prior to initiation of construction, the project would
be required to obtain coverage under a Construction General Permit to comply with Clean Water
Act National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, administered by the
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). In addition, the project would be
required to comply with the SARWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program.
Under the conditions of the Construction General Permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water
Quality Control Program, the developer would be required to eliminate or reduce non-storm water
discharges, develop, and implement a SWPPP for the project construction activities, and perform
inspections of the storm water pollution prevention measures and control practices to ensure
conformance with the site SWPPP. The Construction General Permit prohibits the discharge of
materials other than storm water discharges and prohibits all discharges that contain a hazardous
substance in excess of reportable quantities established by 40 CFR 117.3 or 40 CFR 302.4. The
General Permit also specifies that construction activities must meet all applicable provisions of
Sections 30 and 402 of the Clean Water Act. Compliance with the permit would require the
development and implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs during project construction.
Conformance with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act would ensure that construction of the
proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Common pollutants associated with residential development include sediment, nutrients,
pesticides, metals, pathogens, oil, and grease. However, in accordance with the requirements of
FMC Chapter 23 and the NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program Permit for San Bernardino County
(MS4 Permit), the project would be required to prepare and implement a WQMP, which is a
program designed to minimize stormwater runoff and water pollutants through the installation and
long-term maintenance of BMPs.
The WQMP would be subject to review and approval by the City. The requirements of the applicable
City ordinances and MS4 permit are intended to protect water quality and support attainment of
water quality standards in downstream receiving water bodies. Therefore, operation of the project
would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, nor would it
otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
The project site lies above the Chino Subbasin of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin.
The proposed project would not include any extraction from the Subbasin (San Antonio Water
Company 2022). Though the project would increase the amount of impervious surface on the site
compared to existing conditions, the incorporation of the biofiltration system and underground
vault would ensure stormwater is captured and treated on the project site, from which it would be
infiltrated into the ground.
The project site lies within the service boundaries of the Fontana Water Company, which is
operated by the San Gabriel Valley Water Company (SGVWC). SGVWC primarily sources its water
Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 79
supply from 31 wells located in the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin and from four wells
located in the Central Groundwater Basin. The company also delivers imported water through a
connection with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan), as well as
emergency interconnections with several surrounding water agencies to ensure the reliability of its
water supply (SGVWC 2021a). As discussed in Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed
project’s water demand would not substantially affect the SGVWC’s supplies. According to its 2020
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), SGCWC would be able to provide reliable water supplies
for an average year, single dry year, and multiple dry years for its existing and planned supplies
through 2045 (SGVWC 2021). In addition, both the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin and Central
Groundwater Basin are adjudicated basins, which limits the allowable annual extraction of
groundwater annually and provides oversight and protection of groundwater quantity and quality
within the basins. Therefore, operational water use associated with the proposed project would not
significantly deplete groundwater supplies or impede sustainable groundwater management of the
Main San Gabriel and Central Groundwater Basins. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
c.(ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff
in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
c.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
c.(iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows?
The project would not alter the course of a stream or river since the project site and its vicinity
contain no water bodies. However, the project would alter internal site drainage through the
addition of impervious surfaces, which could increase stormwater runoff volume and flow. New
drainage features would be constructed on-site to minimize potential flooding and offsite
stormwater flows, in accordance with the requirements of the FMC and the MS4 Permit. The
applicable provisions of the FMC and MS4 Permit are intended to protect water quality and support
attainment of water quality standards in downstream receiving water bodies. Compliance with the
FMC and MS4 Permit requires preparation of a WQMP that illustrates the capabilities of on-site
BMPs to capture and treat flows from a ten-year storm event. Furthermore, the WQMP includes an
assessment of whether drainage alterations would create a Hydrologic Condition of Concern (HCOC)
due to hydromodification, such as changes in watershed hydrologic processes and runoff that result
in increased streamflow and sediment transport. As part of the project’s final design review, the
project would be required to submit a WQMP demonstrating adequate stormwater retention using
BMPs.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
80
The project would implement BMPs to capture and retain stormwater on-site, for compliance with
the FMC and MS4 Permit requirements. Implementation of BMPs would slow the velocity of water
and allow sediment and debris to settle out of the water column, as well as capture stormwater on
the site, thereby minimizing the potential for downstream flooding, erosion/siltation, pollution, or
exceedances of stormwater drainage system capacity. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
The project site is designated Zone X on the most recent Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, indicating it is within an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA
2008). The project site is approximately 46 miles from the Pacific Ocean and not subject to tsunami.
The nearest inland water body subject to seiche is the Live Oak Reservoir, located approximately
19 miles northwest of the project site. The project site is not located in the inundation zone for the
Live Oak Reservoir (California Department of Water Resources 2015). Furthermore, the project does
not involve storage or processing of pollutants, other than minor quantities of typical household
hazardous wastes, such as cleaning agents and landscaping maintenance materials, that would be
released due to inundation should such an event occur. Therefore, the project would result in no
impact related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation.
NO IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
As discussed under Threshold 10a above, project construction and operational activities would be
required to comply with the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan, NPDES Construction
General Permit, and MS4 Permit by preparing and adhering to a SWPPP and WQMP. With
implementation of the required SWPPP and WQMP, the proposed project would adequately treat,
detain, and control stormwater flows on the project site and would not conflict with or obstruct the
Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan.
As discussed under Threshold 10b, the project would receive water from the Main San Gabriel Basin
and Central Basin through service provided by Fontana Water Company. These basins are
adjudicated, and water demand generated by the proposed project would not conflict with or
obstruct the sustainable management of these basins. The project site lies above the Chino
Subbasin, which was adjudicated in 1978 and is controlled by a court-mandated water management
plan to ensure its long-term sustainability. The proposed residential uses on the project site would
not be point source generators of water pollutants that could affect the Chino Subbasin, and the
project does not propose ground water extraction. Therefore, project construction and operation
would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Land Use and Planning
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 81
11 Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project physically divide an established community?
The project site is currently vacant and contains concrete slabs and an asphalt parking area. The
proposed project involves the construction of a 201-unit multi-family residential community.
Primary vehicular access to the site would be via one main driveway along Foothill Boulevard and
one residential driveway along Alder Avenue. Pedestrians would be able to access the project site
via the sidewalks along Foothill Boulevard and Alder Avenue. The project does not include any new
roads, development or infrastructure that has the potential to divide any established communities.
No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
The proposed project involves the construction of a residential community on a site with a General
Plan land use designation of C-C (Community Commercial) and a zoning designation of R-4 (Multi-
Family/High Density Residential), which permits densities of 24.1 to 39 dwelling units per acre. The
current zoning and land use designations permit medium/high density multi-family residential
development and the density of 28.7 dwelling units per acre proposed by the project. The proposed
project would be consistent with the intent of the General Plan to meet the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment housing needs by creating a medium/high-density housing development on a vacant
site, thereby adding to the housing stock within the city. In addition, the project would be consistent
with the goals and policies included in Fontana’s General Plan, including action M in Chapter 15,
Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design, which states that the City will revitalize the central part of the
city – the area between Foothill Boulevard and I-10 and the policy under Goal 3 which aims to
encourage infill on vacant and underutilized parcels (City of Fontana 2018a).
The proposed development would comply with all applicable policies contained in the General Plan
and the development standards for the R-4 zone. Accordingly, the proposed project would not
conflict with the City’s General Plan or zoning standards. In addition, as described in Section 3, Air
Quality, and Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would be consistent with
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
82
the goals and policies of the AQMP and SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed project
would not conflict with land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Mineral Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 83
12 Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) was enacted to promote
conservation and protection of significant mineral deposits. According to the California Department
of Conservation Mineral Land Classification Maps, the project site is located in an area classified as
Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-2, which indicates that the project area contains identified mineral
resources (DOC 1994). Though the project site is in an area with identified mineral resources, the
project site has not historically been used for mineral resource recovery and is surrounded by
urbanized area primarily developed with residential and commercial land uses. The project site and
its vicinity are therefore not used for or compatible with mineral deposit recovery. In addition,
according to the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), there are no active oil
extraction-sites in the vicinity of the project (CalGEM 2022). Given the existing conditions of the
project site and its surroundings, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource, and there would be no impact.
NO IMPACT
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
84
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 85
13 Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? □ □ ■ □
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ ■ □
c. For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? □ □ □ ■
Fundamentals of Noise
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being
detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or
undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise
on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep
disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (Caltrans 2013).
Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level
(dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are
consistent with the human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around
4,000 Hertz and less sensitive to frequencies around and below 100 Hertz (Kinsler et al. 1999).
Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to
the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise
source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; dividing the
energy in half would result in a 3 dB decrease (Crocker 2007).
Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is
not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as
one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA,
increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
86
(8 times the sound energy); and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud
(Crocker 2007).
Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver.
The most obvious change is the decrease in level as the distance from the source increases. The
manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g.,
point or line, the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions). Noise levels from a
point source typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance (e.g.,
construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units). Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway,
pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013). The
transmission of noise is also affected by the intervening ground, known as ground absorption. A
hard site, such as a parking lot or smooth body of water, receives no additional ground attenuation
and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) result from simply the geometric
spreading of the source. On a soft site, such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees, an
additional ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance applies (Caltrans 2013).
Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by
this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural
terrain features such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features, such as buildings and walls,
can significantly alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will
provide at least a 5-dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (Federal Highway
Administration [FHWA] 2011). Structures can substantially reduce exposure to interior noise as well.
The FHWA’s guidelines indicate that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-
interior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows.
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs, and the
duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for
more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors
have been developed. One of the most frequently used noise metrics is the equivalent noise level
(Leq); it considers both duration and sound power level. Leq is defined as the single steady A-
weighted level equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating
levels over time.
Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that occurring during the day.
Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24-hour
average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.) hours. It is also measured using CNEL, which is the 24-hour average noise level with a
+5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise
occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL
usually differ by about 1 dBA. The relationship between the peak-hour Leq value and the Ldn/CNEL
depends on the distribution of traffic during the day, evening, and night.
Fundamentals of Vibration
Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that
move from a source through the ground to adjacent structures. The number of cycles per second of
oscillation makes up the vibration frequency, described in terms of hertz (Hz). The frequency of a
vibrating object describes how rapidly it oscillates. The normal frequency range of most
groundborne vibration that can be felt by the human body starts from a low frequency of less than
1 Hz and goes to a high of about 200 Hz (Crocker 2007).
Environmental Checklist Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 87
While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general people are
most sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction
activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration of building
components can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, referred to as
groundborne noise. Groundborne noise is usually only a problem when the originating vibration
spectrum is dominated by frequencies in the upper end of the range (60 to 200 Hz), or when
foundations or utilities, such as sewer and water pipes, physically connect the structure and the
vibration source (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018). Although groundborne vibration is
sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are
outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building
occupants and vibration-sensitive land uses (refer to Sensitive Receivers on the following page).
Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or RMS vibration velocity.
The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second (in./sec.). PPV is defined as
the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used in
monitoring of blasting vibration because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by
buildings (Caltrans 2020).
Vibration associated with construction of the project has the potential to be an annoyance to
nearby land uses. Vibration limits used in this analysis to determine a potential impact to local land
uses from construction activities are based on information contained in Caltrans’ Transportation and
Construction Vibration Guidance Manual and the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment Manual (Caltrans 2013; FTA 2018). Maximum recommended vibration limits by the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) are identified in
Table 19.
Table 19 AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage
Building Type Limiting Velocity (in/sec)
Historic sites or other critical locations 0.1
Residential buildings, plastered walls 0.2–0.3
Residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls 0.4–0.5
Engineered structures, without plaster 1.0–1.5
in/sec = inches per second
Source: Caltrans 2020
Based on AASHTO recommendations, limiting vibration levels to below 0.2 in/sec PPV at residential
structures would prevent structural damage regardless of building construction type. These limits
are applicable regardless of the frequency of the source. However, as shown in Table 20, potential
human annoyance associated with vibration is usually different if it is generated by a steady state or
a transient vibration source.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
88
Table 20 Vibration Annoyance Potential (Maximum PPV in in/sec)
Human Response Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources
Severe/Disturbing 2.00 0.70
Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10
Distinctly perceptible 0.240 0.035
Barely perceptible 0.035 0.012
Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls (i.e., a loose steel ball that is dropped onto structures or rock to reduce them to a manageable size). Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.
Source: Caltrans 2020
As shown in Table 20, the vibration level threshold at which transient vibration sources (such as
construction equipment) are considered to be distinctly perceptible is 0.24 in/sec PPV. This analysis
uses the distinctly perceptible threshold for purposes of assessing vibration impacts.
Sensitive Receivers
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated
with those uses. Sensitive land uses are generally defined as locations where people reside or where
the presence of noise could adversely affect the use of the land. The noise sensitive uses listed in
the City of Fontana General Plan includes residential uses, hospitals, rest homes, long term care
facilities, mental care facilities, schools, libraries, places of worship, and passive recreation uses (City
of Fontana 2018a). Sensitive receivers in the project area include the single-family residences
located adjacent to the project site to the east, west and south.
Vibration sensitive receivers are similar to noise sensitive receivers, such as residences and
institutional uses (e.g., schools, libraries, and religious facilities). The General Plan does not identify
vibration sensitive receivers; however, concert halls, hospitals, libraries, research operations,
residential areas, schools, and offices are considered vibration sensitive uses. Vibration sensitive
receivers also include buildings where vibrations may interfere with vibration-sensitive equipment,
affected by levels that may be well below those associated with human annoyance (FTA 2018;
Caltrans 2013). Vibration sensitive receivers near the project site include the single-family
residential homes discussed above.
Project Noise Setting
The most common source of noise in the project site vicinity is vehicular traffic from West Foothill
Boulevard and Alder Avenue. To characterize ambient sound levels at and near the project site, four
short term (15-minute) noise level measurements were conducted on March 23, 2022. Noise
Measurement (NM) 1 was conducted at the northern edge of the project site to capture noise levels
attributable to Foothill Boulevard; NM 2 was conducted near the southeastern portion of the
project site approximately 50 feet from the single-family residences that surround the southern and
eastern boundaries of the site; NM 3 was conducted at the western edge of the project site to
capture noise levels attributable to Alder Avenue; and NM 4 captured the ambient noise levels at
the center of the project site. Table 21 summarizes the results of the noise measurements, Table 22
shows the recorded traffic volumes during the noise measurements, and Figure 13 shows noise
measurement locations.
Environmental Checklist Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 89
Table 21 Project Site Vicinity Sound Level Monitoring Results
Measurement
Location
Measurement
Location Sample Times
Approximate
Distance to Primary
Noise Source
Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
NM 1 Northern property
boundary, adjacent
to Foothill Boulevard
9:39 – 9:54 a.m. Approximately 50 feet
to Foothill Boulevard
centerline
68 46 84
NM 2 Southeastern property boundary, adjacent to single-family residences
10:22 – 10:37 a.m. Approximately 50 feet to adjacent residences
46 41 58
NM 3 Western property
boundary, adjacent
to Alder Avenue
10:49 – 11:03 a.m. Approximately 50 feet
to Alder Avenue
centerline
72 41 98
NM 4 Center of project site 10:02 – 10:17 a.m. Approximately 170
feet to adjacent residences
51 42 64
dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent noise level; Lmin = minimum noise level, Lmax = maximum noise level
See Appendix F for detailed measurement data.
Table 22 Sound Level Monitoring Traffic Counts
Measurement Roadway Traffic Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks
NM 1 Foothill Boulevard 15-minute count 239 10 3
One-hour equivalent 956 40 12
Percent 95% 4% 1%
NM 3 Alder Avenue 15-minute count 128 3 2
One-hour equivalent 512 12 8
Percent 96% 2% 2%
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
90
Figure 13 Noise Measurement Locations
Environmental Checklist Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 91
Regulatory Setting
Federal
The FTA provides reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise impacts based on the potential
for adverse community reaction in their Transit and Noise Vibration Impact Assessment Manual
(FTA 2018). For residential, commercial, and industrial uses, the daytime noise threshold is 80 dBA
Leq, 85 dBA Leq, and 90 dBA Leq for an eight-hour period, respectively.
State
California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational
noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use
compatibility. State law requires each county and city to adopt a general plan that includes a noise
element prepared pursuant to guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research. The purpose of the noise element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive
noise levels. CEQA requires all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including
environmental noise impacts.
CALIFORNIA NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1973
California Health and Safety Code Sections 46000 through 46080, known as the California Noise
Control Act, find that excessive noise is a serious hazard to public health and welfare and that
exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage.
The act also finds that there is a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in urban,
suburban, and rural areas. The California Noise Control Act declares that the State has a
responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and
abatement of noise. It is the policy of the State to provide an environment for all Californians that is
free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
CCR Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, and the California Building Code codify
the State noise insulation standards. These noise standards apply to new construction in California
to control interior noise levels as they are affected by exterior noise sources. The regulations specify
that interior noise levels for residential and school land uses should not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
City of Fontana Noise Standards
CITY OF FONTANA GENERAL PLAN NOISE AND SAFETY ELEMENT
The City maintains the health and welfare of its residents with respect to noise through abatement
ordinances and land use planning. The City’s General Plan includes goals and policies with the intent
to reduce excessive noise impacts.
Goal 8: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent planning
through 2035.
Policies
New sensitive land uses shall be prohibited in incompatible areas.
Noise-tolerant land uses shall be guided into areas irrevocably committed to land uses
that are noise-producing, such as transportation corridors.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
92
Where sensitive uses are to be placed along transportation routes, mitigation shall be
provided to ensure compliance with State-mandated noise levels.
Noise spillover or encroachment from commercial, industrial, and educational land uses
shall be minimized into adjoining residential neighborhoods or noise-sensitive uses.
Actions
A. The following uses shall be considered noise-sensitive and discouraged in areas in excess
of 65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): Residential Uses; Hospitals; Rest
Homes; Long Term Care Facilities; and Mental Care Facilities.
B. The following uses shall be considered noise-sensitive and discouraged in areas in excess
of 65 Leq (12) (Equivalent Continuous Sound Level): Schools; Libraries; Places of Worship;
and Passive Recreation Uses.
C. The State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines shall be
followed with respect to acoustical study requirements.
Goal 9: The City of Fontana provides a diverse and efficiently operated ground transportation
system that generates the minimum feasible noise on its residents through 2035.
Policies
All noise section of the State Motor Vehicle Code shall be enforced.
Roads shall be maintained such that the paving is in good condition and free of cracks,
bumps, and potholes.
Noise mitigation measures shall be included in the design of new roadway projects in
the city.
Actions
A. On-road trucking activities shall continue to be regulated in the City to ensure noise
impacts are minimized, including the implementation of truck-routes based on traffic
studies.
B. Development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient
noise level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses shall provide appropriate mitigation
measures.
C. Noise mitigation practices shall be employed when designing all future streets and
highways, and when improvements occur along existing highway segments.
D. Explore the use of “quiet pavement” materials for street improvements.
Goal 10: Fontana’s residents are protected from the negative effects of “spillover” noise.
Policy
Residential land uses and areas identified as noise-sensitive shall be protected from
excessive noise from non-transportation sources including industrial, commercial, and
residential activities and equipment.
Actions
A. Projects located in commercial areas shall not exceed stationary-source noise standards
at the property line of proximate residential or commercial uses.
Environmental Checklist Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 93
B. Industrial uses shall not exceed commercial or residential stationary source noise
standards at the most proximate land uses.
C. Non-transportation noise shall be considered in land use planning decisions.
D. Construction shall be performed as quietly as feasible when performed in proximity to
residential or other noise sensitive land uses.
CITY OF FONTANA MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 18, Article II (Noise) and Chapter 30 Articles V (Residential Zoning Districts) and VII
(Industrial Zoning Districts) of the FMC seeks to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise
and vibration. The following acts, which create loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive sound or noise
that annoys or disturbs persons of ordinary sensibilities from a distance of 50 feet or more from the
edge of the property, structure or unit in which the source is located, are declared to be in violation
of this article, but such enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive, namely:
Section 18-63(b)(6), Loading, unloading or opening boxes. The creation of a loud, excessive,
impulsive or intrusive and excessive noise in connection with loading or unloading of any vehicle
or the opening and destruction of bales, boxes, crates and containers within 50 feet or more
from the edge of the property.
Section 18-63(b)(7), Construction or repairing of buildings or structures. The construction
(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 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.
Section 18-63(b)(8), Noise near schools, courts, place of worship or hospitals. The creation of
any loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive noise on any street adjacent to any school, institution
of learning, places of worship or court while the premises are in use, or adjacent to any hospital
which unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution or which disturbs or unduly
annoys patients in the hospital; provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such streets
indicating that the street is a school, hospital or court street.
Section 18-63(b)(10), Piledrivers, hammers, etc. The operation between the hours of 6:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m. of any piledriver, steamshovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric
hoist or other appliance, the use of which is attended by loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive
noise.
Section 18-63(b)(11), Blowers. The operation of any noise-creating blower or power fan or any
internal combustion engine other than from the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on a weekday
and the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on a Saturday, the operation of which causes noise
due to the explosion of operating gases or fluids, unless the noise from such blower or fan is
muffled and such engine is equipped with a muffler device sufficient to deaden such noise.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
94
Section 30-469, Noise. No use shall create or cause to be created any sound that exceeds the
ambient noise standards in Table 23 in residential zones.
Table 23 Noise Standards
Location Maximum Allowable Noise Level (Day) Maximum Allowable Noise Level (Night)
All Zoning Districts 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m.
Interior 45 dBA 45 dBA
Exterior 65 dBA 65 dBA
dBA=A-weighted decibels
Source: Table 30-469 of the FMC
FMC Section 30-470 also states that no use shall create or cause to be created any activity that
causes a vibration that can be felt beyond the property line with or without the aid of an
instrument.
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
In addition to the provisions set by the FMC, the City has also assigned Standard Conditions of
Approval that the proposed project must be in compliance with.
The construction contractor will 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.
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:
i. Install portable noise barriers, including solid structures and noise blankets,
between the active noise sources and the nearest noise receivers.
ii. Temporarily enclose localized and stationary noise sources.
iii. Store and maintain equipment, building materials, and waste materials as far as
practical from as many sensitive receivers as practical.
Environmental Checklist Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 95
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
The project involves the construction of a 201-unit apartment complex, located on an approximately
seven-acre site. Noise-sensitive receivers, consisting of single- and multi-family residences, may be
subject to both temporary construction noise and long-term operational noise. The following
discussions address construction and operational noise associated with the project.
Construction Noise
Construction activity would result in temporary increases in ambient noise in the project site vicinity
on an intermittent basis and, as such, would expose surrounding noise sensitive receivers to
increased noise. Construction noise was estimated using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise
Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2006). RCNM predicts construction noise levels for a variety of construction
operations based on empirical data and the application of acoustical propagation formulas. Using
RCNM, construction noise levels were estimated at noise-sensitive receivers near the project site.
RCNM provides reference noise levels for standard construction equipment, with an attenuation
rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance for stationary equipment.
Variation in power imposes additional complexity in characterizing the noise source level from
construction equipment. Power variation is accounted for by describing the noise at a reference
distance from the equipment operating at full power and adjusting it based on the duty cycle of the
activity to determine the Leq of the operation (FHWA 2006). Each phase of construction has a
specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be accomplished during that phase. Each phase
also has its own noise characteristics; some have higher continuous noise levels than others, and
some have high-impact noise levels.
Construction activity would result in temporary noise in the project site vicinity, exposing
surrounding nearby receivers to increased noise levels. Construction noise would typically be higher
during the heavier periods of initial construction (i.e., site preparation and grading) and would be
lower during the later construction phases (i.e., building construction and paving). It is assumed that
diesel engines would power all construction equipment. Construction equipment would not all
operate at the same time or location. In addition, construction equipment would not be in constant
use during the eight-hour operating day.
Project construction would occur nearest to single family residences to the south, east, and west of
the project site. Over the course of a typical construction day, construction equipment would be
located as close as 20 feet to adjacent properties, but would typically be located at an average
distance farther away due to the nature of construction and the size of the project. Therefore, it is
assumed that over the course of a typical construction day the construction equipment would
operate at an average distance 100 feet from the nearby residences.
A potential high-intensity construction scenario includes a dozer, loader, and a scraper working
during grading to excavate and move soil. At a distance of 100 feet, a dozer, loader and a scraper
would generate a noise level of 78 dBA Leq (RCNM calculations are included in Appendix F). This
would be below the FTA threshold of 80 dBA Leq (8-hour) for construction activity. Construction
activities must be compliant with the City’s standard conditions of approval, which address
construction noise reduction and noise abatement, for project approval. In addition, construction
activities would occur during the permitted hours based on the City’s Noise Ordinance, FMC Section
18-63(b)(7), which are between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
96
and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Therefore, impacts from construction equipment would be less than
significant.
On-Site Operational Noise
On-site operational noise would primarily consist of conversing residents, nearby traffic noise,
landscape maintenance, stationary noise (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
units), and other noise that is typical of an urban area.
Stationary Noise
The primary on-site operational noise source from the project would be from mechanical
equipment, such as HVAC units. This analysis assumes the use of a typical HVAC system for multi-
family residential sites, which is a 2.5-ton Carrier 24ABA4030 air conditioner with Puron refrigerant
that has a sound power level of 76 dBA (see Appendix F for manufacturer’s specifications). The
project is assumed to contain 201 HVAC units based on 201 dwelling units, plus three units on the
recreation center. Based on typical locations of HVAC units for multi-family buildings, it is assumed
that 201 roof-top HVAC units distributed across the project site would be needed, producing a
combined noise level at off-site receivers that is equivalent to all units being located at the center of
the project site, which is measured at approximately 190 feet from the nearest off-site sensitive
receivers that are adjacent to the eastern boundary of the proposed development (see Appendix F
for HVAC noise calculations). For this analysis and based upon a sound power level of 76 dBA, it is
estimated that the sound power level of a single HVAC unit would generate an equivalent sound
pressure level of 58 dBA at seven feet.
Pursuant to FMC Section 30-469, project impacts would be significant if noise levels from the
project’s HVAC equipment exceed 65 dBA at exterior areas. Noise levels generated by the rooftop
HVACs, would be approximately 52 dBA Leq at 190 feet, which would not exceed the City’s threshold
of 65 dBA for nearby residential areas. Therefore, impacts related to HVAC equipment noise would
be less than significant.
Other Noise Sources
The proposed project would require periodic trash hauling and package delivery services that would
result in periodic increases in ambient noise. However, the project site is located in an urban area
and is surrounded by existing residential and commercial uses that require similar trash hauling and
delivery services. Therefore, because trash and delivery trucks are already a common occurrence in
the project vicinity, trash and delivery services would not result in a substantial permanent increase
in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project. Additional on-site noise sources
such as landscape maintenance, low-speed traffic on internal roadways, conversations, pool and spa
activities, and park activities also would be typical of noise generated by neighboring land uses.
Therefore, noise from these sources would not substantially contribute to overall ambient noise
levels.
The on-site noise source associated with outdoor use areas would consist of conversing residents
located outdoors. According to the FTA, normal conversational levels at three feet are in the 60 to
65-dBA Leq range (FTA 2018). However, existing vehicle noise along Foothill Boulevard and Alder
Avenue would generally dominate outdoor noise at the project frontage such that conversing
residents would not generate a substantial increase in noise at nearby receivers. Therefore, outdoor
noise at common areas such as the proposed open space area is less than significant.
Environmental Checklist Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 97
Off-site Traffic Noise Increases
Project trip rates were estimated to be approximately 1,417average daily trips (ADTs) for the
project’s multi-family use based on institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip
Generation Manual (11th Edition) rate land use code 220 for “Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)” (trip
rates taken from the CalEEMod outputs; see Appendix B). Existing traffic counts for Foothill
Boulevard and Alder Avenue were obtained from City of Fontana Department of Engineering and
Mapping Traffic Volume Map (City of Fontana Department of Engineering 2014). Existing traffic
counts combined with project average daily trips are shown in Table 24. The project would not
make substantial alterations to roadway alignments or affecting off-site noise levels would be
increased traffic volumes.
Table 24 Existing and Proposed ADT Volume
Street1 Segment Existing ADT1 Project ADT2 Existing With Project ADT
Foothill Boulevard Eastbound from Sierra Avenue to Maple Avenue 21,200 1,417 22,617
Alder Avenue Southbound from Baseline Avenue to Valley Boulevard 12,100 1,417 13,517
1 Existing traffic counts for Foothill Boulevard and Alder Avenue were obtained from City of Fontana Department of Engineering and
Mapping Traffic Volume Map (Fontana, City of 2014).
2 Project ADT obtained from CalEEMod (Rincon 2022) trip generation findings, based on ITE (11th Edition) land use code 220 for
“Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)”.
In order for a barely perceptible noise increase of at least 3 dBA to occur, the project would need to
result in a doubling of traffic on the affected road segment. The addition of 1,417 trips on Foothill
Boulevard and Alder Avenue would result in a percentage increase in traffic of 6.7 percent and
11.7 percent, respectively. This would result in a noise level increase of less than 1 dBA on Foothill
Boulevard and Alder Avenue. This increase would be below the barely perceptible noise increase of
3 dBA. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Operation of the project would not include stationary sources of significant vibration, such as heavy
equipment operations. Rather, construction activities have the greatest potential to generate
groundborne vibration affecting nearby receivers. The City has not adopted specific standards for
vibration impacts during construction. Therefore, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction
Vibration Guidance Manual (2020) is used to evaluate potential construction vibration impacts
related to both potential building damage and human annoyance. Based on the Caltrans criteria
shown in Table 19 and Table 20, construction vibration impacts would be significant if vibration
levels exceed 0.4 in./sec. PPV for residential structures, which is the limit where minor cosmetic
(i.e., non-structural) damage may occur to these buildings. In addition, construction vibration
impacts would cause human annoyance at nearby receivers if vibration levels exceed 0.24 in./sec.
PPV, which is the limit above which temporary vibration activities become distinctly perceptible.
Because groundborne vibration could cause physical damage to structures, vibration impacts were
modeled based on the distance from the location of vibration-intensive construction activities,
conservatively assumed to be at edge of the project site, to the edge of nearby off-site structures.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
98
Therefore, the analysis of groundborne vibrations differs from the analysis of construction noise
levels in that modeled distances for vibration impacts are those distances between the project site
to nearest off-site structures (regardless of sensitivity) whereas modeled distances for construction
noise impacts are based on the property line of the nearest off-site sensitive receivers. Based on the
distance from the project site to nearby residential structures, equipment was modeled at 20 feet
from the residences to the south.
Construction activities known to generate excessive ground-borne vibration, such as pile driving,
would not be conducted to implement the project. The greatest anticipated source of vibration
during general project construction activities would be from a dozer (large bulldozer used as proxy),
which would be used during grading activities. A dozer would create approximately 0.11 in./sec. PPV
at a distance of 20 feet (Caltrans 2020).6 Vibration calculations are included in Appendix F.
Construction-related vibration would be lower than what is considered a distinctly perceptible
impact for humans of 0.24 in./sec. PPV and the structural damage impact to residential structures of
0.4 in./sec. PPV. Therefore, temporary vibration impacts associated with the dozer (and other
potential construction equipment) would be less than significant. As a residential development, the
project does not include substantial vibration sources associated with operation. Therefore,
operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is not located within
two miles of a public airport or within an airport land use plan. The airports nearest to the project
site are the Ontario International Airport located approximately 9.8 miles to the southwest, and the
Riverside Municipal Airport located approximately 10 miles to the south. Furthermore, there are no
private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site. Although the project site would potentially be
subject to occasional aircraft overflight noise, such occurrences would be intermittent and
temporary. Therefore, the project would not expose people working in the project area to excessive
noise levels associated with airports or airstrips and the project would not exacerbate existing noise
conditions related to airports or airstrips. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
6 PPVequipment = PPVref(25/D)n (in/sec) where PPVref is the reference PPV at 25 feet (0.210 in/sec for rollers), D is the distance from equipment to the receiver in feet, and n is 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through ground) (Caltrans 2013).
Environmental Checklist Population and Housing
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 99
14 Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ ■ □
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
According to the California DOF, the city of Fontana has an estimated population of 213,944 with an
average household size of 4.02 persons (DOF 2021). SCAG estimates that the city’s population will
increase to 286,700 by 2045, which is an increase of approximately 34 percent or 72,756 persons
(SCAG 2020). The proposed project involves the construction of a 201-unit multi-family residential
community. Construction of the proposed project would increase the existing population by up to
approximately 808 residents7 (an approximately 0.4 percent increase from the existing population)
to 214,752, which would be within SCAG’s 2045 population forecast. In addition, according to
California DOF estimates, the city has an existing housing stock of 55,909 units, which SCAG
forecasts will increase by 21,891 units (an approximate 39 percent increase) to 77,800 units by 2045
(DOF 2021; SCAG 2020). The project would generate 201 housing units, which would represent
approximately 0.9 percent of the projected increase in housing units. Given that the proposed
project would not exceed SCAG’s 2045 population or housing forecast, the project would not cause
a substantial increase in population or induce unplanned population growth. Therefore, impacts
associated with population growth would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
7 201 units x 4.02 persons per unit
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
100
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site is vacant with remnants of previous development (i.e., concrete slabs and asphalt
parking areas). Therefore, the proposed project would not displace existing housing or people and
would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Public Services
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 101
15 Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1 Fire protection? □ □ ■ □
2 Police protection? □ □ ■ □
3 Schools? □ □ ■ □
4 Parks? □ □ ■ □
5 Other public facilities? □ □ ■ □
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives?
The Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) of the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD)
provides fire protection and paramedic emergency services to residents and businesses within the
city. The nearest fire station is Fire Station No. 71, which is located at 16980 Arrow Boulevard,
approximately 1.3 miles southwest of the project site. Station No. 71 is staffed with two captains,
two engineers, three firefighter medics, and one firefighter. Station No. 71 currently has 10
firefighters per day. Of the 10, there is one paramedic engine with four staffing, one medic truck
with four staffing, one medic squad with two staffing, and one battalion chief (City of Fontana
2022a). Station No. 71 responds to about 6,000 incidents per year, 80 percent of which are calls for
emergency medical services. Response times average at six minutes each. A second fire station,
Station 78, located at 7110 Citrus Avenue approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the project site
would also service the proposed project (City of Fontana 2022a).
The District's Strategic Plan lists the Fire District goals for performance standards as follows (City of
Fontana 2018b):
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
102
Dispatch. The performance goal of the Dispatch Center is to provide alarm processing within
one-minute 90 percent of the time.
Turn Out Time. The performance goal of the Fontana Fire District is to don turnouts for all units
for priority calls within one-minute 90 percent of the time.
Distribution Reliability. The response goal of the Fontana Fire District is to provide a first-unit
response time of five minutes 90 percent of the time to moderate risk structural fires and core
life threatening emergencies.
Goal 9 in the Noise and Safety chapter of the City’s General Plan aims for the City to maintain
regulations, plans, protocols, and emergency training to reduce hazards and risks and to meet State
and federal requirements for emergency assistance. Additionally, Goal 7 aims to reduce threats to
public and private property from urban and wildland fire hazards and includes a policy to ensure to
the extent possible that fire services, such as fire equipment, infrastructure, and response times are
adequate for all sections of the city (City of Fontana 2018a). Implementation of the policies
associated with these goals ensure that the staffing, response times, and service levels provide
adequate public services to the City’s residents and stakeholders.
The FFPD provides technical review of all building construction plans within the City of Fontana and
would review the proposed project to ensure the buildings meet the City’s adopted 2019 California
Fire Code, 2019 CBC, and California Health and Safety Code prior to construction. The project would
implement fire prevention and suppression, including fire hydrants, fire alarms, and building
sprinkler systems, to reduce the potential for fires at the site and demand for fire services The FFPD
was contacted to discuss the proposed project; they reported that they have the ability to
accommodate the demands of the project and would not need to expand any existing facilities. In
addition, the FFPD reported having boundary drop automatic aid agreements with all neighboring
cities, allowing for additional support as needed, as well as mutual aid agreements to include an
agreement with the City of Riverside (City of Fontana 2022c).
As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, construction of the proposed project would
generate 201 housing units and increase the existing population by up to approximately
808 residents which would not exceed SCAG’s 2045 population or housing forecast. Though the
proposed project would add new development and residents to the city, the project would not
require new or expanded facilities to support fire protection and emergency response providers.
Furthermore, consistent with the City’s General Plan policies and actions, developers are required to
pay development impact fees (DIFs) that go toward public facilities, including fire facilities. The
District's Strategic Plan action item No. 2, Fire Facility Development Fee review, states that in order
to offset the capital costs for constructing new facilities, DIFs are charged during the building permit
process for all new development (City of Fontana 2018b). In addition, the FFPD requires payment of
a user fee of 50 dollars per multi-family residential unit that fund additional staff, equipment, and
expansion needs of the Fire District (City of Fontana 2022c). The proposed project would pay the
required DIFs for fire services, which would offset the project’s incremental demand for fire
services. Accordingly, potential impacts related to fire protection services and facilities would be
less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
Environmental Checklist Public Services
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 103
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives?
The Fontana Police Department (FPD) provides police protection services to residents and
businesses within the city. The FPD headquarters is located at 17005 Upland Avenue, which is
approximately 0.9 mile southwest of the project site. The FPD has just over 300 employees, with
209 sworn officers, and operates out of the Downtown headquarters (FPD 2022). The current
average response time for emergency calls within the city is 4.5 minutes (FPD 2022). The City strives
to maintain a minimum ratio of 1.4 officers per 1,000 residents (City of Fontana 2018c). Crime
statistics and the FPD indicate that Fontana does not have any ongoing serious crime problems. In
recent decades the city has become one of the safest in the region (City of Fontana 2018a). The DOF
estimates that there are currently 213,944 residents in Fontana (DOF 2021). Therefore, FDP
currently operates with 0.98 officers per 1,000 residents.
The project would incrementally increase demand for police protection services by adding up to
approximately 808 residents to the city, which would slightly reduce the ratio of police officers to
residents to 0.97 officers per 1,000 residents. In March 2022, the FPD was contacted with
information regarding the proposed project and the FPD indicated that the proposed project would
be adequately served by the FPD headquarters (FPD 2022). Therefore, although the project would
incrementally increase demand for police services, the project would not result in substantial
adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection
facilities. In addition, as discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, construction of the
proposed project would generate 201 housing units and increase the existing population by up to
approximately 808 residents which would not exceed SCAG’s 2045 population or housing forecast.
The City also requires the payment of DIFs for the provisioning of police protection services.
Consistent with the requirements of FMC Section 21-122, the proposed project would pay the
required DIFs to the FPD to offset the incremental increase in demand for police services (City of
Fontana 2021a). Therefore, the project would not result in the need for new or physically altered
police protection facilities that could have an environmental impact. Impacts would be less than
significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?
The project site is in the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD) which had an enrollment of
35,461 students in the 2010-2021 academic year (Ed-Data 2022). The project site would be served
by Ted Porter Elementary School (Transitional Kindergarten-Grade 5), Alder Middle School
(Grades 6-8), and Fontana High School (Grades 9-12) (FUSD 2022).
The need for new school facilities is typically associated with a population increase that generates
an increase in enrollment large enough to cause new schools to be constructed. The project involves
the construction of a 201-unit multi-family residential development. Households in Fontana, on
average, generate 0.7 schoolchildren (City of Fontana 2018c). Therefore, the proposed project
would be anticipated to result in approximately 141 new students in the FUSD, which would
increase enrollment by less than one percent.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
104
The project would result in a relatively minor increase in students in the city. Nonetheless, the
project applicant would be required to pay State-mandated school impact fees that would
contribute to the funds available for development of new school facilities. Pursuant to
Section 65995 (3)(h) of the California Government Code (SB 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), the
payment of statutory fees “...is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any
legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or
development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization.”
Therefore, with the payment of the required school impact fees, the project would not increase
student enrollment or lead to the need for new or physically altered school facilities. Impacts would
be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?
The City’s General Plan establishes a park standard goal of providing five acres of parkland per 1,000
residents and includes goals for no net loss of public parkland and for all residents to live within
walking or bicycling distance of a public park (Fontana 2018a). The City owns and operates 34 public
parks with a total of 1,195 acres of land for public use (Fontana 2018a). According to the DOF, the
city has an estimated population of 213,944 (DOF 2021). Therefore, the City’s existing parkland ratio
is 5.58 acres per 1000 residents, which meets the established General Plan parkland ratio goal. As
discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the proposed project could result in the addition of
up to 808 new residents in the city, which would bring the city’s population to 214,752. With the
proposed project, the parkland ratio would be 5.56 acres per 1,000 residents, indicating that the city
has sufficient existing parkland available to serve the proposed project.
The nearest park to the project site is Fernandez Park, located approximately 0.6-mile northeast at
18006 Miller Avenue. Fernandez Park is a small community park that includes a playground, picnic
areas, trails, and restrooms. The project site is also one mile northeast of Miller Park, a larger
community park, which includes a fitness room, playground, pool, racquetball courts, and
restrooms. Therefore, future residents of the proposed project would be able to walk or bike to
nearby public parks, in conformance with the goals of the General Plan. Additionally, the project
would be required to pay the City’s Quimby Fees for future park maintenance and development.
Therefore, the proposed project would not create the need for new or expanded park facilities.
Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of other new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for other new or physically
altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives?
The project site in an urban area already served by public services and facilities, such as utilities and
public libraries. Development of the project would result in incremental impacts to the City’s public
services and facilities such as storm drain usage, solid-waste disposal, water usage, and wastewater
disposal. These impacts are analyzed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 19,
Environmental Checklist Public Services
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 105
Utilities and Service Systems. The project’s contribution to storm drain usage, solid-waste disposal,
water usage, and wastewater disposal would be offset through project-specific features described in
the individual resource section analyses indicated above.
The City of Fontana is served by three public libraries (San Bernardino County 2022). The library
closest to the project site is the Fontana Lewis Library and Technology Center, located
approximately 1.1 miles to the southwest of the site at 8437 Sierra Avenue. As discussed in
Section 14, Population and Housing, the proposed project could potentially increase the city’s
population by up to 808 residents, which would be an increase of approximately 0.4 percent.
Increased population generated by the proposed project would incrementally increase demand on
local public libraries in the vicinity, such as the Lewis Library. However, the project would be subject
to Fontana’s DIFs for library facilities. As a result, the proposed project would contribute to the
financing of library services through impact fees and property taxes, which would mitigate the need
for new or physically altered government facilities that support library use. Therefore, the project
would not substantially affect existing governmental facilities or require the need for new or altered
governmental facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
106
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Recreation
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 107
16 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ ■ □
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
According to the General Plan, the City owns and operates 34 public parks with a total of
1,195 acres of land for public use (City of Fontana 2018a). The City’s existing parkland ratio is
5.58 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. As discussed in Section 15, Public Services, the project’s
influx of population would not substantially decrease the existing parkland-to-resident ratio, and the
City would still meet its goal of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents established in the General
Plan (City of Fontana 2018a). Additionally, the project site is within walking or biking distance of two
public parks, and the project would include amenities such as a pool, recreation center, and
0.11 acre of open space, which would help serve the recreational needs of future residents.
Additionally, the City currently collects three acres of parkland or in-lieu fees from new residential
subdivisions for every 1,000 residents in accordance with California Government Code
Section 66477 (Quimby Act). The project would be required to pay the City’s Quimby Fees for future
park maintenance and development. Therefore, potential impacts related to recreational facilities
would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
108
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Transportation
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 109
17 Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ ■ □
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ ■ □
Urban Crossroads prepared a Traffic Analysis (TA) in April 2022 to evaluate the traffic operations for
the proposed project, identify potential impacts to the circulation system, and recommend
improvements. The following analysis is based on the findings of the TA, which is included as
Appendix G.
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Regional access to the project site is provided by SR-210, which is approximately two miles north of
the project site, and I-10, which is approximately 2.6 miles south of the project site. Local access to
the site is provided by Foothill Boulevard and Alder Avenue. In addition, regional mass transit
service is provided by OmniTrans. The site is currently served by Omnitrans bus route 14 along
Foothill Boulevard. The nearest bus stop for Omnitrans bus route 14 is approximately 280 feet west
of the project site at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Alder Avenue. Sidewalks are
provided along all roadways abutting the project site for pedestrian access. There are currently no
bicycle lanes along any of these roadways. According to the Fontana Active Transportation Plan, a
Class II on-street bicycle lane is planned on Foothill Boulevard from Citrus Avenue to Maple Avenue,
including the area along the project frontage, and a Class II bicycle lane is proposed on Alder Avenue
from Baseline Road to Randall Avenue, including the area along the project frontage (City of
Fontana 2017a).
Project Construction
Construction of the project would generate traffic for deliveries of equipment and materials to the
project site and construction worker traffic. Construction-related vehicles would travel to, and
access, the project site via Foothill Boulevard and Alder Avenue. According to CalEEMod outputs
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
110
(Appendix B), the project would generate 205 construction worker trips and 45 vendor trips during
the approximate 18-month building construction phase and would require 15 construction worker
trips and 5,125 hauling trips during the approximate four-month grading phase for soil import.
Construction worker and hauling traffic may result in increased traffic in the vicinity of the project
site; however, these impacts would be temporary and minimal.
Construction of the proposed project would not involve any vehicle or equipment staging on Foothill
Boulevard or Alder Avenue. Construction vehicles and equipment would be staged on the project
site. Temporary lane closures on Foothill Boulevard and Alder Avenue may be required during site
entrance construction, but access to these roadways would be maintained throughout the
construction period. Construction also would not require any temporary closures or alterations to
the bus stops located near the project site, and Omnitrans bus route 14 would be able to continue
operating at this location.
To further lessen the potential impact of construction traffic, the project would be required to
comply with all local and state standard conditions pertaining to construction, including work hours,
traffic control plans, haul routes, access, oversized-vehicle transportation permits, site security,
noise, vehicle emissions, and dust control. Whenever possible, construction-related trips would be
restricted to off-peak hours. Transportation of heavy construction equipment and or materials
requiring the use of oversized vehicles would require the appropriate transportation permit. In
addition, pursuant to City of Fontana regulations, since construction work would impact the public
right-of-way, the construction contractor would be required to submit a construction work site
traffic control plan to the City for review and approval prior to the start of any construction work
that would impact the public right-of-way. The plan would be required to demonstrate the location
of any roadway, sidewalk, bike route, bus stop or driveway closures, traffic detours, haul routes,
hours of operation, protective devices, warning signs and access to abutting properties (City of
Fontana 2022b). Temporary traffic controls used around the construction area would be required to
adhere to the standards set forth in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and
construction activities would be required to adhere to applicable City ordinances. Therefore,
construction would not conflict with any programs, plans, or ordinances addressing the circulation
system.
Project Operation
Operation of the project would generate new vehicle trips from residents accessing the site.
According to the TA, the proposed project would generate 6.74 daily trips, 0.40 AM peak hour trips,
and 0.51 PM peak hour trips per dwelling unit. Therefore, the proposed project would be
anticipated to generate approximately 1,416 daily trips, with 84 AM peak hour and 107 PM peak
hour trips. As further described under Impact 17b., the City of Fontana, consistent with the updated
CEQA Guidelines adopted in December 2018, is required to use VMT as the primary metric for
evaluating transportation impacts associated with vehicle trips. The City of Fontana adopted VMT
guidelines consistent with these requirements in October 2020. The operational vehicle traffic
impacts of the proposed project are therefore evaluated according to the City’s adopted VMT
guidelines established in the City of Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for VMT and Level of
Service Assessment under Impact 17b. As discussed therein, the proposed project would not result
in significant VMT impacts.
In addition to the City’s adopted VMT guidelines, the Fontana General Plan Community Mobility and
Circulation Element; Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element; and the Fontana 2017 Active
Transportation Plan, contain the City’s goals addressing the circulation system. Project consistency
Environmental Checklist Transportation
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 111
with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies contained in the Fontana General Plan and Active
Transportation Plan is illustrated in Table 25, below.
Table 25 Project Consistency with Fontana Circulation System Plans
Goal Project Consistency
General Plan Community Mobility and Circulation Element
Goal 1: The City of Fontana has a comprehensive and
balanced transportation system with safety and
multimodal accessibility the top priority of citywide transportation planning, as well as accommodating freight movement.
Consistent. The proposed project is within the vicinity of
bus stops for Omnitrans bus route 14 and would include
internal walking paths that connect to existing sidewalks
along Foothill Boulevard and Alder Avenue and dedicated
bicycle parking to enable multi-modal accessibility to the
site. Therefore, the project would be consistent with Goal 1.
Goal 3: Local transit within the City of Fontana is a viable choice for residents, easily accessible and serving destinations throughout the city.
Consistent. The project is an infill development within an
area easily accessible by public transit, walking and biking
and is adjacent to existing residential and commercial/retail
uses. In addition, the project is located adjacent to Foothill
Boulevard which is serviced by Omnitrans bus route 14. The
nearest bus stop for Omnitrans bus route 14 is
approximately 280 feet west of the project site at the
intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Alder Avenue. These
features would incentivize the use of public transit for
traveling to and from the site. Therefore, the proposed
project would be consistent with Goal 3.
Goal 6: The city has attractive and convenient parking
facilities for both motorized and non-motorized vehicles
that fit the context.
Consistent. The proposed project would include vehicle
parking spaces and dedicated bicycle parking spaces
consistent with the requirements of the FMC. Therefore,
the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 6.
General Plan Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element
Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high quality of life and economic prosperity.
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 is a multi-family residential project
on an infill site in a residential area with nearby access to
retail, services, and public transit providing for a variety of
mobility options for residents. The project would include
recreational amenities for residents including shared open
space and a recreation center. Therefore, the proposed
project would provide a high-quality living environment
with convenient access and mobility options and would be
consistent with Goal 2 and Policy 2.2.
2017 Active Transportation Plan
Goal 1: Increase and improve pedestrian and bicyclist access to employment centers, schools, transit, recreation facilities, other community destinations across the City of Fontana, and facilities in neighboring cities for people of all ages and abilities.
Consistent. The proposed project would include internal
walking paths that connect to the existing sidewalks
surrounding the project site, as well as dedicated bicycle
parking to enable pedestrian and bicycle access to and from
the site. In addition, the project site is within walking and
bicycling distance of Omnitrans bus stops and existing
residential and commercial/retail amenities, enabling
residents to utilize active transportation and public transit
to access community destinations. Therefore, the project
would be consistent with Goal 1.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
112
Goal Project Consistency
Goal 3: Maintain and improve the quality, operation, and
integrity of the pedestrian and bicycle network
infrastructure that allows for convenient and direct
connections throughout Fontana. Increase the number
of high quality support facilities to complement the network, and create public pedestrian and bicycle environments that are attractive, functional, and accessible to all people.
Objective 3.A: Incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities into private and public development projects.
Consistent. The proposed project would include internal
walking paths that connect to the existing sidewalks
surrounding the project site, as well as dedicated bicycle
parking to enable pedestrian and bicycle access to and from
the site. Therefore, the project would incorporate
pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities and would be
consistent with Goal 3 and Objective 3.A.
Source: City of Fontana 2017a and 2018b
As illustrated above, the proposed project would not conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies
contained in the Fontana General Plan and Active Transportation Plan. The project would continue
to be served by and would not interfere with existing and planned roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and
public transit facilities. The proposed project would not alter the alignment of Foothill Boulevard or
introduce features that would preclude the addition of bike lanes as planned in the Active
Transportation Plan, nor would the project alter operation of the existing Omnitrans bus stops in the
site vicinity. Therefore, project operation would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system. No significant adverse impacts would occur.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the updated
CEQA Guidelines package. The amended CEQA Guidelines, specifically Section 15064.3, generally
require the use of VMT as the primary metric for the evaluation of transportation impacts
associated with land use and transportation projects. In general terms, VMT quantifies the amount
and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project or region. All agencies and projects state-
wide are required to utilize the updated CEQA Guidelines for evaluating transportation impacts as of
July 1, 2020.
The updated CEQA Guidelines allow for lead agency discretion in establishing methodologies and
thresholds provided there is substantial evidence to demonstrate that the established procedures
promote the intended goals of the legislation. Where quantitative models or methods are
unavailable, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 allows agencies to assess VMT qualitatively using
factors such as availability of transit and proximity to other destinations. The Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA provides technical
considerations regarding methodologies and thresholds with a focus on office, residential, and retail
developments as these projects tend to have the greatest influence on VMT.
The City of Fontana adopted its VMT guidelines in October 2020. Therefore, the project VMT impact
has been assessed in accordance with the City’s VMT guidelines and guidance from City staff.
Consistent with recommendations in the OPR Technical Advisory, the City has established three
screening criteria for projects that may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.
These include if the project is located within a Transit Priority Area, is a residential or office project
Environmental Checklist Transportation
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 113
located in a low-VMT generating area based on the San Bernardino County Transportation Analysis
Model, or if the project is a local-serving retail project of less than 50,000 square feet.
According to the TA, the project is screened out from a detailed VMT analysis because the project
site is a residential project located in a low VMT area identified in the San Bernardino County
Transportation Analysis Model. The residential uses associated with the project are consistent with
the predominant land uses in the vicinity of the project site, which includes residential
neighborhoods. Therefore, the project is reasonably expected to generate similar VMT as the
existing land uses in this low-VMT area. In accordance with the City’s VMT thresholds, VMT impacts
associated with the project would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?
The project would be accessible via one main driveway along Foothill Boulevard and one residential
driveway along Alder Avenue. Other than the construction of these two driveways, the project
would not alter Alder Avenue or Foothill Boulevard (e.g., no roadway widening required). Project
site plans indicate the provisioning of on-site drive aisles to accommodate vehicular access to and
circulation throughout the project site, and traffic calming features, including internal roadway
speed limits and speed bumps, would be included to ensure safe circulation within the site.
Furthermore, the proposed residential development would not result in uses that would be
incompatible with the existing land uses surrounding the project site, which also includes residential
uses. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in substantial hazards due to
geometric design features or incompatible uses. No significant adverse impacts would occur.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
During construction, temporary and occasional lane closures may be required on Foothill Boulevard
and Alder Avenue, however two-way traffic would still be maintained at construction entry points
and along Foothill Boulevard and Alder Avenue as required by the City of Fontana’s Excavation and
Traffic Control Permit. Therefore, project construction would not result in inadequate emergency
access to the project site or surroundings.
During project operation, emergency response vehicles would be able to access the project site via
the main entrance along Foothill Boulevard and the residential entrance along Alder Avenue. Site
circulation plans would be reviewed by the FFPD during the project application process to ensure
adequate on-site lane widths and configurations for emergency vehicle ingress and egress.
Furthermore, the proposed project would not modify existing roadways in the vicinity, other than by
adding new site access points, and would therefore not affect emergency vehicle use of area
roadways. The project would be subject to FFPD review of site plans prior to occupancy to ensure
that required fire protection safety features, including building sprinklers and emergency access, are
implemented. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts related to emergency access would occur.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
114
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Tribal Cultural Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 115
18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in a PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in PRC
Section 5020.1(k), or □ □ ■ □
b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe. □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource as defined in PRC Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC
Section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource as defined in PRC Section 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1?
As of July 1, 2015, AB 52 was enacted and expands CEQA by defining a new resource category,
“tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “A project with an effect that may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have
a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency
shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal
cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).
PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places,
cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe” that are either:
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
116
1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register
of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or
1. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1.
In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.
The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB
52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native
American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects
proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
Rincon requested a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) by the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) on May 4, 2022. The NAHC sent a response on May 4, 2022, stating that a
search of the SLF was completed with negative results. The NAHC also provided a list of 18 Native
American contacts who may have knowledge regarding cultural resources of Native American origin
within the project site. Five tribes have requested notification of projects in Fontana: the Soboba
Band of Luiseño Indians, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation), Torres
Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, and San Gabriel Band of
Mission Indians. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, the City mailed consultation letters to these
tribes on August 4, 2022.
The City received a response from the Kizh Nation on August 4, 2022 requesting consultation to
discuss the proposed project in further detail. Consultation between the Kizh Nation representatives
and City Staff was conducted via email, through which confidential materials regarding areas of
potential sensitivity for tribal cultural resources were shared with the City. In addition, the City
received a response from the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation on August 23, 2022 indicating that
the Tribe does not have any concerns with the proposed project but requesting that the City inform
the Tribe of any cultural/archaeological studies completed for the project and contact the tribe if
Tribal cultural resources are unearthed during the course of the project construction.
Although no Tribal cultural resources are expected to be present on-site based on the records
search and survey results, the possibility of encountering undisturbed subsurface tribal cultural
resources cannot be ruled out. The proposed excavation of the project site could potentially result
in adverse effects to unanticipated tribal cultural resources. However, implementation of Mitigation
Measures CR-1 and CR-2, along with the City’s Condition of Approval for Tribal and Cultural
Resources would be required upon approval of the project. The condition is as follows:
Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in
the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and
archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the
qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in
origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with
the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will
request preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on
other parts of the project while evaluation takes place.
Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not
feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to
Environmental Checklist Tribal Cultural Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 117
remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All Tribal Cultural
Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native
American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in
the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in
the area for educational purposes.
Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects
shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any
unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated
funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior
standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal
investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The
Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and
qualified.
Adherence to the California Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code, along with
implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2, and adherence to the condition of approval,
would reduce the potential for impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less-than-significant level.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
118
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 119
19 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects? □ □ ■ □
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ ■ □
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments? □ □ ■ □
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals? □ □ ■ □
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? □ □ ■ □
A Site Feasibility Study was prepared for the project site by Huitt-Zollars, Inc. in January 2022 (Huitt-
Zollars, Inc. 2022) to analyze potential issues relating to zoning, encumbrances, drainage, and
utilities. The report included review of existing water, sewer, drainage, and dry utility infrastructure
in the project area. The following analysis is based on the information contained in this project-
specific report (see Appendix H).
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?
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
120
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Water
The project site is in an urbanized area and is well-served by existing utilities infrastructure. The
project site lies within the service boundaries of the Fontana Water Company (FWC) operated by
SGVWC, from which it would receive water service. As discussed further below under the analysis
for Threshold 19.b, SGVWC would have adequate water supplies available for the proposed project
and no new or expanded water facilities would be required to serve the project. The proposed
project would connect to the existing 12-inch water main line adjacent to the site in Foothill
Boulevard, the existing 6-inch water main along the far side of Foothill Boulevard, and the existing 6-
and 24-inch water mains on the far side of Alder Avenue (Huitt-Zollars, Inc. 2022). Therefore,
potential impacts related to water facilities would be less than significant.
Wastewater Treatment
The City owns a sanitary sewer system of over 250 miles of sewer lines and six sewage pump
stations (City of Fontana 2018a). The proposed project would connect to the existing 8-inch sewer in
Alder Avenue (Huitt-Zollars, Inc. 2022). While Fontana owns the local sewer infrastructure,
wastewater treatment services are supplied by a regional authority, the Inland Empire Utilities
Authority (IEUA), which also delivers recycled water for non-potable uses (City of Fontana 2018c).
The IEUA owns and operates six regional wastewater treatment facilities, including one in nearby
Ontario and one in Rancho Cucamonga. The City of Fontana is within the service area of two of
IEUA’s Regional Plants (RP), RP-1 and RP-4 (City of Fontana 2018c). The treatment capacity of RP-1 is
44 million gallons per day (gpd), and currently treats approximately 28 million gpd (IEUA 2022a), or
64 percent of its capacity, with a remaining capacity of 16 million gpd. The treatment capacity of RP-
4 is 14 million gpd, and typically treats approximately 10 million gpd (IEUA 2022b), or approximately
71 percent of capacity, with a remaining capacity of 4 million gpd. According to CalEEMod outputs
(Appendix B), the project is anticipated to require approximately 22.6 million gallons of water per
year. Assuming that total water demand is equivalent to approximately 120 percent of wastewater
generation, the project would generate approximately 18.1 gallons of wastewater per year, or
approximately 0.05 gpd, which would account for approximately 0.3 percent and 1.3 percent of the
remaining capacities of RP-1 and RP-4, respectively. Therefore, the IEUA would have adequate
capacity to provide wastewater treatment for the proposed project and the proposed project would
not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance or treatment facilities.
Potential impacts would be less than significant.
Stormwater
The project site would continue to connect to the existing storm drain system operated and
maintained by the City. The proposed project would increase impervious surfaces over the project
site due to construction of the 201-unit multi-family residential community. As discussed in
Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, compliance with the FMC and MS4 Permit requires
preparation of a WQMP that illustrates the capabilities of on-site BMPs to capture and treat flows
from a ten-year storm event. As part of the project’s final design review, the project would be
required to submit a WQMP demonstrating adequate stormwater retention using BMPs. Therefore,
Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 121
upon compliance with applicable regulations, potential impacts related to new or expanded
stormwater facilities would be less than significant.
Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
The proposed project would not cause substantial unplanned population growth (see Section 14,
Population and Housing), and would not result in wasteful or inefficient use of energy (see
Section 6, Energy). Project operation would result in an increase in electricity consumption on the
project site by 1.2 GWh per year; however, electricity consumption is anticipated to have a net zero
draw from the electricity grid since electricity would be generated by a PV system. Therefore, the
project would not require the extension or expansion of electrical facilities.
According to CalEEMod outputs (Appendix B), estimated natural gas consumption for the project
would be approximately 2.9 billion Btu or approximately 0.03 MMthm per year. The project’s
natural gas demand would be served by SoCalGas, which provided approximately 5,231 MMthm per
year in 2020 (CEC 2021b). The project’s natural gas consumption would represent less than 0.001
percent of natural gas provided by SoCalGas, indicating that there are adequate facilities and
supplies in the area to serve the project. Therefore, the project would not require additional natural
gas storage/transmission facilities. Likewise, the project site is an infill project served by existing
telecommunications facilities within the city and would not require the expansion or construction of
new telecommunications infrastructure.
As described in the above analysis, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts
due to the construction of new utility facilities and the project would be served by a wastewater
treatment plant with adequate capacity. Potential impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
The project site receives its water service from the SGVWC – FWC Division. FWC sources its water
supply from surface water diverted from Lytle Creek, untreated State Water Project surface water
from the IEUA and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, recycled water purchased from
IEUA, and groundwater pumped from FWC-owned and operated wells from the underlying Chino,
Rialto-Colton, Lytle, and No Man’s Land Basins (FWC 2021).
According to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), FWC would have an adequate
supply of water, with normal conservation efforts, to meet projected demand through 2045 in
average year, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios (FWC 2021). Table 26 and Table 27
show projected water supply and demand under normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year
conditions in the FWC service area through 2045.
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
122
Table 26 Normal Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison (acre-feet per year [AFY])
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Estimated Service Area Population 246,665 253,789 263,286 272,900 281,020
Water Supply Totals 45,593 46,909 48,665 50,442 51,943
Water Demand Totals 45,593 46,909 48,665 50,442 51,943
Source: FWC 2021
Table 27 Single and Multiple Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Estimated Service Area Population 246,665 253,789 263,286 272,900 281,020
Single Dry Year
Water Supply Totals 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Water Demand Totals 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Multiple - First Dry Year
Water Supply Totals 42,886 44,124 45,776 47,447 48,859
Water Demand Totals 42,886 44,124 45,776 47,447 48,859
Multiple - Second Dry Year
Water Supply Totals 41,415 42,610 44,206 45,820 47,183
Water Demand Totals 41,415 42,610 44,206 45,820 47,183
Multiple - Third Dry Year
Water Supply Totals 34,074 35,057 36,369 37,697 38,819
Water Demand Totals 34,074 35,057 36,369 37,697 38,819
Multiple - Fourth Dry Year
Water Supply Totals 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Water Demand Totals 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Multiple - Fifth Dry Year
Water Supply Totals 36,526 37,580 38,987 40,411 41,613
Water Demand Totals 36,526 37,580 38,987 40,411 41,613
Source: FWC 2021
The project would be constructed in accordance with all applicable CBC standards, including those
that mandate water-efficient fixtures and features, and would also be mandated to adhere to
applicable water conservation measures for landscaping. According to CalEEMod results (see
Appendix B), the project would demand approximately 61,892 gallons of water per day, or
approximately 69.3 AFY. FWC anticipates water demand to increase by 4,736 to 6,350 AFY between
2025 and 2045. The project’s water demand would account for approximately 1.1 to 1.5 percent of
FWC’s anticipated water demand and therefore would be accommodated by the water supply
available for the city during normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions through the
year 2045. Potential impacts related to water supply would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 123
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
AB 341 set a statewide goal for a 75 percent reduction in waste disposal by the year 2020 and
established mandatory recycling for commercial businesses. The City is required to comply with this
law and report their progress towards achieving the 75 percent reduction goal to the Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). The City contracts with Burrtec Waste Industries to
provide trash, recycling, and special pickup services for residents. After collection, waste is conveyed
to the Mid-Valley Landfill, located at 2390 Alder Avenue in the City of Rialto. Mid-Valley is the
primary solid waste depository for the area. Burrtec also operates a transfer station in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga (City of Fontana 2018c). The Mid-Valley Landfill has a maximum permitted
throughput of is 7,500 tons of solid waste per day. The anticipated life for the landfill at its currently
permitted capacity is April 2045. The last reported remaining capacity at the landfill was
approximately 61.2 million cubic yards (CalRecycle 2019).
Construction of the proposed project would generate solid waste, including construction debris. This
construction debris would include materials such as scrap wood, concrete, and plaster materials.
Construction debris would be removed and disposed of in a timely manner and in accordance with
all applicable laws and regulations. The handling of all debris and waste generated during
construction of the project would be subject to CALGreen requirements and the California
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requirements for salvaging, recycling, and
reuse of materials from construction activity on the project site. In accordance with CALGreen
requirements, the project would be required to achieve a minimum of 65 percent diversion rate for
construction waste. Construction waste would be hauled to the Mid-Valley Landfill, located
approximately 2.6 miles north of the project site. The removal of construction debris would only
occur during the construction period and construction of the proposed project would not contribute
to an exceedance of the permitted capacity of any local landfill.
According to the CalEEMod results (see Appendix B), operation of the proposed project would
generate approximately 96.5 tons of solid waste per year or approximately 0.3 ton per day. The
project’s anticipated daily solid waste generation would account for less than 0.01 percent of the
Mid-Valley Landfill’s permitted throughput. Given the existing surplus capacity at the Mid-Valley
Landfill, the solid waste generated by operation of the project would be adequately accommodated
by existing landfills. In addition, the proposed project would comply with federal, State, and local
statues and regulations related to solid waste, such as AB 939 and the City’s recycling programs for
residences. Therefore, potential impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
124
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Wildfire
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 125
20 Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? □ □ ■ □
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? □ □ □ ■
c. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment? □ □ □ ■
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes? □ □ □ ■
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
A FHSZ is a mapped area that designates zones (based on factors such as fuel, slope, and fire
weather) with varying degrees of fire hazard (i.e., moderate, high, and very high). While FHSZs do
not predict when or where a wildfire will occur, they do identify areas where wildfire hazards could
be more severe and therefore are of greater concern. FHSZs are meant to help limit wildfire damage
to structures through planning, prevention, and mitigation activities/requirements that reduce risk.
The FHSZs serve several purposes: they are used to designate areas where California’s wildland
urban interface building codes apply to new buildings, they can be a factor in real estate disclosure,
and they can help local governments consider fire hazard severity in the safety elements of their
general plans.
The project site is in an urban area of Fontana surrounded by roads and structures, including
residential and commercial buildings. Undeveloped wildland areas are not located near the project
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
126
site. According to the California FHSZ Viewer, the project site is not located in a FHSZ or VHFHSZ for
wildland fires (CALFIRE 2022). The nearest VHFHSZ is located approximately 3.3 miles northwest of
the project site on the opposite side of SR-210. Additionally, as stated in the Fontana General Plan,
within the city, fire hazards have been ranked within the range of little to no threat (City of Fontana
2018a). Therefore, the project site would not be subject to substantial risk of wildfire.
The project involves the construction of a 201-unit multi-family residential community which would
incrementally increase demand for fire protection services. As discussed in Section 15, Public
Services, the project site is in an urbanized area already served by the SBCFD and would not have a
significant impact on fire response times nor create a substantially greater need for additional fire
protection services above current capacity. The nearest fire station to the project site is San
Bernardino County Fire Station No. 71, which is located approximately one mile to the southwest at
16980 Arrow Boulevard and would provide emergency and evacuation services in the event of a fire.
In addition, the City has prepared a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) that is currently being
updated. According to the LHMP, wildfire is of major concern in the city. For this reason, the LHMP
requires compliance with the San Bernadino County Wildfire Mitigation Programs and outlines the
procedures for evacuation and interagency emergency communication (City of Fontana 2017b).
Compliance with the LHMP would ensure that the proposed project would not impact an adopted
emergency response plan. Furthermore, all buildings would be constructed to meet the current
building code fire safety requirements. Construction of the proposed project would maintain
emergency access to the site and on area roadways and would not include any components, such as
roadway closures, that would interfere with an emergency response plan or evacuation route.
Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes
or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes?
As discussed under the response to Threshold a, the project site is not located in a FHSZ or VHFHSZ
for wildland fires. There are no streams or rivers located on or adjacent to the project site, and the
project site and surrounding areas are relatively flat and not at high risk of downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides. The project does not involve uses that could exacerbate wildfire
risks and risks to project occupants would be mitigated through conformance with the 2019
California Fire Code, 2019 CBC, and California Health and Safety Code, which establish provisions for
fire safety related to construction, maintenance and design of buildings and land uses. Therefore,
the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose people or structures to risk due to runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Likewise, residents of the project site would not be
exposed to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No
impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Wildfire
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 127
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure
(such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
The project site is not within or near a VHFHSZ or state responsibility area. The project site is located
approximately 3.3 miles from the nearest mapped VHFHSZ (CALFIRE 2022). The project site is
undeveloped but is within an urbanized area served by existing infrastructure, including roads and
utilities. The project would be served by the existing utilities in the project area and would not
require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure within FHSZs that may
exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, there would be no impact.
NO IMPACT
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
128
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 129
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory? □ ■ □ □
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)? □ □ ■ □
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly? □ ■ □ □
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The project site is within an urbanized area and is not within the vicinity of natural or wildland areas.
As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, regional wildlife movement is restricted given the
built-out nature of the project area, and no native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species,
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites exist on or
immediately around the project site. However, ornamental trees line the perimeter of the project
site and the site currently contains non-native grassland which may provide nesting habitat for
birds. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require a pre-construction nesting bird survey
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
130
should construction occur during the breeding season to avoid potential impacts to any on-site
nesting birds. Additionally, as discussed in Section 2, Air Quality, the proposed project would have a
less than significant impact for construction TAC emissions with the implementation of Mitigation
Measure AQ-1, which would require measures to reduce on-site construction vehicle and
equipment emissions. Therefore, construction activities would not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial TAC concentrations, and construction-related health impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, and Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources,
the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to cultural resources, paleontological
resources, and tribal cultural resources with implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2,
which require adherence to existing local, State, and federal regulations and specific monitoring
procedures related to the discovery of any unanticipated archaeological resources and tribal cultural
resources during construction activity. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the
potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Two projects identified in the Fontana Approved Projects List are located within one mile of the
project site, the ARCO Gas Commercial Center project located at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Alder Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, approximately 350 feet west of the project site,
and the Rock of Salvation Church project located at 27993 Foothill Boulevard, approximately
0.5 mile east of the project site (City of Fontana 2021b). As concluded in Sections 1 through 20, the
project would have no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated, with respect to all environmental issues considered in this document.
Cumulative impacts related to several other resource areas have been addressed in the individual
resource sections of this IS-MND, including air quality, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation
(see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)). As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, and Section 8,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts
associated with air quality and GHG emissions during both project construction and operation. The
impact analyses in these sections use thresholds that already account for cumulative (regional)
impacts. Therefore, air quality and GHG emissions associated with operation and construction
would be less than significant and not be cumulatively considerable.
As discussed in Section 13, Noise, the proposed project would comply with the construction hours
established by the FMC and would remain below the FTA daytime threshold at the nearest noise
sensitive receivers, the single-family residences located to the south, east, and west of the project
site. Noise, by definition, is a localized phenomenon and is progressively reduced as the distance
from the source increases; specifically, noise levels decrease by 6 dB for every doubling of distance.
Construction noise from nearby construction-sites typically correspond closely to the noise levels
generated by the single loudest noise source and do not combine to create significantly louder noise
Environmental Checklist Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 131
levels. Construction of both the ARCO Gas Commercial Center and Rock of Salvation Church projects
are expected to begin in Spring 2022 (City of Fontana 2021b), while construction of the proposed
project would be anticipated to begin later in Summer 2023. Therefore, construction of the
proposed project would not be anticipated to create a cumulatively considerable noise impact in
combination with construction activity associated with the ARCO Gas Commercial Center and Rock
of Salvation Church projects due to the gap in construction timing and distance between these sites.
In addition, the noise analysis in this IS-MND considered increases in on-site and off-site noise,
including traffic noise, under cumulative traffic conditions in the project opening year. Based on the
results, the traffic generated by the proposed project in combination with cumulative traffic
conditions would not result in a significant increase in roadway noise.
As discussed in Section 17, Transportation, construction of the project would not substantially
impede traffic flow on Alder Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Additionally, the project would not
result in significant VMT impacts or impacts to vehicular circulation under cumulative traffic
conditions according to the results of the project TA. The project would also not affect the nearby
Omnitrans bus stops, sidewalks, or pedestrian crosswalks on Alder Avenue and Foothill Boulevard or
otherwise interfere with pedestrian, bicycle, or public transit facilities. Therefore, the project would
not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to transportation impacts in the area.
This IS-MND determined that, for some of the other resource areas (e.g., agriculture and mineral
resources), the proposed project would have no impact in comparison to existing conditions.
Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to these issues. Other
issues (e.g., biological resources, cultural resources, geology, hazards, hazardous materials, and
tribal cultural resources) are by their nature project specific and impacts at one location do not add
to impacts at other locations or create additive impacts. As such, cumulative impacts would be less
than significant (not cumulatively considerable).
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, GHG emissions and climate
change, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts. As detailed in analyses for air quality,
GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise, the proposed project would not result,
either directly or indirectly, in adverse effects related to air quality, GHG emissions, hazardous
materials, or noise. Compliance with applicable rules and regulations included in this IS-MND would
reduce potential impacts on human beings to a less than significant level.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Frontier Enterprises Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
132
This page intentionally left blank.
References
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 133
References
Bibliography
Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). 2016. Final White Paper Beyond 2020 and
Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan
Targets for California. October. https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf
(accessed April 2022).
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community
Health Perspective. April 2005. https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf (accessed April
2022).
______. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Last modified: May 4, 2016.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf (accessed April ).
______. 2020. Map of State and Federal Area Designation. Last modified: October 2020.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations
(accessed April 2022).
______. 2022. “Overview Diesel Exhaust & Health” [webpage]. N.d.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed April
2022).
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022a. California Important Farmland Finder.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed March 2022)
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2011 Census Benchmark.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ (accessed April 2022).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. California Natural Community
Conservation Plans. April 2019.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline (accessed August
2021).
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2022. California Fire Hazard
Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed February 2022).
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. SWIS Facility/Site
Details Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055).
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662
(accessed March 2022).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration
Guidance Manual CT-HWANP-RT-20-365.01.01. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf.
Accessed February 2022.
______.2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-
069.25.2) https://www.dtsc-ssfl.com/files/lib_ceqa/ref_draft_peir/Chap4_10-
Noise/Caltrans_2013a_Tech_Noise_Supplement.pdf. Accessed February 2022.
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
134
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021a. Total System Electric Generation.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-
total-system-electric-generation (accessed April 2022).
______. 2021b. “Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-
reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas-market/supply-and-demand-natural-gas-
california (accessed April 2022).
______. 2021c. “California Energy Consumption Database.” https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/ (accessed
April 2022).
______. 2021d. “California’s Petroleum Market.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-
almanac/californias-petroleum-market (accessed April 2022).
______. 2021e. “California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results.”
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-
retail-fuel-outlet-annual-reporting (accessed April 2022).
California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). 2022. Well Finder.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/-117.46551/34.10436/15
(accessed March 2022)
California Natural Resource Agency. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide
Summary Report. August 27, 2018. http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/ (accessed
April 2022).
Carrier. 2011. 38HDR Performance Series Air Conditioner with Puron Refrigerant. 1-1/2 to 5 Nominal
Tons. Product Data. https://www.americancoolingandheating.com/wp-
content/uploads/carrier-product-data-specifications/38hdr-5pd.pdf. Accessed February
2022.
Crocker, Malcolm J. Crocker (Editor). 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control Book, ISBN:
978-0-471-39599-7, Wiley-VCH, October.
Education Data Partnership (Ed-Data). 2022. Fontana Unified. http://www.ed-data.org/district/San-
Bernardino/Fontana-Unified (accessed February 2022).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2008. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Map
06037C1725F. Effective September 26, 2008.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Barbee%20Street%20Fontana%20#sear
chresultsanchor (accessed March 2022).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook.
(FHWAHEP-06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02). Available at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/construction_noise/handbook.
______. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. December 2011.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_ab
atement_guidance/revguidance.pdf (accessed February 2022).
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-
innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-
0123_0.pdf. Accessed February 2022.
References
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 135
Fontana Police Department (FPD). 2022. Personal communication with James Burton, Admin
Captain. March 17, 2022.
Fontana Unified School District (FUSD). 2022. Fontana Unified School District. New School
Boundaries 2019-2020.
https://fusd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=4faad1b570994ad09e39040551
077c2e (accessed March 2022).
Fontana Water Company (FWC). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021.
https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-
2021-Final.pdf (accessed March 2022).
Fontana, City of. 2014. Traffic Volume Map.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/36781/Fontana-Traffic-Count-Map-
Updated?bidId=. Accessed April 2022.
______. 2017a. Department of Engineering. Active Transportation Plan.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/27009/ATP-Final-Report (accessed March
2022).
______. 2017b. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan
(accessed November 2022).
______. 2018a. General Plan Update 2015-2035. https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-
Update-2015---2035 (accessed March 2022).
______. 2018b. Fontana Fire Protection District Strategic Plan.
https://novus.fontana.org/AttachmentViewer.ashx?AttachmentID=16102&ItemID=12107
(accessed March 2022).
______. 2018c. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact
Report. June 8, 2018. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-
Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed March 2022).
______. 2021a. Code of Ordinances.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH21PLD
E_ARTVTIPADEIMFE_S21-122TIPADEIMFE (accessed March 2022).
______. 2021b. City of Fontana Planning Department Approved Projects. 2021.
https://www.fontana.org/765/Current-Projects (accessed April 2022).
______. 2022a. Stations & Equipment. Fire Station 71. https://www.fontana.org/639/Stations-
Equipment (accessed March 2022).
______. 2022b. Excavation and Traffic Control Permit Application.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/10102/Excavation-and-Traffic-Control-
Permit-Application (accessed March 2022).
______. 2022c. Response to Fire and Wildfire Protection Services Questionnaire. Received via email
from Maurice Moore, Fire Marshal, and Jonee Sanchez, Front Counter Technician.
______. N.d. City of Fontana Traffic Volume Map.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/36781/Fontana-Traffic-Count-Map-
Updated?bidId= (accessed April 2022).
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
136
Huitt-Zollars, Inc. 2022. Site Feasibility Study for Frontier Communities Fontana Apartments. January
21, 2022.
Inland Empire Utilities Authority (IEUA). 2022a. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1.
https://www.ieua.org/regional-water-recycling-plant-no-1/ (accessed March 2022).
______. 2022b. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 4. https://www.ieua.org/regional-water-
recycling-plant-no-4/ (accessed March 2022).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L.
Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell,
E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou
(eds.)] Cambridge University Press.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf
(accessed March 2022).
______. 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core
Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
Kinsler, Lawrence E. and R. Frey, Austin and B. Coppens, Alan and V. Sanders, James. 1999.
Fundamentals of Acoustics, 4th Edition. ISBN 0-471-84789-5. Wiley-VCH, December 1999.
Morton, D.M. and F.K. Miller. 2006. Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’
quadrangles, California. [map.] United States Geological Survey. Open-File Report OF-2006-
1217, scale 1:100,000.
San Antonio Water Company (SAWC). 2022. Chino Basin. https://www.sawaterco.com/chino-basin
(accessed April 2022).
San Bernardino County. 2022. San Bernardino Library Locations.
http://www.sbclib.org/LibraryLocations.aspx (accessed April 2022).
San Gabriel Valley Water Company. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage
Contingency. https://www.sgvwater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FINAL-San-Gabriel-
Valley-Water-Company-2020-UWMP.pdf (accessed March 2022).
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and
Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. https://vertpaleo.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
______. 2008. Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October 2008.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-
significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf (accessed April 2022).
______. 2009a. Final Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-
thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf (accessed April 2022).
______. 2010. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-
References
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 137
significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf
(accessed April 2022).
______. 2020. South Coast Air Basin Attainment Plan for 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Standard.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-
plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/fact-sheet-for-regional-public-
hearing.pdf?sfvrsn=8 (accessed April 2022).
______. 2021. 2020 Air Quality South Coast Air Quality Management District.
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/air-quality/historical-data-by-
year/aq2020card_final.pdf?sfvrsn=4 (accessed April 2022).
______. 1976. Rule 402 Nuisance. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-
iv/rule-402.pdf (accessed April 2022).
______. 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local
Planning. May 2005. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-
guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf (accessed April 2022).
______. 2009b. Appendix C. Mass Rate LST Look Up Table. October 2009.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-
thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed April 2022).
______. 2017. 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-
plan/final-2016-aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf (accessed April 2022).
______. 2019. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf (accessed April
2022).
______. 2020. Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy). https://www.connectsocal.org/Pages/Connect-SoCal-Final-Plan.aspx (accessed
April 2022).
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). April 7, 2016.
______. 2020. Final Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast. Adopted September 3,
2020. https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-plan (accessed March 2022).
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2022. Web Soil Map.
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed March 2022)
United States Energy Information Administration. 2021. California State Profile and Energy
Estimates. February 18, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA (accessed April 2022).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021a. Criteria Air Pollutants.
https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants (accessed April 2022).
______. 2021b. “Climate Change Indicators: Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases.”
Last modified: July 21, 2021. epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-
atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases (accessed April 2022).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. National Wetlands Inventory.
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html (accessed March 2022).
Begonia Real Estate Development, LLC Fontana Foothill Apartments Project
138
List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IS-MND under contract to Frontier Enterprises. Persons
involved in data gathering, analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Deanna Hansen, Principal-in-Charge
Susanne Huerta, Project Manager/Supervising Planner
Andrea Bean, Senior Archaeologist
Jennifer DiCenzo, Senior Paleontologist
Heather Dubois, Senior Environmental Planner
Angie Harbin, Senior Biologist
Bill Vosti, Senior Environmental Planner
Jacob Cisneros, Environmental Planner
Rachel Irvine, Environmental Planner
Shannon McAlpine, Environmental Planner
Aaron Rojas, Environmental Planner
Sarah Toback, Biologist
Andrew McGrath, Paleontologist