Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Sierra Avenue Project Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration
SIERRA AVENUE PROJECT Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) CEQA Analysis Prepared for: City of Fontana 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 Prepared by: UltraSystems Environmental Inc. 16431 Scientific Way Irvine, CA 92618-4355 Telephone: 949-788-4900 FAX: 949/788-4901 December 2022 Project No. 7175 This page left intentionally blank. ❖ PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ❖ 7578/Sierra Avenue Project Page i Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Project Information Sheet 1. Project Title Sierra Avenue Project MCN22-052/GPA22-003/ZCA22-004/DRP22-028 2. CEQA Lead Agency City of Fontana Cecily Session-Goins, Associate Planner 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335 E: CSGoins@fontana.org | T: (909) 350-6723 3. Project Applicant Spiegel Development, Inc. 23289 Ventura Blvd. Woodland Hills, CA 91364 T: (818) 404-1443 4. Project Location 7578 Sierra Avenue, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California 5. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers APNS 0241-071-41 and 42 6. Project Site General Plan Designation(s) Existing: Multi-Family Residential (R-MF) and Multi-Family High Density Residential (R-MFH) Proposed: Multi-Family Medium/High Residential (R-MFMH) 7. Project Site Zoning Designation(s) Existing: Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) and Multiple-Family High Density Residential (R-5) Proposed: Multi Family Medium/High Density Residential (R-4) 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting North – Vacant land, Church South – Multi-family Residential East – Single-Family Residential West – Scattered Residential 9. Description of Project The project proposes development of 93 residential units in 15 buildings (12 2-story, two 3-story, and one 2-story Office/Accessory Dwelling Unit [ADU]) on an approximately 4.00-acre (gross) site (3.64- acre (net) after 0.36- acre street improvement) located northwest of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Ramona Avenue. Refer to Section 3.0 of this document for additional information. ❖ PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ❖ 7578/Sierra Avenue Project Page ii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 The project applicant is requesting discretionary actions, which are discussed in detail in Section 3.0 of this document. 10. Selected Agencies whose Approval is Required City of Fontana Planning Department City of Fontana Building and Safety Department City of Fontana Public Works Department; City of Fontana Fire Protection District; and City of Fontana Engineering Department. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Letters were sent by the City of Fontana (the Lead Agency), to 12 local Native American Tribes on July 13, 2022 per Public Resources Code § 21074. asking if they wished to participate in AB 52 and SB 18 consultation concerning the proposed project in the City of Fontana. The AB 52 notice period for the Tribes is 30 days and the SB 18 notice period for the Tribes is 90 days in which they have an opportunity to respond to notification of this proposed project. The Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation and the Yuhaaviatam of the San Manuel Nation (YSMN) requested consultation. YSMN consultation was concluded August 19, 2022. Gabrielino-Kizh Nation consultation has not been concluded at thjs date. 12. Other Public Agencies Agencies that will review the proposed project include the following: None. ❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page iii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Proposed Project .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation .................................................. 1-2 1.3 CEQA Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Purpose of Initial Study ..................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.5 Review and Comment by Other Agencies .................................................................................. 1-4 1.6 Impact Terminology ........................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.7 Organization of Initial Study ........................................................................................................... 1-4 1.8 Findings from the Initial Study ....................................................................................................... 1-5 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................................................. 2-1 1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................... 2-1 1.2 Project Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 2-1 1.3 Existing Characteristics of the Site ............................................................................................... 2-1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Proposed Project Features ........................................................................................................ 3-43-5 3.4 Offsite Improvements ........................................................................................................................ 3-2 3.5 Construction Activities ...................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.6 Discretionary Actions ......................................................................................................................... 3-3 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ........................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................................4.1-1 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .........................................................................................4.2-1 4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................4.3-1 4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................4.4-1 4.5 Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................................................4.5-1 4.6 Energy ....................................................................................................................................................4.6-1 4.7 Geology and Soils ..............................................................................................................................4.7-1 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...........................................................................................................4.8-1 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................4.9-1 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 4.10-1 4.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................ 4.11-1 4.12 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 4.12-1 4.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 4.13-1 4.14 Population and Housing .............................................................................................................. 4.14-1 4.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................................ 4.15-1 4.16 Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 4.16-1 4.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................................ 4.17-1 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 4.18-1 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 4.19-1 4.20 Wildfire .............................................................................................................................................. 4.20-1 4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................... 4.21-1 5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 5-1 ❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page iv Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 CEQA Lead Agency ............................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Project Applicant .................................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.3 Civil Engineering .................................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.4 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. ................................................................................................. 6-1 6.5 Traffic Engineering .............................................................................................................................. 6-2 7.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ....................................................................... 7-1 TABLES Table 2.2-1 - Summary of Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations ...................................................... 2-1 Table 3.2-1 - Project Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Table 3.3-1 – Floor Plans ......................................................................................................................................... 3-43-5 Table 3.5-1 - Construction Phasing and Equipment Details ............................................................................ 3-3 Table 3.6-1 - Permits and Approvals ......................................................................................................................... 3-4 Table 4.1-1 - Existing Visual Character and Land Uses in the Project Area............................................4.1-4 Table 4.1-2 - Project Compliance with Applicable City of Fontana General Plan Policies Regarding Scenic Quality ....................................................................................................................................................... 4.1-94.1-10 Figure 4.2-1 - Important Farmland Categories ..................................................................................................4.2-2 Table 4.3-1 – Federal and State Attainment Status ..........................................................................................4.3-4 Table 4.3-2 – Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data .........................................................................................4.3-4 Table 4.3-3 - SCAQMD Emissions Thresholds for Significant Regional Impacts ..................................4.3-6 Table 4.3-4 - Construction Schedule .......................................................................................................................4.3-6 Table 4.3-5 - Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions ................................................................4.3-7 Table 4.3-6 - Maximum Daily Project Operational Emissions ......................................................................4.3-8 Table 4.3-7 - Results of Localized Significance Analysis.................................................................................4.3-9 Table 4.6-1 - Estimated Project Operational Energy Use .................................................................... 4.6-34.6-1 Table 4.7-1 - USDA Soils Mapped on the Project Site .................... Error! Bookmark not defined.4.7-9 Table 4.7-2 – Paleontological Records Search Results ................................................................................. 4.7-12 Table 4.8-1 - San Bernadino County GHG Reduction Targets for Countywide Emissions .... 4.8-64.8-7 Table 4.8-2 - Fontana 2016 Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory (MTCO2e) ..................................4.8-7 Table 4.8-3 - Project Construction-Related GHG Emissions ...................................................................... 4.8-10 Table 4.8-4 - Project Operational GHG Emissions .......................................................................................... 4.8-11 Table 4.9-1 - Hazardous Materials Sites Within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site ............................... 4.9-84.9-5 Table 4.11-1 - Consistency Analysis: Proposed Project Compared to Relevant City of Fontana General Plan Land Use, Zoning, And Urban Design Element Goals and Policies .................................................. 4.11-2 Table 4.13-1 - Sensitive Receivers in Project Area ........................................................................................ 4.13-2 Table 4.13-2 - Ambient Noise Measurement Results ...................................................................... 4.13-34.13-5 Table 4.13-3 - California Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Sources ............... 4.13-44.13-6 Table 4.13-4 - Construction Equipment Characteristics ........ Error! Bookmark not defined.4.13-12 Table 4.13-5 - Estimated Construction Noise Exposures at Nearest Sensitive Receiver .. 4.13-104.13- 12 Table 4.13-5 - Vibration Levels of Typical Construction Equipment .................................. 4.13-134.13-14 Table 4.14-1 - City of Fontana Demographic Forecast ................................................................................. 4.14-1 Table 4.14-2 - Regional Housing Needs Assessment, City of Fontana, 2021-2029 ............................ 4.14-2 Table 4.15-1 - Schools Serving the Project Site ............................................................................................... 4.15-2 Table 4.15-2 - Estimated Project Student Generation .................................................................................. 4.15-3 Table 4.15-3 - Project Impacts on Schools' Capacities ................................................................................. 4.15-3 ❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page v Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Table 4.17-1 - Project Compliance with City of Fontana General Plan Policies Regarding Mobility and Transportation................................................................................................................................................................ 4.17-2 Table 4.17-2 - ITE Trip Generation Rate ............................................................................................................ 4.17-3 Table 4.17-3 - Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 4.17-3 Table 4.19-2 - Estimated Project Water Demand ........................................................................................... 4.19-4 Table 4.19-3 - Landfills Serving Fontana .............................................................................................. 4.19-44.19-5 Table 4.19-4 - Estimated Project-Generated Solid Waste ........................................................................... 4.19-5 Table 7.0-1 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ......................................................................... 7-2 FIGURES Figure 2.1-1 - Regional Location .................................................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2.1-2 - Project Location ..................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2.2-1 - Topographic Map .................................................................................................................................. 2-4 Figure 2.2-2 - Project Site Photographs .................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 3.2-1 - Site Plan ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3.3-1 – Plan A Front and Right Elevations and Materials ............................................................ 3-53-6 Figure 3.3-2 – Plan A Rear and Left Elevations and Materials ................................................................. 3-63-7 Figure 3.3-3 - Clubhouse Elevations and Materials ...................................................................................... 3-73-8 Figure 3.3-4 - Office - ADU Elevations and Materials ................................................................................... 3-83-9 Figure 3.3-5 - Corner Unit Elevations ............................................................................................................... 3-93-10 Figure 3.3-6 – Street Views ................................................................................................................................ 3-103-11 Figure 3.3-7 – Preliminary Landscape Plan ................................................................................................ 3-123-13 Figure 4.1-1 - State Scenic Highways ......................................................................................................................4.1-3 Figure 4.1-2 - Existing Visual Character in the Vicinity of the Project Site .............................................4.1-5 Figure 4.1-3 - Building A Elevations-Front .......................................................................................... 4.1-104.1-11 Figure 4.1-4 - Building B Elevations-Rear ............................................................................................ 4.1-114.1-13 Figure 4.1-5 - Building C Elevations-Clubhouse ................................................................................ 4.1-124.1-14 Figure 4.1-6 – Building Elevations-Office and ADU Concept Views ........................................... 4.1-134.1-15 Figure 4.1-7 -– Elevations-Corner UnitColor and Materials Board ............................................ 4.1-144.1-16 Figure 4.4-1 – Project Location and Biological Study Area ...........................................................................4.4-3 Figure 4.4-2 – Land Cover Map .................................................................................................................................4.4-4 Figure 4.4-3 – CNDDB Known Occurrences Plant Species and Habitats .................................................4.4-7 Figure 4.4-4 – CNDDB Known Occurrences Wildlife Species .......................................................................4.4-8 Figure 4.4-5 – CDFW Wildlife Corridors ............................................................................................... 4.4-144.4-16 Figure 4.5-1 - Topographic Map ...............................................................................................................................4.5-2 Figure 4.7-1 – Alquist Priolo Fault Zones..............................................................................................................4.7-3 Figure 4.7-2 – Regionally Active Faults .................................................................................................................4.7-4 Figure 4.7- 3– Project Site – Soil Map .....................................................................................................................4.7-8 Figure 4.9-1 - Airport Influence Area Map for Ontario International Airport ......................... 4.9-104.9-7 Figure 4.9-2 - Fire Hazard Severity Zones - State Responsibility Area....................................... 4.9-124.9-9 Figure 4.9-3 - Fire Hazard Severity Zones - Local Responsibility Area .................................... 4.9-134.9-10 Figure 4.10-1 - USGS Surface Waters and Watersheds ................................................................................ 4.10-3 Figure 4.11-1 - General Plan Land Use Designation ...................................................................................... 4.11-3 Figure 4.11-2 - Zoning Designation ...................................................................................................................... 4.11-4 Figure 4.12-1 - Designated Mineral Resource Zone ...................................................................................... 4.12-3 Figure 4.12-2 – Oil and Gas Wells ......................................................................................................................... 4.12-1 Figure 4.13-1 - Sensitive Receivers Near the Project Site ........................................................................... 4.13-1 Figure 4.13-2 - Ambient Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................ 4.13-24.13-3 ❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page vi Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 APPENDICES Appendix A Project Plans and Drawings Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Appendix C Biological Resources Assessment Appendix D Cultural Resources Report Appendix D1 Paleontological Report Appendix E Drainage Plan Appendix E1 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix F Phase I Appendix H Noise Data Appendix I Limited VMT Analysis ❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page vii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Acronym/Abbreviation Term °F Degrees Fahrenheit AB Assembly Bill AB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act Of 2006 AB 939 California Integrated Waste Management Act AB 1327 California Solid Waste Reuse And Recycling Access Act Of 1991 ADA Americans With Disabilities Act ADT Average Daily Traffic AF Acre-Feet AMSL Above Mean Sea Level APE Area of Potential Effect APN Assessor’s Parcel Number AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ARB California Air Resources Board ATP Active Transportation Plan BMPs Best Management Practices BRE Biological Resources Evaluation Report BSA Biological Study Area C-2 General Commercial C-G General Commercial CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAGN California Gnatcatcher Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CBC California Building Code CCAA California Clean Air Act CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGS California Geologic Society CH4 methane CHRIS California Historic Resources Inventory System City City of Fontana CIWMA State of California Integrated Waste Management Act CMP Congestion Management Program CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CNRA California Natural Resources Agency CO Carbon monoxide ❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page viii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Acronym/Abbreviation Term CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent COHA Cooper’s hawk County County of Riverside CRC California Residential Code CRHR California Register of Historic Resources CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel scale DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DIF Development Impact Fees DMA drainage management area DOC California Department of Conservation DOSH California Division of Safety and Health DPM Diesel Particulate Matter DRP Design Review Project DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EG Electric Generation EIR Environmental Impact Report EMS Emergency Medical Service ESA Endangered Species Act ESA Environmental Site Assessment FAR floor area ratio FEMA Federal Emergency Management agency FFPD Fontana Fire Protection District FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zones FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FPD Fontana Police Department FTA Federal Transit Administration FUSD Fontana Unified School District FWC Fontana Water Company GHG greenhouse gas GPAD Gallons Per Net Acre Per Day GPCD Gallons Per Capita Per Day GWP Global Warming Potential H2S Hydrogen Sulfide HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HFCs hydrofluorocarbons HRA Health Risk Assessment Hz hertz IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency IPaC Information, Planning, and Conservation IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IS Initial Study IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration kWh kilowatt hours ❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page ix Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Acronym/Abbreviation Term L90 noise level that is exceeded 90% of the time Leq equivalent noise level LACM Los Angeles County Natural History Museum LAPM Los Angeles Pocket Mouse LED light-emitting diode LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan LID Low Impact Development Lmax root mean square maximum noise level LOS Level of Service LRA Local Responsibility Area LRP Legally Responsible Person LSTs Localized Significance Thresholds MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MCN Master Case Number MLD Most Likely Descendant MM(s) Mitigation Measure(s) MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMT Million Metric Tons MMTCO2e Million Metric Tons of CO2e MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MRZ Mineral Resource Zone MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California N2O Nitrous Oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission ND Negative Declaration NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NFCP North Fontana Conservation Program NO Nitric Oxide NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOx Nitrogen Oxides NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPPA Native Plant Protection Act NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places O3 Ozone OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration Pb Lead PM Particulate Matter PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter PM10 Respirable Particulate Matter Porter-Cologne Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act ❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page x Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Acronym/Abbreviation Term PPM Parts Per Million PPV Peak Particle Velocity PRDs Permit Registration Documents PRP Potential Responsible Party RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act REC(s) Recognized Environmental Condition(s) REL(s) Reference Exposure Level(s) RMS Root Mean Square ROG Reactive Organic Gases ROW Right-Of-Way RP Regional Plant RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Senate Bill SBCIWMP San Bernardino Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority SBKR San Bernardino kangaroo rat SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SCE Southern California Edison SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SIP State Implementation Plan SLF Sacred Lands File SMARTS Stormwater Multi-Application and Report Tracking System SO2 sulfur dioxide SOx Sulfur Oxides SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company SOPs Standard Operating Procedures SR State Route SRA State Responsibility Area SRAs Source Receptor Areas STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan SWIS Solid Waste Information System SWP California State Water Project SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TCRs Tribal Cultural Resources TMP Traffic Management Plan USDA United States Department of Agriculture USGS United States Geological Survey USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VdB Vibration Decibels ❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page xi Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Acronym/Abbreviation Term VHFHSZs Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC Volatile Organic Compound WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program WQMP Water Quality Management Plan WOUS Water(s) Of The United States ❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 1-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Proposed Project This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared in connection with the proposed development of a multi-family project (project) northwest of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Ramona Avenue at 7578 Sierra Avenue in the City of Fontana (“City”) in San Bernardino County, California (APN 0241-071-41 & 42). The project proposes development of 93 attached residential units in 14 two- and three-story buildings on an approximately 3.64-acre site. 1.1.1 Project Components The proposed project would consist of: Proposed Buildings • Construction of fourteen two- and three-story residential buildings with 93 total units ranging from two to three bedrooms and from 1,240 to 2,933 square feet each; the residential buildings would total 79,884 square feet of living area. Each unit would have a 2-car garage (1-car garage at the 12 corner units, which are classified as Accessory Dwelling Units [ADUs]). • Construction of a two-story building containing a 480 square foot office and an ADU with 952 square feet of living area. • Construction of a two-story, 1,985-square-foot clubhouse building. Common/Open Space and Recreational Amenities • 2-story clubhouse with indoor gym • 243 square foot Game Room on the first floor of Building 5 • Outdoor pool and spa • Children's playground/tot lot • Six barbecues between Buildings 6 and 7 • Dog run between Buildings 2 and 3 Parking • 187 parking spaces including two ADA spaces and 12 guest spaces Utilities • Five trash enclosures, along the main driveway ❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 1-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 1.1.2 Estimated Construction Schedule Project construction could start as early as the first quarter (Q1) of 2023 and project completion is anticipated for the third quarter (Q3) of 2024. Vertical construction of the residential units is estimated to take approximately 12 months. Refer to Section 3.0 for details. 1.2 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation The City of Fontana is the Lead Agency for the proposed project. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its implementing regulations,1 the Lead Agency has the principal responsibility for implementing and approving a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. 1.3 CEQA Overview 1.3.1 Purpose of CEQA All discretionary projects within California are required to undergo environmental review under CEQA. A Project is defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 as the whole of the action having the potential to result in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change to the environment and is any of the following: • An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works construction and related activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements. • An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public agency contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies. • An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies. CEQA Guidelines § 15002 lists the basic purposes of CEQA as follows: • Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. • Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. • Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures (MMs) when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible. • Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved. 1.3.2 Authority to Mitigate under CEQA CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible. Under CEQA Guidelines § 15041 a Lead Agency for a project has authority to require feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or avoid 1 Public Resources Code §§ 21000 - 21177 and California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3. ❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 1-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the “nexus”2 and “rough proportionality”3 standards. CEQA allows a Lead Agency to approve a project even though the project would cause a significant effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect. In such cases, the Lead Agency must specifically identify expected benefits and other overriding considerations from the project that outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project. 1.4 Purpose of Initial Study The CEQA process begins with a public agency making a determination as to whether the project is subject to CEQA at all. If the project is exempt, the process does not need to proceed any farther. If the project is not exempt, the Lead Agency takes the second step and conducts an Initial Study to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The purposes of an Initial Study as listed in § 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines are to: • Provide the Lead Agency with information necessary to decide if an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) should be prepared. • Enable a Lead Agency to modify a project to mitigate adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a ND or MND. • Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if required, by focusing the EIR on adverse effects determined to be significant, identifying the adverse effects determined not to be significant, explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant adverse effects would not be significant, and identifying whether a program EIR, or other process, can be used to analyze adverse environmental effects of the project. • Facilitate an environmental assessment early during project design. • Provide documentation in the ND or MND that a project would not have a significant effect on the environment. • Eliminate unnecessary EIRs. • Determine if a previously prepared EIR could be used for the Project. In cases where no potentially significant impacts are identified, the Lead Agency may issue a ND, and no MMs would be needed. Where potentially significant impacts are identified, the Lead Agency may determine that MMs would adequately reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. The Lead Agency would then prepare a MND for the proposed project. If the Lead Agency determines that individual or cumulative effects of the proposed project would cause a significant adverse environmental effect that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, then the Lead Agency would require an EIR to further analyze these impacts. 2 A nexus (i.e., connection) must be established between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental interest. 3 The mitigation measure must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the Project. ❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 1-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 1.5 Review and Comment by Other Agencies Other public agencies are provided the opportunity to review and comment on the IS/MND. Each of these agencies is described briefly below. • A Responsible Agency (14 CCR § 15381) is a public agency, other than the Lead Agency, that has discretionary approval power over the Project, such as permit issuance or plan approval authority. • A Trustee Agency4 (14 CCR § 15386) is a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the State of California. • Agencies with Jurisdiction by Law (14 CCR § 15366) are any public agencies who have authority (1) to grant a permit or other entitlement for use; (2) to provide funding for the project in question; or (3) to exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project. Furthermore, a city or county will have jurisdiction by law with respect to a project when the city or county having primary jurisdiction over the area involved is: (1) the site of the project; (2) the area in which the major environmental effects will occur; and/or (3) the area in which reside those citizens most directly concerned by any such environmental effects. 1.6 Impact Terminology The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of potential impacts: • A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not affect the particular environmental threshold in any way. • An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that the project would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation. • An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the analysis concludes that the project would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of environmental commitments, or other enforceable measures, that would be adopted by the lead agency. • An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that the project could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment. An EIR is required if an impact is identified as potentially significant. 1.7 Organization of Initial Study This document is organized to satisfy CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d), and includes the following sections: • Section 1.0 - Introduction, which identifies the purpose and scope of the IS/MND. • Section 2.0 - Environmental Setting, which describes location, existing site conditions, land uses, zoning designations, topography, and vegetation associated with the project site and surroundings. 4 The four Trustee Agencies in California listed in CEQA Guidelines § 15386 are California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Lands Commission, State Department of Parks and Recreation, and University of California. ❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 1-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 • Section 3.0 - Project Description, which provides an overview of the project, a description of the proposed development, project phasing during construction, and discretionary actions for project approval. • Section 4.0 - Environmental Checklist, which presents checklist responses for each resource topic to identify and assess impacts associated with the proposed project, and proposes MMs, as needed, to reduce potential environmental impacts to less than significant. • Section 5.0 - References, which includes a list of documents cited in the IS/MND. • Section 6.0 - List of Preparers, which identifies the primary authors and technical experts that prepared the IS/MND. Technical studies and other documents, which include supporting information or analyses used to prepare the IS/MND, are included in the following appendices: • Appendix A Project Plans and Drawings • Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment • Appendix C Biological Resources Assessment • Appendix D Cultural Resources Report • Appendix D1 Paleontological Report • Appendix E Drainage Plan • Appendix E1 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan • Appendix F Phase I • Appendix H Noise Data • Appendix I Limited VMT Analysis 1.8 Findings from the Initial Study 1.8.1 No Impact or Impacts Considered Less than Significant Based on IS findings, the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following environmental categories listed from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Air Quality • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems • Wildfire ❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 1-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 1.8.2 Impacts Considered Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Based on IS findings, the project would have a less than significant impact on the following environmental categories listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when proposed MMs are implemented. • Aesthetics • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Tribal Cultural Resources • Mandatory Findings of Significance ❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 2-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.1 Project Location The proposed Sierra Avenue Project (project) is located at 7578 Sierra Avenue in the City of Fontana, California, on an approximately 3.64-acre site. Refer to Figure 2.1-1, which shows the project’s location in a regional context. Local surface streets adjacent to the site include Sierra Avenue to the east, San Jacinto Avenue to the north and Ramona Avenue to the South. Figure 2.1-2 depicts an aerial photo of the project site and the surrounding land. 2.2 Project Setting The project site is comprised of two assessor’s parcels, APN 0241-071-41 and 42. Topography within the project site is relatively flat (Google Earth, 2022). See Figure 2.2-1, which depicts the topography of the site, and surrounding area. Site photographs are provided in Figure 2.2-2. 2.2.1 Land Use and Zoning The land use, zoning, and specific plan designations of the project site and its immediate vicinity are listed in Table 2.2-1. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Residential Multi- Family (R-MF) and Residential Multi-Family High (R-MFH) and a zoning designation of Multiple- Family Residential (R-3) and Multi-Family High Residential (R-5) (City of Fontana, 2021a; City of Fontana, 2021b). Table 2.2-1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAND USE, ZONING AND SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS Location General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Development Project Site R-MF and R-MFH R-3 and R-5 Vacant land North R-MF R-3 Vacant land, Church South WMXU-1 FBC Multifamily Residential, Commercial East R-M R-2 Single-Family Residential West R-MF R-3 Scattered Residential Source: City of Fontana, 202a; City of Fontana, 2021b; Google Earth Pro, 2022 ❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 2-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 2.1-1 REGIONAL LOCATION ❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 2-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 2.1-2 PROJECT LOCATION ❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 2-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 2.2-1 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 2-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 2.2-2 PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖ XXXX/Project Name Page 2-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2020 2.3 Existing Characteristics of the Site 2.3.1 Climate and Air Quality The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a 6,600-square-mile area encompassing all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties . A persistent high‐pressure area that commonly resides over the eastern Pacific Ocean largely dominates regional meteorology. The distinctive climate of this area is determined primarily by its terrain and geographic location. Local climate is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity (Stantec, 2018b p. 5.2-1). Ozone (O3) and pollutant concentrations tend to be lower along the coast, where the onshore breeze disperses pollutants toward the inland valley of the SCAB and adjacent deserts. However, as a whole, the SCAB fails to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for O3 and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and is classified as a “nonattainment area” for those pollutants (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.2-10). 2.3.2 Geology and Soils The City of Fontana generally lies at the northwest margin of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern California, which is characterized by northwest-southeast trending faults, folds, and mountain ranges. Much of the Fontana region is underlain by loose soils such as sand and silt (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.5-1). Although there are no major active faults within the City boundaries, there are a number of faults that border the Lytle Creek alluvial basin, including the Chino, Cucamonga, San Andreas, and San Jacinto faults (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.5-3). Soils in the area are characteristic of the Southern California interior alluvial basins and consist of alluvial deposits and floodplain soils. The City is underlain by alluvial deposits of the Lytle Creek alluvial fan (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.5-4). 2.3.3 Hydrology The project site consists of a rectangular-shaped property on approximately 3.64-acres of land. Surface topography is generally flat to slightly sloping with the highest surface elevations in the northern portion of the site and the lowest surface elevations across the southern portions of the site. Surface drainage by sheet flow is generally to the south (Allard Engineering, 2022, p. 57). The existing site drains south to Ramona Avenue at a grade of approximately 1.7%. In its developed condition, the site will also drain to the southerly to the proposed multiple Stormtech Chamber systems for low flow infiltration and finally drain out on surface and discharge into the existing gutter in Ramona Avenue and follow the existing drainage course to drain to the existing catch basin at the corner of Sierra Ave and Miller Avenue. The project is within FEMA Map 06071C8656H (August 28, 2008). As detailed in the City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report, the City is located within the lower Lytle Creek watershed, which forms the northwest portion of the Santa Ana River Watershed. This watershed drains the eastern portion of the San Gabriel Mountains. The lower portion of Lytle Creek flows through the cities of Fontana, Rialto, San Bernardino, and Colton, as well as a portion of the unincorporated area of San Bernardino County. The upper reaches of Lytle Creek are generally perennial; the lower section of Lytle Creek changes into an intermittent stream with a dry wash south of Interstate 15 (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.8-1). ❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖ XXXX/Project Name Page 2-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2020 2.3.4 Biology The project site is located in an urbanized area, which provides low habitat value for special-status plant and wildlife species. The project site is highly disturbed and sparse vegetive cover and the soil is gravelly and appears highly compacted. All vegetation is less than one foot in height and appears to have been recently mowed. There are some weedy tree species on the western boundary of the site. Ground squirrels and their burrows were observed on-site. Several eucalyptus and Peruvian pepper trees occur in the properties west of the site. 2.3.5 Public Services The City is served by a full range of public services. Fire services for the City of Fontana are provided by the Fontana Fire Protection District of the San Bernardino County Fire Department (City of Fontana,.2022). Seven fire stations are strategically located throughout the City, providing primary response for emergency, prevention and services. The closest fire station to the project site is Fire Station No. 78 (R.J. Keen Fire Station, located at 7110 Citrus Avenue Juniper Street, approximately 1.0-mile northwest of the project site (Google Earth Pro, 2022). The Fontana Police Department (FPD) provides police services in the City of Fontana and would provide law enforcement services to the project site. Besides responding to incidents involving safety and law enforcement, FPD consists of Divisions which include Administrative Services, Field Services and Special Operations such as Field Evidence Unit, Fugitive Apprehension Team, Inland Valley SWAT, Investigations Unit, K-9 Unit, Patrol Unit, Air Support, Communications Center, Personnel & Training, Property Unit, Records Unit, Animal Services Team, COPE Community Outreach and Public Engagement, Explorer Program, Fontana Leadership Intervention Program, Multiple Enforcement Team, Press Information Office, Traffic Unit, Community Outreach And Support Team C.O.A.S.T., Homeless Outreach Support Team H.O.S.T., Social Work Action Group S.W.A.G. (FPD, 2022). 2.3.6 Utilities The Fontana Water Company (FWC) supplies water to a portion of the City of Fontana, including the project site. Water supplies consist of imported water from Lytle Creek surface flow, and from wells in the Lytle Basin, Rialto Basin, Chino Basin, and another groundwater basin known as No Man's Land (FWC, 2022). Solid waste disposal services in the City of Fontana are provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc., a private company under contract with the City. Electrical service to the site is provided by Southern California Edison through a grid of transmission lines and related facilities (City of Fontana, 2022b). ❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 3-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Project Background The proposed project consists of the development of a rental project including townhome and flat configuration units (project), northwest of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Ramona Avenue at 7578 Sierra Avenue in the City of Fontana in San Bernardino County, California (APN 0241-071-41 and 42). The project proposes development of 93 residential units in 15 buildings (12 2-story, two 3-story, and one 2-story Accessory Dwelling Unit [ADU]) on an approximately 4.00-acre (gross) site (3.64-acre (net) after 0.36- acre street dedication/improvement). The City of Fontana is the Lead Agency for the purposes of CEQA (Andresen Architecture, Inc., 2022). The City’s General Plan Land Use designation for the site is R-MF Multi Family Residential and the City’s zoning district for the site is R-3 Multiple Family. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment changing the designation to R-MFMH Multi Family Medium/High Residential, allowing 24.1 – 39 dwelling units per acre, and a zone change to R-4, Multi Family Medium/High Density Residential, which permits a density of 24.1 – 39 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed density would be approximately 25.5 units per acre. 3.2 Project Overview The project would consist of: (1) utilities improvements; (2) construction of 14 new residential buildings, a 2-story clubhouse, and an Office/ADU building; and (3) project site amenities and landscaping. Figure 3.2-1 is a site plan depicting the layout of the proposed project buildings and onsite amenities. Table 3.2-1 summarizes the proposed project features. The project would include 80 three-bedroom units, 12 two-bedroom units and one two-bedroom ADU, totaling 266 bedrooms. The project is estimated to house 374 persons based on the average household size in the city of Fontana of 4.02 persons in 2021 (CDF, 2021). Table 3.2-1 PROJECT SUMMARY New Construction Proposed Uses/Features Total Building Square Feet* No. of Stories Approximate Building Height (feet) 1 building (Building 1) 14 units per building (14 total DUs) 26,521 3 37’9” 9 buildings (Buildings 2, 7 to 14) 5 units per building (45 total DUs) 75,951 2 25’7” 1 building (Building 4) 15 units per building (15 total DUs) 24,863 3 37’9” 3 buildings (Buildings 3, 5, 6) 6 units per building (18 total DUs) 30,291 2 25’7” 1 building (Unit 53) Office + ADU (1 total DU) 1,419 2 25’8” Trash Enclosures Five trash enclosures along the main driveway --- --- --- Parking Spaces The project proposes 187 parking spaces: 166 garage spaces and 21 outdoor parking spaces (including 2 ADA guest spaces, 10 other guest spaces, 3 office spaces and 6 assigned resident parking spaces) --- --- --- ❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 3-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 New Construction Proposed Uses/Features Total Building Square Feet* No. of Stories Approximate Building Height (feet) Common/Open Space 2-story clubhouse with indoor gym, pool and spa, and 6 barbeques between buildings 11 and 12; game rooms; tot lot between buildings 6 and 7; dog run between buildings 2 and 3 1,985 2 25’8” Usable Open Space Total of 15,243 sf private space and 9,715 sf open space. 24,958 --- --- *excludes garage and balcony Source: Andresen Architecture, Inc., 2022 ❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 3-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 3.2-1 SITE PLAN ❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 3-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 3.3 Proposed Project Features 3.3.1 New Residential Buildings The project proposes includes the development of 14 residential buildings and one Office/ADU building with a total of 80 three-bedroom units, 12 two-bedroom units and one two-bedroom ADU. Nine of the buildings would consist of five units each; three buildings of six units each; 10 buildings of five units each; one building of 15 units; one building of 14 units; and the ADU building of one unit. The buildings would be situated in clusters around the perimeter of the project, as well as a series of buildings in the center of the site. A street and alley system serves as access to ground-level garages for each of the units. The character and scale of surrounding neighborhood were carefully considered to ensure that the project architecture and massing blends in with the existing surrounding uses. The project proposes a gross area of 113,690 square feet of new residential living space. The total footprint of the 15 residential buildings (including the Office/ADU) plus the clubhouse and five trash enclosures would be 79,844 square feet, or approximately 50 percent of the project site. The project includes three basic floor plans, designated A (with left, interior and right variations), Corner/ADU (with left, interior and right variations, as well as variations by floor level), and ADU (Office). Table 3.3-1 shows the living area of each of those plans. Table 3.3-1 FLOOR PLANS Floor Plan Building #(s) First Floor* (sq ft) Second Floor** (sq ft) Total Unit Living Area (sq ft) No. of Units Total Square Feet Living Area A Left 1-14 448 858 1,306 14 18,284 A Interior 1-14 443 798 1,241 52 64,532 A Right 1-14 448 862 1,310 14 18,340 Corner Left (ADU) 1,4 1,008 N/A 1,008 2 2,016 Corner Left (ADU) 1,4 N/A 1,068 1,068 2 2,136 Corner Interior (ADU) 1,4 948 N/A 948 2 1,896 Corner Interior (ADU) 1,4 N/A 984 984 2 1,968 Corner Right (ADU) 1,4 930 N/A 930 2 1,860 Corner Right (ADU) 1,4 N/A 935 935 2 1,870 ADU (Office) Office/ADU N/A 826 826 1 826 Total 93 113,728 * Second floor in corner buildings. Corner building units are flats. ** Third floor in corner buildings. Corner building units are flats. N/A= Not Applicable Source: Andresen Architecture, Inc., 2022 The project proposes an architectural style to complement the surrounding neighborhood. The project architecture includes both wall and roof plane articulation and would carry the design elements to each elevation, including the inner portions of the site and all detached structures, such as trash enclosures. Figure 3.3-1 through Figure 3.3-5 show the proposed elevations of the residential buildings. Figure 3.3-6 shows views of the project from the streets that surround the site. ❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 3-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 3.3-1 PLAN A FRONT AND RIGHT ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS ❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 3-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 3.3-2 PLAN A REAR AND LEFT ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS ❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 3-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 3.3-3 CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS ❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 3-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 3.3-4 OFFICE + ADU ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS ❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 3-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 3.3-5 CORNER UNIT ELEVATIONS ❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 3-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 3.3-6 STREET VIEWS ❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 3-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Energy-efficient features, including insulated and glazed windows and low E coating on windows, would be incorporated into building design to comply with the provisions of the California Green Building Code, Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations. 3.3.2 Trash Enclosures The project proposes five trash enclosures alongside the main driveway. Total footprint of the five trash enclosures is 946 square feet. 3.3.3 Landscaping The site plan includes several landscaped areas totaling 17,321 square feet, accounting for approximately 21 percent of the project site. Figure 3.3-7 shows the landscaping envisioned for the proposed project. At project completion the site would be approximately 79 percent impervious (consisting of building footprints plus hardscape). The project would provide 24,958 square feet of usable open space including 9,715 square feet of common open space and 15,243 square feet (an average of 163 square feet per unit) of private open space. 3.3.4 Fire Lanes/Turn-around An Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) gate is located at the south end of the project between buildings 4 and 5, opening onto Ramona Avenue. There is no fire department turn around area within the project. 3.3.5 Onsite Amenities for Residents The project includes several different amenities on site for residents, including a 2-story clubhouse with indoor gym, pool and spa, barbecues, a tot lot and a dog run, and private open spaces for each unit. 3.3.6 Site Access, Circulation and Parking Site ingress and egress would be provided by one 35-foot-wide driveway located on San Jacinto Avenue. Access to parking and the buildings would be via two driveways running north/south through the site, one to the immediate west of Buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the other to the immediate east of Buildings 4, 6, 7, and 8. An EVA gate opening onto Ramona Avenue at the southern edge of the site is located between Buildings 4 and 5. Per Fontana Municipal Code Table 30-455, two garage spaces must be provided for each of the 80 standard units and no spaces are required for each ADU. Thus, the project requires that 160 parking spaces be provided for units, with an additional three spaces for office guests, but no other guest spaces are needed; total spaces required is 163. The project proposes 187 parking spaces, consisting of 166 garage spaces (two for each of the 80 standard units and six for the ADUs), 21 surface spaces (including six for the ADUs, three for office visitors and 12 guest spaces (including two ADA spaces). ❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 3-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 3.3-7 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN ❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Townhomes Project Page 3-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 3.3.7 Exterior Lighting The project proposes area lighting throughout the project site. Lighting for the project would comply with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code. Specifically, the project would be required to comply with City of Fontana Municipal Code § 30 508, Lighting and Glare, which states, “all lights shall be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting adjacent residential or commercial properties. No structure or feature shall be permitted which creates adverse glare effects.” The proposed project would include installation of exterior lighting fixtures, as necessary, for safety and security. LED exterior fixtures would be mounted on the wall of the building. Latest LED lighting fixtures with photosensors and motion sensors would be provided. Cut off shield would be provided as necessary to prevent light spillage beyond the project boundary. Parking lot lighting would also utilize LED technology. Project Entry Signage The project proposes signage at the northeast corner of the project, at the intersection of San Jacinto Avenue and Sierra Avenue. A masonry wall (approximately 5 feet high) will be built and project signage (raised letters containing the project name and address) will be placed on the wall to act as the project monument sign. The sign will have lighting for nighttime visibility. 3.3.8 Perimeter Fencing and Exterior Walls The project will be accessed through a security gate off San Jacinto Avenue, the northern boundary of the site. Individual units along San Jacinto Avenue, Sierra Avenue and Ramona Avenue will have a private open space area opening onto the surrounding street, enclosed by a four-foot-high wrought iron fence with concrete pilasters and a gate. A new six-foot-high masonry screen wall will be built along the entire length of the western property line of the project. 3.3.9 Utilities The project would require sewer, domestic water, fire water, irrigation and dry utilities connections to existing utility infrastructure where existing facilities exist in the surrounding public streets, as appropriate. Sanitary Sewer - The project proposes a network of sewer mains connecting to an existing 8” sewer main on the west side of Sierra Avenue. Domestic Water - New domestic water meters would be installed as required to meet project demands in compliance with the requirements of the city’s Public Works Department. Water would be provided by Fontana Water Company, which serves part of the city of Fontana. Construction would need to occur in the public right-of-way during installation of domestic water lines from existing mains in San Jacinto Avenue and Ramona Avenue to the project site. Fire Water – An existing fire water main in Sierra Avenue will provide service to the project. The project proposes construction of a new six-inch fire water line from Sierra Avenue to the project site. Dry Utilities - Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide electricity to the project site. Electrical utilities would be installed underground. Existing overhead power lines along the site boundary would be removed and power lines would be placed underground. Construction would ❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Townhomes Project Page 3-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 need to occur in the public right-of-way during installation of a new utility connections to the project site. Stormwater - Stormwater runoff would be collected by downspouts and area drains and discharged to a proposed 5” galvanized corrugated steel pipe/underground vault approximately 12 feet below the surface under the project. Inlets would be planned at each individual unit driveway. The development would have an HOA to maintain the community elements along with the WQMP BMPs for the site. All facilities would be planned and constructed to meet City requirements. Trash Service - Trash service would be provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, which has a contract with the City of Fontana to provide an array of trash, recycling and special waste handling services to residents and businesses (City of Fontana, 2022). Cable Television - It is anticipated that new cable television connections would be needed to serve the project. ATT and Spectrum serve customers near the project site (digalert.org, 2022). 3.3.10 Security Features A security gate and keypad would be located at the entrance at the west side of the project site and the entire eastern boundary of the site will have a six-foot-high masonry screen wall. 3.3.11 Sustainability Low Impact Development (LID) features such as vegetated swales, tree-based infiltration, and inert bioswales are included throughout the project site to protect water quality. The project includes environmentally sustainable design features that would result in a reduction in energy usage, water usage, and waste generation and in doing so would also reduce project-related greenhouse gas emissions. The project proposes the following sustainability features: prep conduit for solar panels; Energy Star appliances; dual-glazed windows; and LED exterior and interior lighting. 3.4 Offsite Improvements Construction would need to occur in the surrounding streets to connect the utility lines for the proposed project to the existing main lines. 3.5 Construction Activities For safety reasons, temporary barricades would be used to limit access to the site during project construction and maintain safe access for construction workers. Construction would occur during daylight and during regular business hours. Lighting for the construction site would be limited to the minimum amount of light needed for safety and security. Site grading would be planned for balancing, with no import or export of soil required. After site preparation is completed, infrastructure such as sewer laterals and storm drains would be installed and/or connected to existing facilities. The building foundations would be poured and framing of the buildings would begin. The final steps of construction would involve interior furnishings, detail work, and completion of common areas and outside landscaping. The 158,558 square-foot (3.64 AC) site is currently undeveloped pervious surface. The building footprint would be 69,192 square feet, hardscape area would be 82,509 square feet, and landscaped ❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Townhomes Project Page 3-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 area would be 49,982 square feet. Therefore, the project would result in the conversion of 151,701 square feet (96%) to impervious surface on the project site. The only offsite improvements would be installation of utility laterals and connections of laterals to mains. The construction contractor would use heavy equipment during grading; estimated numbers and types of equipment per construction phase are identified below in Table 3.5-1. Construction staging would be limited to the project site; no offsite areas would be used. Construction would occur in a single rolling sequence and is broken down into different parts, as detailed in Table 3.5-1 below. Assuming timely processing of approvals and permits, grading on the project can start in late winter (January/February) 2023. Grading will be completed within one month, with an additional two months required for backhoe/utilities. Vertical construction is estimated to be completed approximately 12 months from project start. The anticipated number of onsite employees in each construction phase is also shown in Table 3.5- 1. Project construction workers would park their vehicles on the project site. Table 3.5-1 CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND EQUIPMENT DETAILS Phase/Months Equipment Type Pieces of Equipment Onsite Employees Grading: 1 month Graders 1 13 Off-Highway Trucks 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 Scrapers 2 Utilities Installation: 2 months Off-Highway Trucks 1 66 Skid Steer Loaders 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 Building Construction: 10.5 months Cranes 1 66 Forklifts 3 Generator Sets 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 Welders 1 Paving: 3 weeks Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 3 Architectural Coating: 3 weeks Air Compressors 1 13 3.6 Discretionary Actions The proposed project includes applications for the following discretionary approvals by the City of Fontana: • General Plan Amendment changing the General Plan land use designation for the site from R- MF (Multi Family Residential) and R-MFH (Multi Family High Residential) to R-MFMH(Multi Family Medium/High Residential). ❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Townhomes Project Page 3-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 • Zone Change changing the zoning district for the site from R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) and R-5 (Multi-Family High Residential)to R-4 (Multi-Family Medium/High Residential). • Design Review 3.6.1 Other Permits and Approvals Following the City’s approval of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the following permits/approvals, as shown in Table 3.6-1, would be required prior to construction. Table 3.6-1 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Agency Permit or Approval City of Fontana Building & Safety Department Site Plan review and approval and Grading and Building Permits City of Fontana Planning Department General Plan Amendment Zone Change Design Review Fontana Fire Protection District Building plan check and approval. Review for compliance with the current California Fire Code, current California Building Code, California Health & Safety Code and City of Fontana Municipal Code. Plans for fire detection and alarm systems, and automatic sprinklers. ❖ SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Townhomes Project Page 4-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or as a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural and Forest Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination (To Be Completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Printed Name City of Fontana ❖ SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Townhomes Project Page 4-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts (1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). (2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. (3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. (4) “Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to less than significant level. (5) Earlier analyses may be use where, pursuant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other CEQA process, an affect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. (See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: (a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where the earlier analysis available for review. (b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. (c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. (6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference ❖ SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Townhomes Project Page 4-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. (7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. (8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. (9) The explanation of each issue should identify: (a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and (b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. ❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.1-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.1 Aesthetics Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X A “visual environment” includes the built environment (development patterns, buildings, parking areas, and circulation elements) and natural environment (such as hills, vegetation, rock outcroppings, drainage pathways, and soils) features. Visual quality, viewer groups and sensitivity, duration, and visual resources characterize views. Visual quality refers to the general aesthetic quality of a view, such as vividness, intactness, and unity. Viewer groups identify who is most likely to experience the view. High-sensitivity land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, religious institutions, and passive outdoor spaces such as parks, playgrounds, and recreation areas. Duration of a view is the amount of time that a particular view can be seen by a specific viewer group. Visual resources refer to unique views, and views identified in local plans, from scenic highways, or of specific unique structures or landscape features. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. Scenic vistas generally include extensive panoramic views of natural features, unusual terrain, or unique urban or historic features, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance, and focal views that focus on a particular object, scene or feature of interest. Distant scenic vistas are visible on clear days from the project site and surroundings to the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest and the mountains of San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast. The project site is an undeveloped greenfield parcel surrounded by single-family homes to the east across Sierra Avenue, ❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.1-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 multi-family apartments to the south, and mostly vacant land with scattered single-family homes to the west and a church building to the north. There are only scattered trees visible in the immediate area, and there is only scattered development bordering the site to the north and west. The project will not impede distant scenic vistas to the northeast and northwest. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provides information regarding officially designated or eligible state scenic highways, designated as part of the California Scenic Highway Program. No designated State or County scenic highways exist in the vicinity of the Fontana Victoria residential project site (DOT, 2019). The nearest designated state scenic highway to the project site is State Route 2 (SR2), running between La Canada Flintridge and Wrightwood in the San Gabriel Mountains (nearest point approximately 20 miles northwest of the project). Due to the great distance between the project site and SR2, construction and implementation of the project would have no impacts on state scenic highways. Therefore, the project would have no impacts on trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Refer to Figure 4.1-1. a) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an emerging suburban setting characterized by a mix of mostly residential land uses and vacant land. Views of the existing streetscape are characterized by low height (one-story to two-story) buildings, utilities (including utility lines, poles, and street lights) and landscaping. Refer to Table 4.1-1, which describes the existing visual character in the vicinity of the project site. Figure 4.1-2 includes photographs of the project vicinity. ❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.1-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.1-1 STATE SCENIC HIGHWAYS ❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.1-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Table 4.1-1 EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER AND LAND USES IN THE PROJECT AREA Location General Characteristics Existing Lighting Building Height and Design Landscaping Project Site Undeveloped parcel, greenfield None Non-existent Grasses, dirt Surrounding Areas North Vacant land and First Faith World Ministries Exterior lighting associated with the building. Single-story beige- colored building with sloped composition roofs, associated surface parking Ornamental vegetation consisting of trees, grasses, and shrubs. South Sierra Fountains Apartments Exterior lighting associated with the residential development and street lighting. Two- to three-story stucco and faux stone- sided buildings with flat tile roofs, associated recreation facilities and surface parking Ornamental landscaping including a few trees and ornamental vegetation. West Mostly vacant land with horse pens and scattered residences Exterior lighting associated with homes Single-story residences Mostly grasses and dirt, scattered trees East Two-story single- family homes across Sierra Avenue. Exterior lighting associated with the residential developments and street lighting. Two-story residences with two car garages, tiled sloping roofs and stucco exterior walls painted in varying colors. Ornamental landscaping including a few trees and ornamental vegetation. Source: UltraSystems, 2022 and Google Earth, 2022. ❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.1-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.1-2 EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE ❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.1-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 ❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.1-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 ❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.1-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Construction. Construction of the proposed project would result in views of construction activities, construction staging areas, grading, excavation, construction equipment, material storage areas, construction debris, and exposed trenches on the project site. During project construction, there would be certain elements on the project site that are not compatible with the project vicinity. These may include construction equipment, stockpiled materials, and construction‐area barriers and fencing. While these elements would be removed following construction, they would nonetheless result in a temporary impact. However, during project construction, work areas would be screened from public view by temporary barriers/fencing. Project construction could temporarily degrade the existing visual character of the project area and its immediate surroundings. This impact would be short-term and thus would be less than significant. Operation. The completed project would consist of 19 two- and three-story buildings, including two that are somewhat taller than surrounding land uses. The project proposes an architectural style to complement the surrounding neighborhood. The project architecture includes both wall and roof plane articulation and would carry the design elements to each elevation, including the inner portions of the site and all detached structures, such as trash enclosures. The proposed residential project would not be out of character with the surrounding area, which consists of primarily residential uses and vacant land. Figures 4.1-3 through Figure 4.1-7 show conceptual renderings of the proposed project. The proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character of the site because new buildings would be consistent with the general character of surrounding neighborhood buildings in terms of architectural style and setbacks. The overall site plan design and building placement would create several landscaped areas onsite. Figure 3.3.5 in Section 3.0 depicts the landscaping envisioned for the proposed project. The project would improve an existing underutilized piece of land with new housing and landscaping, thereby resulting in a beneficial change to existing site conditions and would not adversely affect the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. Further, the proposed project would adhere to the City’s regulations and policies regarding aesthetics. Table 4.1-2, Project Compliance with Applicable City of Fontana General Plan Policies Regarding Scenic Quality, details the applicable aesthetics policies from the City General Plan and how the project would adhere to them. ❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.1-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Table 4.1-2 PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY OF FONTANA GENERAL PLAN POLICIES REGARDING SCENIC QUALITY Chapter 5, Strategy 3—Design and Quality of Housing and Neighborhoods establishes policy actions for providing high-quality, environmentally responsible, well designed living environments for Fontana’s residents. General Plan Element Project Compliance Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails Element. Goal 3: Fontana has a healthy, drought-resistant urban forest. Policies: • Support tree conservation and planting that enhances shade and drought resistance. • Expand Fontana’s tree canopy. The proposed project would be developed on vacant land that does not have any trees. The proposed project would install drought-resistant trees and would expand the city’s tree canopy compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Land Use Element. Goal 7: Public and private development meets high design standards. Policies: • Support high-quality development in design standards and in land use decisions. The proposed project would construct a high-quality development with architecture and ornamental landscaping that would complement the surrounding residential land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Source: Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.1-8 and 5.1-14 Based on the analysis above, the project would not conflict with applicable General Plan policies governing scenic quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. ❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.1-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.1-3 BUILDING ELEVATIONS – FRONT ❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.1-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.1-4 BUILDING ELEVATIONS – REAR ❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.1-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.1-5 BUILDING ELEVATIONS - CLUBHOUSE ❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.1-13 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.1-6 BUILDING ELEVATIONS - OFFICE AND ADU ❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.1-14 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.1-7 ELEVATIONS – CORNER UNIT ❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.1-15 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 c) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact with Implementation of Mitigation. Construction Period During project construction there would be additional sources of light that would be used to provide security lighting for the construction staging area(s) on the project site. To ensure that construction lighting would not have a significant impact on surrounding residences, mitigation measure AES-1 is recommended to reduce potential temporary construction lighting impacts to a less than significant level. Project construction would not generate substantial glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Construction equipment consists of low-glare materials. Construction would occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and so would not involve long durations of nighttime work. The proposed exterior building materials, such as sand color exterior plaster and stone veneer, would not be highly reflective. Construction glare impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure MM AES-1 During project construction the project applicant shall place construction staging areas as far away as possible from adjacent residences so as to minimize, to the maximum extent possible, any potential lighting impacts to nearby residences. The lighting used during project construction shall consist of the minimum amount of light necessary for safety and security on the project site. Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of MM AES-1 and given that project construction would be temporary, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact regarding temporary construction lighting and glare. Operation The project proposes new exterior lighting throughout the site. Installation of exterior lighting would be necessary for safety and nighttime visibility throughout the proposed residential development. The new project lighting would be visible from the surrounding area. Therefore, the project’s proposed exterior lighting is expected to contribute to ambient nighttime illumination in the project vicinity. The project site is located in an urban area, which is characterized by low to medium nighttime ambient light levels. Streetlights, traffic on local streets, and exterior lighting in surrounding developments are the primary sources of light that contribute to the ambient light levels in the project area. Light-sensitive uses in the immediate project vicinity are limited to residences and a church building. Fontana’s Municipal Code Section 30-697 sets forth requirements for exterior lighting, as follows: “The minimum standard of one foot candle is required for all entrances, exits, pedestrian paths, parking lots, and activity areas. All areas shall be illuminated during hours of ❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.1-16 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 darkness and all luminaries utilized shall be vandal-resistant fixtures. The type of lighting shall be fluorescent, white L.E.D.s or metal halide. A photometric layout may be required to ensure the minimum light standard is met, per Police Department security code requirements. All lights shall be directed and shielded to prevent light or glare from spilling over onto and adversely affecting adjacent properties. Light standards shall have a design compatible with the architectural style of related buildings.” Headlight Impacts Opposite San Jacinto Avenue and Ramona Avenue from Project Site Project access and exit would be via a single driveway from San Jacinto Avenue at the southern edge of the project site, with an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) emptying onto Ramona Avenue, at the northern edge of the project. The non-residential portions of neighboring Sierra Fountains Apartments face San Jacinto Avenue across from the project entrance, while the parking lot of the First Faith World Ministries is across from the EVA exit on Ramona Avenue. There are no residences on either edge of the project site at the entrances, and thus there would be no headlight impacts on light-sensitive uses. Sky Glow Sky Glow is the brightening of the sky that occurs as a result of outdoor lighting fixtures emitting a portion of their light directly into the sky. There are no dark sky requirements or lighting restrictions beyond the residential municipal code specifications. Sky glow impacts would be less than significant. Glare Glare is the objectionable brightness caused by over-illumination, as well as poorly shielded or poorly aimed light fixtures. The proposed project would introduce new outdoor artificial lighting elements, which have the potential to result in glare if the main beams of proposed lighting elements (i.e., the portion of the lamp with the greatest illuminance) are visible from offsite locations, resulting in excessive, uncontrolled brightness. However, the project would comply with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code Section 30-544, Lighting and Glare, which requires: “All lights shall be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting adjacent properties. No structure or lighting feature shall be permitted which creates adverse glare. A photometric plan shall be provided that indicates the amount of light emanating from the proposed/existing light fixtures.” As shown on Figures 4.1-3 through 4.1-7, the project would utilize light-colored building materials such as sand color exterior plaster and stone veneer with no use of highly reflective building materials. Therefore, impacts from new sources of substantial light or glare would be less than significant. ❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.1-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 ❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.2-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Codes § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))? X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact The project site and surrounding uses are designated by the Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP) as Urban and Built-up Land” and “Other Land” (see Figure 4.2-1 below), which is land not included in any other mapping category. Other Land includes: low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines; borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres. (DOC, 2016) Therefore, no farmland would be converted to non-agricultural use and no impacts would occur. ❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.2-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.2-1 IMPORTANT FARMLAND CATEGORIES ❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Townhomes Project Page 4.2-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact The project site is zoned R-3 Multiple Family, and is not zoned for agricultural use. Williamson Act contracts restrict the use of privately-owned land to agriculture and compatible open-space uses under contract with local governments; in exchange, the land is taxed based on actual use rather than potential market value. Williamson Act contracts are made only on land within agricultural reserves; the project site is not within an agricultural reserve. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and no impact would occur. c) Would the project (c) conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Codes § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))? No Impact The project site is zoned R-3 Multiple Family; the site is not zoned for forest, timberland, or timberland production use. Therefore, project development would not conflict with zoning for forest land or timberland, and no impact would occur. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact The project site and surroundings are not cultivated for forest resources. Therefore, project development would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and no impact would occur. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact The project site is vacant and is surrounded primarily by residential to the south, east, residential and commercial to the west, and vacant land and a church to the north. No important farmland is near the project site; the nearest such farmland is Unique Farmland approximately 2.5 miles to the northwest. No forest land is present on or near the project site. Therefore, project development would not indirectly cause conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and no impacts would occur. ❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.3-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.3 Air Quality Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? X c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people? X 4.3.1 Pollutants of Concern Criteria pollutants are air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and ambient air quality standards have been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and/or the California Air Resources Board (ARB). The criteria air pollutants of concern are nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon dioxide (CO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and ozone (O3), and their precursors, such as reactive organic gases (ROG), which are ozone precursors. Since the proposed project would not generate appreciable SO2 or Pb emissions,5 it is not necessary for the analysis to include those two pollutants. Presented below is a description of the air pollutants of concern and their known health effects. Nitrogen oxides (NOX) serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog production and are precursors for certain particulate compounds that are formed in the atmosphere. The two major forms of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. NO2 is a reddish-brown pungent gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen. NO2 is an acute respiratory irritant and eye irritant and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens. A third form of NOX, nitrous oxide (N2O), is a greenhouse gas (GHG) (USEPA, 2011). Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless non-reactive pollutant produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances (e.g., gasoline or diesel fuel). The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is its binding with hemoglobin in red blood cells, which decreases the ability of these cells to transport oxygen throughout the body. Prolonged exposure can cause headaches, drowsiness, or loss of equilibrium; high concentrations are lethal (USEPA, 2010). 5 Sulfur dioxide emissions will be below 0.174 pound per day during construction and operations. ❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.3-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Particulate matter (PM) consists of finely divided solids or liquids, such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulate matter are now regulated. Respirable particles, or PM10, include that portion of the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (i.e., 10 one-millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers (i.e., 2.5 one-millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch) or less. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. However, wind action on the arid landscape also contributes substantially to the local particulate loading. Fossil fuel combustion accounts for a sizable portion of PM2.5. In addition, particulate matter forms in the atmosphere through reactions of NOX and other compounds (such as ammonia) to form inorganic nitrates and sulfates. Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in those people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems (USEPA, 2019). Reactive organic gases (ROG) are compounds comprised primarily of atoms of hydrogen and carbon that have high photochemical reactivity. The major source of ROG is the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in internal combustion engines. Other sources of ROG include the evaporative emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving and the use of household consumer products. Some ROG species are listed toxic air contaminants, which have been shown to cause adverse health effects; however, most adverse effects on human health are not caused directly by ROG, but rather by reactions of ROG to form other criteria pollutants such as ozone. ROG are also transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, contributing to higher levels of fine particulate matter and lower visibility. The term “ROG” is used by the ARB for air quality analysis and is defined essentially the same as the federal term “volatile organic compound” (VOC).6 Ozone (O3) is a secondary pollutant produced through a series of photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOX. Ozone creation requires ROG and NOx to be available for approximately three hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. Because of the long reaction time, peak ozone concentrations frequently occur downwind of the sites where the precursor pollutants are emitted. Thus, O3 is considered a regional, rather than a local, pollutant. The health effects of O3 include eye and respiratory irritation, reduction of resistance to lung infection and possible aggravation of pulmonary conditions in persons with lung disease. Ozone is also damaging to vegetation and untreated rubber (USEPA, 2020a). 4.3.2 Climate/Meteorology The project site is located wholly within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes all of Orange County, as well as the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The distinctive climate of the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The SCAB is in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. Thus, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds (SCAQMD, 1993). 6 Emissions of organic gases are typically reported only as aggregate organics, either as VOC or as ROG. These terms are meant to reflect what specific compounds have been included or excluded from the aggregate estimate. Although EPA defines VOC to exclude both methane and ethane, and the ARB defines ROG to exclude only methane, in practice it is assumed that VOC and ROG are essentially synonymous. ❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.3-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 The annual average temperature varies little throughout the 6,600-square-mile SCAB, ranging from the low 60s to the high 80s. However, with a less pronounced oceanic influence, the inland portion shows greater variability in the annual minimum and maximum temperatures (SCAQMD, 1993). The mean annual high and low temperatures in the project area—as determined from the nearest weather station in the City of San Bernardino,7 (Western Regional Climate Center, 2022) which has a period of record from 1984 to 2010—are 78.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and 50.3°F, respectively. The overall climate is a mild Mediterranean, with average monthly maximum temperatures exceeding 96.2°F in the summer and down to 41.5°F in the winter. In contrast to a steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. The total average annual precipitation is 18.81 inches, of which 43.8 percent occurs between January and March. 4.3.3 Local Air Quality Table 4.3-1 shows the area designation status of the SCAB for each criteria pollutant for both the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has divided the SCAB into source receptor areas (SRAs), based on similar meteorological and topographical features. The proposed project site is in SCAQMD’s Central San Bernardino Valley (SRA 34), which is served by the Fontana- Arrow Monitoring Station, located about 3.4 miles west-southwest of the proposed project site, at 14360 Arrow Route, in Fontana (SCAQMD, 2022). Criteria pollutants monitored at the Fontana- Arrow Monitoring Station include ozone, PM10, PM2.5, and NO2. CO has not been monitored in the SCAB since 2012. The ambient air quality data in the proposed project vicinity as recorded at the Fontana-Arrow Monitoring Station from 2018 to 2020 and the applicable state standards are shown in Table 4.3-2. 7 Data for San Bernardino Fire Station #226. Accessed May 2022. A closer weather station was available up until 1984. The San Bernardino station represents more current data. ❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.3-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Table 4.3-1 FEDERAL AND STATE ATTAINMENT STATUS Pollutants Federal Classification State Classification Ozone (O3) Nonattainment (Extreme) Nonattainment Particulate Matter (PM10) Maintenance (Serious) Nonattainment Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment (Serious) Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance (Serious) Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Maintenance Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment Sulfates No Federal Standards Attainment Lead (Pb) Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Attainment Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified Sources: ARB, 2022; USEPA, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c, 2022d, 2022e. Table 4.3-2 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA Air Pollutant Standard/Exceedance 2018 2019 2020 Ozone (O3) Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm) Max. 8-hour Concentration (ppm) # Days > Federal 8-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm # Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm # Days > California 8-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm 0.141 0.111 69 38 72 0.124 0.109 67 41 71 0.151 0.112 89 56 91 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm) Annual Average (ppm) # Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm 0.088 0.030 0 0.087 0.028 0 0.101 0.029 0 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Max. 24-hour Concentration, microgram per cubic meter (µg/m3) Est. # Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 150 µg/m3 Annual Average (µg/m3) 64.1 0 34.6 88.8 0 35.3 76.8 ND 37.2 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3) #Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 35 µg/m3 State Annual Average (µg/m3) 29.2 0 10 81.3 9.1 ND 57.6 12.3 12.7 Source: ARB, 2022 ND - There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value. ❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.3-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.3.4 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) The SCAQMD is required to produce plans to show how air quality will be improved in the region. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires that these plans be updated triennially to incorporate the most recent available technical information. A multi-level partnership of governmental agencies at the federal, state, regional, and local levels implements the programs contained in these plans. Agencies involved include the USEPA, ARB, local governments, SCAG, and SCAQMD. The SCAQMD and the SCAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the AQMP for the SCAB. The SCAQMD updates its Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) every three years. The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on March 3, 2017, and on March 10, 2017 was submitted to the ARB as part of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). It focuses largely on reducing NOx emissions as a means of attaining the 1979 1-hour ozone standard by 2022, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by 2023, and the 2008 8-hour standard by 2031. The AQMP prescribes a variety of current and proposed new control measures, including a request to the USEPA for increased regulation of mobile source emissions. The NOx control measures will also help the SCAB attain the 24-hour standard for PM2.5 (SCAQMD, 2017).8 4.3.5 Sensitive Receptors Some people, such as individuals with respiratory illnesses or impaired lung function because of other illnesses, persons over 65 years of age, and children under 14, are particularly sensitive to certain pollutants. Facilities and structures where these sensitive people live or spend considerable amounts of time are known as sensitive receptors. For the purposes of a CEQA analysis, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a receptor such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours (Chico and Koizumi, 2008, p. 3-2). Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition of sensitive receptor, because employees typically are present for shorter periods of time, such as eight hours. Therefore, applying a 24-hour standard for PM10 is appropriate not only because the averaging period for the state standard is 24 hours, but because the sensitive receptor would be present at the location for the full 24 hours. 4.3.6 Impact Analysis a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact The SCAQMD has developed criteria in the form of emissions thresholds for determining whether emissions from a project are regionally significant. They are useful for estimating whether a project is likely to result in a violation of the NAAQS and/or whether the project is in conformity with plans to achieve attainment (SCAQMD, 2019). SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for criteria pollutant emissions during construction activities and project operation are summarized in Table 4.3-3. A project is considered to have a regional air quality impact if emissions from its construction and/or operational activities exceed the corresponding SCAQMD significance thresholds. 8 NOx is a precursor to several inorganic nitrate compounds (such as ammonium nitrate) that form in the atmosphere and become part of the PM2.5 load. Therefore, reducing NOx emissions will help reduce atmospheric PM2.5. ❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.3-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Table 4.3-3 SCAQMD EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS FOR SIGNIFICANT REGIONAL IMPACTS Pollutant Mass Daily Thresholds (Pounds/Day) Construction Operation Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55 Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 150 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550 Lead 3 3 Source: SCAQMD, 2019. Air Quality Methodology Estimated criteria pollutant emissions from the project’s onsite and offsite project activities were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod (CAPCOA, 2022) is a planning tool for estimating emissions related to land use projects. Model-predicted project emissions are compared with applicable thresholds to assess regional air quality impacts. As some construction plans have not been finalized, CalEEMod defaults were used for construction offroad equipment and on-road construction trips and vehicle miles traveled. It was also assumed that the construction contractor would comply with all pertinent provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403.9 Because compliance is mandatory for all development projects, these emission- reducing requirements do not constitute mitigation under CEQA. For the purpose of this analysis, construction activities for the Sierra Avenue Housing Project are anticipated to be around twelve months and would begin in January 2023 and end in January 2024. There would be five construction phases: • Grading. • Utilities Installation. • Building Construction. • Paving. • Architecture Coating. There would be no overlap of construction activities among any of the phases. Table 4.3-4 shows the project schedule used for the air quality, GHG emissions (Section 4.8) and noise (Section 4.13) analyses. Table 4.3-4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 9 Rule 403 applies to fugitive dust emissions. All projects in the SCAQMD are required to implement dust control measures such as regularly wetting disturbed soils. ❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.3-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Construction Phase Start End Grading January 30, 2023 February 24, 2023 Utilities Installation February 25, 2023 April 24, 2023 Building Construction April 25, 2023 December 20, 2023 Paving December 21, 2023 January 10, 2024 Architectural Coating January 11. 2024 January 31, 2024 These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dusts, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. Mobile sources (such as diesel-fueled equipment onsite and traveling to and from the project site) would primarily generate NOX emissions. The amounts of emissions generated daily would vary, depending on the amount and types of construction activities occurring at the same time. Regional Short-Term Air Quality Effects Project construction activities would generate short-term air quality impacts. Construction emissions can be distinguished as either onsite or offsite. Onsite air pollutant emissions consist principally of exhaust emissions from offroad heavy-duty construction equipment, as well as fugitive particulate matter from earth working and material handling operations. Offsite emissions result from workers commuting to and from the job site, as well as from trucks hauling materials to the site and construction debris for disposal. As shown in Table 4.3-5, construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, the project’s short-term regional air quality impacts would be less than significant. Table 4.3-5 MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Construction Activity Maximum Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Emissions 55.4 31.9 20.9 4.7 2.8 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 55 Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022). Regional Long-Term Air Quality Effects The primary source of operational emissions would be vehicle exhaust emissions generated from project-induced vehicle trips, known as “mobile source emissions.” Other emissions, identified as “energy source emissions,” would be generated from energy consumption for water, space heating, and cooking equipment, while “area source emissions,” would be generated from structural maintenance and landscaping activities, and use of consumer products. ❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.3-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 As seen in Table 4.3-6, for each criteria pollutant, operational emissions would be below the pollutant’s SCAQMD significance threshold. Therefore, operational criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant. Table 4.3-6 MAXIMUM DAILY PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Emission Source Pollutant (lbs/day) ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Area Source Emissions 2.08 0.09 7.67 0.04 0.04 Energy Source Emissions 0.04 0.36 0.15 0.03 0.03 Mobile Source Emissions 2.50 3.21 24.50 5.50 1.50 Total Operational Emissions 4.6 3.7 32.3 5.6 1.6 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55 Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No Source: Calculated by UltraSystems Environmental with CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0). (CAPCOA, 2022) a) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact Since the SCAB is currently in nonattainment for ozone and PM2.5, related projects may exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. The SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of construction and/or operational emissions from multiple development projects nor provides methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess the cumulative emissions generated by multiple cumulative projects. Instead, the SCAQMD recommends that a project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project-specific impacts. Furthermore, the SCAQMD states that if an individual development project generates less-than-significant construction or operational emissions impacts, then the development project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. As discussed above, the mass daily construction and operational emissions generated by the project would not exceed any of the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds. Also, as discussed below, localized emissions generated by the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). Therefore, the project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for the pollutants which the Basin is in nonattainment. Thus, cumulative air quality impacts associated with the project would be less than significant. b) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact ❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.3-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Localized Short-Term Air Quality Effects from Construction Activity Construction of the proposed project would generate short-term and intermittent emissions. Following SCAQMD guidance (Chico and Koizumi, 2008), only onsite construction emissions were considered in the localized significance analysis. The residences to the west of the project site, across Sierra Avenue are the nearest sensitive receptors, about 102 feet (31 meters) away. Localized significance thresholds for projects in SRA 34 were obtained by interpolation from tables in Appendix C of the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (Chico and Koizumi, 2008). Table 4.3-7 shows the results of the localized significance analysis for the proposed project. The localized significance analysis determined that the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Table 4.3-7 RESULTS OF LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS Nearest Sensitive Receptor Maximum Onsite Emissions (pounds/day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Maximum daily emissions 31.9 20.4 4.4 2.7 SCAQMD LST for 3.64 acres @ 31 meters 232 1,534 16 6.7 Significant (Yes or No) No No No No Source: UltraSystems, 2022; Chico and Koizumi, 2008. Although sensitive receptors would be exposed to diesel exhaust from construction equipment, which has been associated with lung cancer (ARB, 1998), the duration of exposure would not be sufficient to result in a significant cancer risk. Carcinogenic health risk assessments are based upon an assumption of 70 years of continuous exposure, while the exposure in the present case would be for about 257 working days. Therefore, no cancer health risk assessment was necessary. Acute non-cancer risk assessments are based upon one-hour maximum exposures, but acute reference exposure levels (RELs) for diesel exhaust and diesel particulate matter have not been established by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2019). Therefore, the long-term cancer risk for the proposed project would be less than significant. c) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact Odors can cause a variety of responses. The impact of an odor results from interacting factors such as frequency (how often), intensity (strength), duration (in time), offensiveness (unpleasantness), location, and sensory perception. The SCAQMD recommends that odor impacts be addressed in a qualitative manner (citation). Such an analysis shall determine whether the project would result in excessive nuisance odors, as defined ❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.3-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 under the California Code of Regulations and § 41700 of the California Health and Safety Code, and thus would constitute a public nuisance related to air quality. Land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The proposed project is not a land use typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. It would involve the use of diesel construction equipment and diesel trucks during construction. However, project-generated emissions would rapidly disperse in the atmosphere and would not be noticeable to the nearby public. Therefore, the project would not generate a significant odor impact during construction or operation. ❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.4-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.4 Biological Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native nursery sites? X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X 4.4.1 Discussion of Impacts 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 ❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.4-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Plant and wildlife species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) are referred to collectively as “listed species” in this Section. Plant and wildlife species not listed under ESA or CESA but still protected by federal agencies, state agencies, local or regional plans, and/or nonprofit resource organizations, such as the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), are collectively referred to as “sensitive species” in this Section. The term “special-status species” is used when collectively referring to both listed and sensitive species. Environmental Setting The City of Fontana is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, California. A mixture of residential and commercial developments, as well as some open lots, surround the project site and compose the biological study area (BSA), shown in Figure 4.4-1. The project site is located in a relatively urbanized area and provides only some low-value habitat for special status plant and wildlife species. The project site itself has a slightly sloping topography; the northern section of the project site lies at a slightly higher elevation than the rest of the project site. Elevations on the project site range from 1,367 feet to 1,396 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The project site is currently undeveloped. Stormwater runoff generated on the project site is discharged as sheet flow toward the south, and into the gutter at Ramona Avenue (Allard Engineering, 2022b). Habitat Assessment Survey UltraSystems Environmental, Inc (UEI) biologist Mr. Matthew Sutton conducted a habitat assessment survey on June 1, 2022, to assess the habitats, plants and wildlife that occur within the BSA. Three land cover types occur within the BSA and they are each described later in section b), where potential project impacts to sensitive plant communities are addressed (see Figure 4.4-2). The southern portion of the project site contains very sparse vegetation on highly compacted soils. The remainder of the project site is dominated by non-native annual grasses and some forb species. The non-native annual grassland on-site is dominated by ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) and foxtail barley (Bromus madritensis). The dominant forb species on-site include a thistle species (Salsola sp.) and lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium album). There is also a red river gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) located on- site, in the southwestern corner. Plant and wildlife species were recorded during the habitat assessment survey and other surveys and these species lists can be viewed in Appendix C1 and C2. ❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.4-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.4–1 PROJECT LOCATION AND BIOLOGICAL STUDY AREA ❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.4-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.4–2 LAND COVER MAP ❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.4-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Impacts to Special Status Plants Based on a literature review and query from publicly available databases (hereafter, plant inventory; USFWS 2022a, b, CNDDB 2022a) for reported occurrences within a ten-mile radius of the project site, there were 5 listed and 26 sensitive plant species identified by one of the following means: reported in the plant inventory, recognized as occurring based on previous surveys or knowledge of the area, or observed during the habitat assessment survey or other surveys, see Figure 4.4-3. Of those 31 total species, 2 listed and 3 sensitive plant species were determined to have a low potential to occur. These species are listed in Appendix C1, Special-Status Species Inventory and Potential Occurrence Determination. The project site lacks suitable habitat or is outside the elevation or geographic range of the remaining 25 special-status plant species documented in the plant inventory, and therefore these species were determined to have no potential to occur. These species are also provided in Appendix C1, Special-Status Species Inventory and Potential Occurrence Determination. No special- status plant species were observed during the surveys, including the special-status plant species determined to have a low potential to occur. Considering that none of the five special-status plant species determined to have a low potential to occur within the BSA were observed, construction of the project will have less than a significant impact on special-status plant species within the BSA. Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Literature Review Results and Discussion Based on a literature review and query from publicly available databases (hereafter, wildlife inventory; USFWS 2022a, b, CNDDB 2022) for reported occurrences within a ten-mile radius of the project site, there were 12 listed and 38 sensitive wildlife species identified by one of the following means: reported in the wildlife inventory, recognized as occurring based on previous surveys or knowledge of the area, or observed during the habitat assessment survey or other surveys. Refer to Figure 4.4-4, which displays species identified in the CNDDB wildlife inventory within a two-mile radius of the BSA. Of those 50 total species, 1 listed and 18 sensitive wildlife species were determined to have at least a low potential to occur and these species are listed in Appendix C1, Special-Status Species Inventory and Potential Occurrence Determination. The project site lacks suitable habitat, or is outside the elevation or geographic range of the remaining 31 species in the wildlife inventory, and therefore these species were determined to have no potential to occur. These species are also provided in Appendix C1, Special-Status Species Inventory and Potential Occurrence Determination. All but one of the special-status wildlife species in the wildlife inventory were determined to have a low potential to occur in the BSA.; therefore, it is anticipated that construction of the project will have less than a significant impact on special-status wildlife. The following species in the wildlife inventory were determined to have a moderate potential to occur in the project site; however, this species was not observed during the surveys: • Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi) SSC Southern California legless lizard occurs in many habitats with sandy soil including coastal sand dunes and a variety of interior habitats, such as sandy washes and alluvial fans. This species may occur on the project site, however neither this species nor its signs were observed during surveys and therefore it is anticipated that construction of the project would have less than a significant impact on the southern California legless lizard ❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.4-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 The BSA is surrounded by residences and commercial buildings which limit the availability of foraging and nesting habitat in the BSA for the majority of special-status wildlife. Additionally, there is a high level of traffic and traffic noise which may render habitat less favorable for many special- status species. All but one special-status wildlife species in the wildlife inventory were determined to have only a low potential to occur, and no sign of the remaining species, or any other special-status species, was observed at the project site. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact on special-status wildlife.. ❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.4-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.4-3 CNDDB KNOWN OCCURRENCES PLANT SPECIES AND HABITATS ❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.4-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.4-4 CNDDB KNOWN OCCURRENCES WILDLIFE SPECIES ❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.4-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 General Wildlife Surveys Results and Discussion None of the special-status species identified in the wildlife inventory were observed onsite. During the surveys, no nests or special-status species were observed within the BSA. Although there are many disturbances within the BSA, including regular pruning and maintenance of trees, frequent traffic noise, and a high level of human activity, the ornamental trees on-site and in the BSA could still potentially support some biological resources such as nesting birds. The on-site red river gum tree and the ornamental trees at the western project boundary could provide some suitable nesting habitat for birds. Project construction could cause several potential direct and indirect impacts on nesting and foraging behavior of nesting bird. Tree removal of the existing onsite trees would directly impact nesting birds by causing the destruction of any nests within those trees. Another potential direct impact would be the conversion of onsite vegetated areas, which could support prey species such as small birds and mammals, to developed areas, resulting in the loss of foraging habitat. However, impacts due to foraging habitat loss would be less than significant because there are many alternative foraging areas that birds could utilize within the BSA and in surrounding areas. Another direct impact to nesting birds may occur if work crews handle bird’s nests or wildlife while on the project site. Noise and dust generated by construction activities would indirectly impact its foraging and nesting behavior. Another indirect impact may be contact with toxic liquids such as oil or gas that leak from machinery and which could contaminate soil surfaces or temporary onsite water sources. Birds and other wildlife species could come into contact with these contaminated soils or waters either through direct contact or by consumption of prey species that have contacted contaminated soils or waters. The BSA contains large trees that could potentially provide foraging, nesting, and cover habitats to potentially support bird species (year-round residents, seasonal residents, and migrants). A majority of the birds observed during the field surveys and those birds that could potentially breed within the BSA are protected by the MBTA and Fish and Game Code § 3503, § 3503.5, and § 3513. Refer to the recommended mitigation measures below which would reduce potential project impacts to biological resources. Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1: Pre-Construction Breeding Bird Survey To maintain compliance with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, and to avoid impacts or take of migratory non-game breeding birds, their nests, young, and eggs, the following measures shall be implemented. The measures below will help to reduce direct and indirect impacts caused by construction on migratory non-game breeding birds to less than significant levels. • Project activities that will remove or disturb potential nest sites, such as open ground, trees, shrubs, grasses, or burrows, during the breeding season would be a potential significant impact if migratory non-game breeding birds are present. Project activities that will remove or disturb potential nest sites shall be scheduled outside the breeding bird season to avoid potential direct impacts on migratory non-game breeding birds protected by the MBTA and Fish and Game Code. The breeding bird nesting season is typically from February 15 through September 15, but can vary slightly from year to year, usually depending on weather conditions. Removing all physical features that could potentially serve as nest sites will also help to prevent birds from nesting within the project site during the breeding season and during construction activities. ❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.4-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 • If project activities cannot be avoided during February 15 through September 15, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction breeding bird survey for breeding birds and active nests or potential nesting sites within the limits of project disturbance. The survey shall be conducted at least seven days prior to the onset of scheduled activities, such as mobilization and staging. It shall end no more than three days prior to vegetation, substrate, and structure removal and/or disturbance. • If no breeding birds, active nests, or other special-status species such as burrowing owl are observed during the pre-construction survey or they are observed and will not be impacted, project activities may begin and no further mitigation shall be required. • If a breeding bird territory, active bird nest, or other special-status species is observed during the pre-construction survey and will potentially be impacted, the site shall be mapped on engineering drawings and a no activity buffer zone shall be marked (fencing, stakes, flagging, orange snow fencing, etc.) a minimum of 100 feet in all directions or 500 feet in all directions for listed bird species and all raptors. The biologist shall determine the appropriate buffer size based on the type of activities planned near the nest and the type of bird that created the nest. Some bird species are more tolerant than others of noise and activities occurring near their nest. This no-activity buffer zone shall not be disturbed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is inactive, the young have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the parents, the young have left the area, or the young will no longer be impacted by project activities. Periodic monitoring by a biologist shall be performed to determine when nesting is complete. Once the nesting cycle has finished, project activities may begin within the buffer zone. • If listed bird species are observed within the project site during the pre-construction survey, the biologist shall immediately map the area and notify the appropriate resource agency to determine suitable protection measures and/or mitigation measures and to determine if additional surveys or focused protocol surveys are necessary. Project activities may begin within the area only when concurrence is received from the appropriate resource agency. • Birds or their active nests shall not be disturbed, captured, handled or moved. Active nests cannot be removed or disturbed; however, nests can be removed or disturbed if determined inactive by a qualified biologist. . • Wildlife shall not be disturbed, captured, harassed, or handled. Animal nests, burrows and dens shall not be disturbed without prior survey and authorization from a qualified biologist. • Active nests of special-status or otherwise protected bird species cannot be removed or disturbed. Nests can be removed or disturbed if determined inactive by a qualified biologist. • To avoid impacts on wildlife and the attraction of predators of protected species, the project proponent shall comply with all litter and pollution laws and shall institute a litter control program throughout project construction. All contractors, subcontractors, and employees shall also obey these laws. These covered trash receptacles shall be placed at each designated work site and the contents shall be properly disposed at least once a week. Trash removal will reduce the attractiveness of the area to opportunistic predators such as common ravens, coyotes, northern raccoons, and Virginia opossums. ❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.4-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 • Contractors, subcontractors, employees, and site visitors shall be prohibited from feeding wildlife and collecting plants and wildlife. • Disturbance near ponded water shall be limited during the rainy season. It could serve as potential habitat for amphibians and sensitive invertebrates. Level of Significance After Mitigation Special-status species are not anticipated to occur within the BSA or project area due to the highly disturbed nature of these areas, however the project could still result in some degree of impact to various wildlife species, including birds addressed under the MBTA. With implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 the proposed project would have less than significant impacts, either directly or through habitat modifications, to bird species addressed under the MBTA. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact The project site is situated on relatively level ground, and no ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial streams or rivers were identified in the literature review or observed during the biological survey. Vegetation within the BSA primarily consists of non-native annual grasses and forbs, ornamental trees, and landscaped areas. The land cover types observed within the BSA are described below. Land Cover Type Mapping The three land cover types are briefly described below and are described below. None of the land cover types are classified as sensitive natural communities in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) California Natural Community List (CDFW, 2022). Therefore, there are no anticipated impacts to sensitive natural communities as a result of construction of the project. Wild oats and annual brome grasslands: Wild oats and annual brome grasslands occupy approximately 3.12 acres of the project site. There are also various patches of wild oats and annual brome grasslands within other parts of the BSA, totaling 7.75 acres. This land cover type is dominated by ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis), annual blue grass (Poa annua), and is interspersed with patches of other non-native annual grasses and non-native annual forbs. The dominant forb species on-site is lamb’s quarter’s and thistle. Disturbed: Disturbed areas that comprise the southern part of the project site and other areas in within the BSA include areas with highly compacted surfaces. These surfaces contain highly compacted gravelly soils, surfaces with gravel, or highly compacted soils where there is very low cover of ruderal vegetation. Approximately 0.7 acre of the project site is categorized as disturbed, while approximately 2.7 acre of the BSA is categorized as disturbed. Developed/Ornamental: ❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.4-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 In the BSA, the developed/ornamental land cover contains areas that support man-made structures such as houses, sidewalks, buildings, parks, water tanks, flood control channels, transportation infrastructure, and ornamental vegetation including trees such as the Peruvian pepper trees and red river gum that are adjacent to the project’s western boundary. Developed/ornamental areas comprise approximately 31.95 acres of the BSA. The red river gum tree located in the southwestern corner of the project site is mapped as Developed/ornamental. Approximately 0.25 acre of developed/ornamental land cover comprises the project area. Ornamental trees are those propagated for aesthetic purposes typically in landscape design projects and gardens. The BSA does not support riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Both the literature review (CNDDB, 2022) and results of the reconnaissance-level field survey indicate that riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities do not occur on the project site. Therefore, construction of the project would not result in impacts on any riparian habitat, or sensitive natural communities identified in local, regional state, or federal plans, policies, or regulations. No impact would occur and no mitigation is proposed. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact Drainages, depressions, and other topographic features that would be conducive to wetlands formation were not identified within the BSA. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact The project site is not located within a CDFW Natural Landscape Block, Essential Connectivity Area, Small Natural Areas, or Riparian Connection. The nearest Essential Connectivity Area is located approximately 2.9 miles north from the project site (see Figure4.4-5). Construction and operation of the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. No impact would occur, and mitigation is not proposed. By contrast, direct impacts are anticipated to native wildlife nursery sites of fossorial species. UEI biologists frequently observed California ground squirrels during surveys as well as several burrow complexes distributed throughout the project site that are likely used by ground squirrels. These sightings of fossorial mammals and their burrows indicate that there may be resident populations of these species onsite. Thus, it is likely that fossorial mammal species give birth and raise young within the burrow complexes located onsite. Ground disturbing activities such as discing, bulldozing and excavating would lead to death and injury of fossorial species which do not typically evacuate their burrows during this type of disturbance. Although there would likely be direct impacts to nursery sites of fossorial species as a result of construction of the project, it is not anticipated that these impacts would be significant. The CFGC ❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.4-13 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 classifies both California ground squirrels and Botta’s pocket gophers as nongame animals, and as such, property owners can legally take these species (Baldwin, 2019; Quinn et al., 2018). No mitigation is required for the take of either of these fossorial species. The direct impacts of construction of the project to nursery sites of fossorial species would be less than significant. ❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.4-14 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.4-5 CDFW WILDLIFE CORRIDORS ❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.4-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact The project site and BSA do not contain trees that qualify for protection under the City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 28, Article III, Preservation of Heritage, Significant, and Specimen Trees (City of Fontana, 2022). The trees do not meet the criteria for “heritage”, “specimen”, or “significant” trees as per Section 28- 63 Definitions of Chapter 28, Article III. No tree removal permits or replacements are required f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no mitigation is required. ❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.5-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.5 Cultural Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X Information from UltraSystems’ Interim Cultural Resources Inventory Report, dated July 6, 2022 (see Appendix D), prepared for the Sierra Avenue Project, City of Fontana has been included within this section. 4.5.1 Methodology A cultural resources inventory was requested May 11, 2022 for the Sierra Avenue Project site (Figure 4.5-1) that would include a California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) records and literature search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at the California State University, Fullerton. Additionally, a request was made to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to conduct a search of their Sacred Lands File (SLF) for potential traditional cultural properties as well as to provide a list of local Native American tribal organizations to contact. The NAHC request was made on May 11, 2022, and a reply was received on June 13, 2022; letters were sent to the listed tribes on June 15, 2022 and follow-up telephone calls were conducted on June 29, 2022. A pedestrian field survey of the project site was conducted on June 14, 2022. 4.5.2 Existing Conditions A cultural resources records search was requested from the SCCIC, the local California Historical Resources Information System facility, on May 11, 2022. According to the records at the SCCIC, there has been one previous survey report that included a portion of the project site (SB-0261). This was a general survey of northern portion of the City of Fontana, and did not record any cultural features in the project area (refer to Appendix D). The search determined that no cultural resources have been previously recorded within the project site boundary, or Area of Potential Effect (APE) Within the 0.5-mile radius of the APE of the project boundary there have been six previously recorded historic- era cultural resources (Table 4.1-1 in Appendix D). The pedestrian field survey undertaken for this project was negative for prehistoric resources, but did observe two possible historic irrigation features consisting of a concrete box and a concrete vertical pipe. (see Section 4.3 in Appendix D). ❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.5-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.5-1 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.5-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.5.3 Impact Analysis a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5? No Impact A historical resource is defined in § 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript determined to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. Historical resources are further defined as being associated with significant events, important persons, or distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; representing the work of an important creative individual; or possessing high artistic values. Resources listed in or determined eligible for the California Register, included in a local register, or identified as significant in a historic resource survey are also considered as historical resources under CEQA. Similarly, the National Register criteria (contained in Code of Federal Regulations Title 36 Section 60.4) are used to evaluate resources when complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Specifically, the National Register criteria state that eligible resources comprise districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that (a) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important to history or prehistory. A substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, as a result of a project or development, is considered a significant impact on the environment. Substantial adverse change is defined as physical demolition, relocation, or alteration of a resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. Direct impacts are those that cause substantial adverse physical change to a historic property. Indirect impacts are those that cause substantial adverse change to the immediate surroundings of a historic property, such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired. While the 1955 USGS topographic map indicates a single small structure on the east edge of the parcel, this is not present in the 1969 USGS topo map; another structure is shown in the west central portion of the parcel in the 1969 USGS topo map through the 1985 USGS map. Neither of these structures are present in the 1985 aerial photo of the parcel, and no remains of either building was observed during the 2022 pedestrian survey With no project impacts to any historic structures, there would be no substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5, and therefore the project would have no impact in this regard. ❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.5-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated An archaeological resource is defined in § 15064.5(c) of the CEQA Guidelines as a site, area or place determined to be historically significant as defined in § 15064(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, or as a unique archaeological resource defined in § 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code as an artifact, object, or site that contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions of public interest or that has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best example of its type, or that is directly associated with a scientifically-recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. The past use of the project site for orchards suggests that ground on the project site has been minimally disturbed, with the native surface soil remaining. The cultural resources investigation conducted by UltraSystems which included a search of the SLF by the NAHC, the CHRIS records search findings, and pedestrian field survey, suggests there is a low potential for undisturbed unique archeological resources exist on the project site. A NAHC SLF search was conducted on and within a half-mile buffer around the project site. The NAHC letter of June 13, 2022 indicated that there is the presence of traditional cultural property within this area. Eighteen representatives of 12 Native American tribes were contacted requesting a reply if they have knowledge of cultural resources in the area that they wished to share and asking if they had any questions or concerns regarding the project. These tribes included: • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation • Gabrielino /Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Gabrielino / Tongva Nation • Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council • Gabrielino -Tongva Tribe • Morongo Band of Mission Indians • Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuman Reservation • San Manuel Band of Mission Indians • Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians • Serrano Nation of Mission Indians • Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians There have been two direct responses to date. Lacy Padilla, THPO Operations Manager for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, responded by email on June 23, 2022 indicating that the project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area and that the Tribe will defer to the other tribes in the area. Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation Officer for the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, responded by email on June 20, 2022, indicating that they have no comments on this project and defer to the more local Tribes and support their decisions on the projects. Following up on the initial letter and email contacts, telephone calls were conducted by Archaeological Technician Megan Black on June 29, 2022 to the 15 tribal contacts who had not already responded to UltraSystems’ mailing and email. Three telephone calls were placed with no direct answer and so messages were left describing the project and requesting a response. These were to Jessica Mauck, Director of Cultural Resources for the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians; Charles Alvarez, Chairperson of the Gabrieleno - Tongva Nation; and Ann Brierty, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. In a call to Sandonne Goad, Chairperson ❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.5-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 of the Gabrieleno/Tongva Nation, the phone call was not answered and a message was not left due to the answering machine being full. In a call to Robert Martin, Chairperson for the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Chairperson’s Assistant indicated that the Chairperson was not in the office and that we should contact Ann Brierty. In a call to Lovina Redner, Acting Chair of the Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians the tribal office receptionist indicated that the Chair was not in the office and that the best way to reach her is through email. There have been no responses to date from these tribes. During the telephone calls of June 29, 2022, Andrew Salas, Chairperson of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation stated that he would like to consult on this project and that the Band has recorded a Sacred Lands File site in the area. He also requested the Lead Agency’s contact information. This information was emailed to Chairperson Salas on June 30, 2022. Chairperson Anthony Morales of the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians stated that Baseline Road north of the project area was a major route of travel with villages and water ways. Much of this area is natural landscape that has not been developed previously and is an area of concern. The Chairperson requested Native American and Archaeological monitoring. He also requested that his tribe be included in monitoring. Christina Conley, Tribal Consultant and Administrator for the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council returned our call and stated that that the tribe has no comment on the project. Robert Dorame, Chairperson for the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council indicated that the tribe defers to San Manuel. Mark Cochrane, Co- Chairperson for the Serrano Nation of Mission Indians indicated that if any resources are found during ground disturbance they would like to be alerted. Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department for the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians stated that as the project area is south of Baseline Road the tribe defers to San Manuel. (See Attachment C in Appendix D.) The cultural resources records search conducted at the SCCIC determined that no cultural resources have been previously recorded within the project site boundary, or Area of Potential Effect (APE) Within the 0.5-mile radius of the APE of the project boundary there have been six previously recorded historic-era cultural resources (Table 4.1-1 in Appendix D) According to the records at the SCCIC, there has been one previous survey report that included a portion of the project site (SB-0261). This was a general survey of northern portion of the City of Fontana, and did not record any cultural features in the project area (refer to Appendix D). A pedestrian survey was conducted on June 14, 2022 by Mr. O’Neil. The survey consisted of walking, visually inspecting, and photographing the exposed ground surface of the project site using standard archaeological procedures and techniques. The project parcel consists of open flat land with no structures or hardscape. Survey of the ground surface was conducted in north-south transects 10 meters apart, starting on the northeast corner of the parcel along Sierra Avenue and working westward. The soil was fine grain brown soil without sand or gravel with numerous small (2-4 inches diameter) rocks and some large (6-9 inches diameter). The parcel had recently been mowed to maintain the weeds growing here. The parcel was dominated by young tumble weeds, with the surface partially covered with a variety of non-native volunteer grasses, predominantly fox-tail; other plants present were cheese weed (Malva sp.), heron’s bill, bur clover and mustard. Throughout the parcel were occasional burrows used by a medium sized animal consistent with rabbit dens (or even coyote); also, small burrows consistent with an animal the size of a large lizard. There was evidence of small rodent-size animals in owl scat, as well as of owls themselves. ❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.5-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 There are two concrete features situated within the parcel. One, along Sierra, is a rectangular concrete structure with a metal lid approximately 51 inches by 61 inches across and 53 inches high. Also, near the northwest corner of the parcel near San Jacinto Avenue, is a pre-formed concrete pipe 19 inches in diameter and 67 1/2 inches in height. These structures are likely tied to farming irrigation that was conducted here in the not-too-distant past, and do not qualify as historically or culturally significant. Notable current activity on the parcel is evidenced by a circle worn into the ground approximately 75 feet in diameter where horses are walked by local residents. During the survey, the project site was carefully inspected for any indication of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic periods (i.e., 50 years or older). The project site has been surficially disturbed by previous agricultural use as an orchard. Photographs of the project site were taken during the cultural resources survey. The result of the pedestrian survey was negative for both historic and prehistoric cultural resources except for the two unidentified concrete structures along Sierra Avenue and San Jacinto Avenue. Grading activities would cause new subsurface disturbance and may result in the unanticipated discovery of prehistoric and/or historic archeological resources. Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior’s Professional Standards for Archaeology shall be hired to assess the find and afforded the necessary time to recover, analyze, and curate the find(s). Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-1, regarding any pre- contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. The qualified archaeologist shall recommend the extent of archaeological monitoring necessary to ensure the protection of any other resources that may be in the area. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-L) form and filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center. Construction activities may continue on other parts of the project site while evaluation and treatment of prehistoric archaeological resources takes place. MM CUL-2 If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly. ❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.5-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 above, the project would result in less than significant impacts to archeological resources. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated As previously discussed in Section 4.5.b) above, the project would be built on relatively undisturbed land that has not been previously graded and is in a suburban area. No human remains have been previously identified or recorded onsite. The project proposes grading activities for the installation of infrastructure including water, sewer, and utility lines; and for construction of the proposed buildings. Grading would involve new subsurface disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of unknown human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. In the unlikely event of an unexpected discovery, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-3 would ensure that impacts related to the accidental discovery of human remains would be less than significant. California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 specifies the procedures to follow during the unlikely discovery of human remains. CEQA § 15064.5 describes determining the significance of impacts on archeological and historical resources. California Public Resources Code § 5097.98 stipulates the notification process during the discovery of Native American human remains, descendants, disposition of human remains, and associated grave goods. Mitigation Measure MM CUL-3 If human remains are encountered during excavations associated with this project, all work shall stop within a 60-foot radius of the discovery and the San Bernardino County Coroner shall be notified (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The Coroner shall determine whether the remains are recent human origin or older Native American ancestry. If the coroner, with the aid of the supervising archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, they shall contact the NAHC. The NAHC shall be responsible for designating the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD (either an individual or sometimes a committee) shall be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD shall make recommendations within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC. These recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (§ 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). Level of Significance After Mitigation With adherence to applicable codes and regulations protecting cultural resources and with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CUL-3 above, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to human remains. ❖ SECTION 4.6 - ENERGY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.6-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.6 Energy Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? X b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? X a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact Impact Analysis CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d)) states that “uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement that provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.” Therefore, the purpose of this analysis is to identify significant irreversible environmental effects of project implementation that cannot be avoided. Electricity Electricity is supplied to the project site by Southern California Edison Company (SCE), which provides electricity to the City of Fontana (Stantec, et al., 2018a, p. 10.9). SCE provides electricity to the project site from existing electrical service lines. To allow for potential future solar power needs, per requirements of the 2019 California Energy Commission Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6)10, the project will be prepared for solar power by providing conduit and pull ropes at appropriate locations, as well as leaving an unobstructed area equal to 15 percent of the roof area on each structure that has been kept clear of roof vents and skylights for “future solar panels.” 10 Project building plans will be submitted for approval prior to January 1, 2022, and will be subject to requirements of the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6). ❖ SECTION 4.6 - ENERGY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.6-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of electricity associated with the conveyance and treatment of water used for dust control and, on a limited basis, powering lights, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Due to the fact that information on electricity usage associated with lighting and construction equipment that utilizes electricity is neither readily available nor easily quantifiable, the estimated electricity usage during project construction is speculative. Lighting used during project construction would comply with California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 standards/requirements (such as wattage limitations). This compliance would ensure that electricity use during project construction would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. Lighting would be used in compliance with applicable City of Fontana Municipal Code requirements to create enough light for safety. Natural Gas Natural gas is supplied to the project site by Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), which provides natural gas to the City of Fontana (City of Fontana, 2022). Construction activities, including the construction of new buildings and facilities, typically do not involve the consumption of natural gas. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to have a demand for natural gas during project construction. Construction The following forms of energy are anticipated to be expended during project construction: • Diesel fuel for off-road equipment (gallons). • Electricity to deliver water for use in dust control (kilowatt-hours [kWh]). • Motor vehicle fuel for worker commuting, materials delivery and waste disposal (gallons). Transportation Energy Project construction would consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels associated with the use of off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction workers’ travel to and from the project site, and delivery and haul truck trips hauling solid waste from and delivering building materials to the project site. During project construction, trucks and construction equipment would be required to comply with the ARB’s anti-idling regulations. ARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation would also apply (ARB, 2016). Vehicles driven to or from the project site (delivery trucks, construction employee vehicles, etc.) are subject to fuel efficiency standards established by the federal government. Therefore, project construction activities regarding fuel use would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. Operation Energy would be consumed during project operations related to space and water heating, water conveyance, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips of employees and customers. Project operation energy usage, which was estimated by the CalEEMod (CAPCOA, 2022) as part of the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analyses (refer to Section 4.3) is shown in Table 4.6-1. ❖ SECTION 4.6 - ENERGY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.6-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 The project proposes development of 93 residential units in 15 buildings on an approximately 4.00- acre (gross) site. The estimated project operational energy use by the residential units are shown in Table 4.6-1. Table 4.6-1 ESTIMATED PROJECT OPERATIONAL ENERGY USE Energy Type Units Value Per Capitaa Onroad Motor Vehicle Travel (Fuel)b Gallons gasoline/year 87,419 172 Gallons diesel/year 11,941 0.28 Natural Gas Use 1,000 BTU per year 1,406,710 3,761 Electricity Use Kilowatt-hours per year 387,805 1,037 a Based upon estimated proposed residential population of 374; see Section 4.14. b Onroad Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption calculated by UltraSystems using EMFAC2021(v1.0.2) emissions inventory web platform tool (ARB, 2022) and CalEEMod (2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022); see Appendix B. The Per Capita value for the onroad motor vehicle fuel consumption is calculated from the passenger vehicles fuel consumption. Natural Gas Use and Electricity Use calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (2020.4.0). b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations) were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Compliance with Title 24 will result in decrease in GHG emissions. The 2019 update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards focuses on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings. The most significant efficiency improvements to the residential standards include the introduction of photovoltaic into the prescriptive package; and improvements for attics, walls, water heating, and lighting. The 2019 Standards also include changes made throughout all of its sections to improve the clarity, consistency, and readability of the regulatory language. The California Energy Commission (CEC) updates Title 24 standards every three years and the most recent 2019 revisions to the standards became effective July 1, 2020. The provisions of Title 24, Part 6 apply to all buildings for which an application for a building permit or renewal of an existing permit is required by law. They regulate design and construction of the building envelope, space-conditioning and water-heating systems, indoor and outdoor lighting systems of buildings, and signs located either indoors or outdoors. Title 24, Part 6 specifies ❖ SECTION 4.6 - ENERGY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.6-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 mandatory, prescriptive and performance measures, all designed to optimize energy use in buildings and decrease overall consumption of energy to construct and operate residential and nonresidential buildings. Mandatory measures establish requirements for manufacturing, construction, and installation of certain systems; equipment and building components that are installed in buildings. Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code The California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11 code) commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under the topics of planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The proposed project would be designed with energy-efficient features, including insulated and glazed windows and low E coating on windows, and would be built in compliance with the California Green Building Standards (CAL Green) Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11). City of Fontana General Plan Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience, of the City of Fontana General Plan focuses on sustainability and resilience on resource efficiency and planning for climate change. It includes policies for new development promoting energy-efficient development in Fontana, meeting state energy efficiency goals for new construction, promoting green building through guidelines, awards and nonfinancial incentives, and continuing to promote and implement best practices to conserve water (Stantec, 2018b, pp. 10.9, 12.5). The proposed project would adhere to applicable federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24 standards and General Plan Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Further, the roadway network in the vicinity of the project site is served by Omnitrans, the public transit agency serving the San Bernardino Valley. Omnitrans has 10 bus routes in the city (Stantec, et al., 2018a, p. 9.7). Employees and visitors would be able to access the project site via the public transit system, thereby reducing transportation-related fuel demand. ❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.7-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.7 Geology and Soils Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X ❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.7-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X The information in this section is based on the following: • Publicly available data from the California Geological Survey, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, and other resources as cited in the text; and • Paleontological Records Search for the proposed Sierra Avenue Townhomes Project in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County. Prepared by Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, dated March 19, 2022. A complete copy of this report is included as Appendix E to this IS/MND. a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less than Significant Impact The Alquist-Priolo Zones Special Studies Act (A-P Act) defines active faults as those that have experienced surface displacement or movement during the last 11,700 years. As shown in Figure 4.7-1, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (A-P Fault Zone). The nearest A-P Fault Zone, the Cucamonga fault zone (part of the Sierra Madre Fault Zone), which is located approximately 3.8 miles northwest of the project site (see Figure 4.7-1). With the exception of a dip to the south in the Hunter’s Ridge community in north Fontana, this fault trends from east to west. A second A-P Fault Zone, the San Bernardino Section of the San Jacinto fault zone, is approximately 5.4 miles east of the project site, and the Etiwanda Avenue fault is 5.3 miles northwest of the project site. (see Figure 4.7-2). This mapped section of the San Jacinto fault zone trends northwest and southeast, generally paralleling Lytle Creek, away from the project site. The Etiwanda Avenue fault zone is less than one mile in length and sits north/northeast of Wilson Avenue at Etiwanda Avenue. This mapped A-P Fault Zone from the southwest to northeast, away from the project site. Regionally active faults in the project area include the A-P Fault Zones shown on Figure 4.7-1; in addition, an unnamed fault near Fontana is mapped less than 0.25-mile west of the project site (see Figure 4.7-2). This approximately 4.5-miles long fault is mapped from the area of Interstate 10 and Cherry Avenue (southwest of the project site) to the area of Juniper Avenue and San Jacinto Avenue. This fault is often considered to be part of the Cucamonga fault zone; little information about this fault is available and the mapping may be approximate (Bryant, 2017). ❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.7-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.7-1 ALQUIST PRIOLO FAULT ZONES ❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.7-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.7-2 REGIONALLY ACTIVE FAULTS ❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.7-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Surface fault rupture is the result of fault movement that breaks to the surface of the earth either suddenly during earthquakes, or slowly due to a process known as fault creep, and is the result of tectonic movement that originates deep in the earth. Surface fault rupture is different from other types of earthquake-related ground deformation, such as that caused by soil liquefaction or earthquake-triggered landslides. The purpose of the A-P Act is to prevent the construction of structures for human occupancy across traces of active faults (California Public Resources Code [CPRC], Division 2, Chapter 7, Section 2621.5). For purposes of the A-P Act, active faults are defined by the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) as those faults that have “...had surface displacement during Holocene time...”11 (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Division 2, Section 3601 [a]; CGS, 2018; p. 6). Three Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones have been mapped within less than 5.4 miles of the project site, and a fourth regionally active fault is mapped less than 0.25-mile west of the project site. None of these mapped faults are mapped within 50 feet of the project site. The project would not involve the placement of structures for human occupancy across the known trace of active faults. Impacts arising from surface rupture of a known active fault would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact Seismic shaking is measured by the moment magnitude (Mw), which is the seismic moment of an earthquake, converted to a magnitude scale that roughly parallels the original Richter magnitude scale. Since the Mw is not based on the same measurements as Richter (local or surface-wave) magnitudes, the different magnitudes do not always agree, particularly for very large quakes. However, because it relates directly to the energy released by an earthquake, it has become the standard in modern seismology (SCDEC, 2022a). As shown on Figures 4.7-1 and 4.7-2, the project is located within a seismically active region of southern California, and all structures in the region are susceptible to collapse, buckling of walls, and damage to foundations from strong seismic ground shaking. The unnamed fault near Fontana is adjacent to the project site: however, a Mw for this fault in not known (Bryant, 2017). The Sierra Madre fault zone (which includes the Cucamonga fault and possibly the Etiwanda Avenue fault) has a probable Mw of 6.0 to 7.0, and the San Jacinto fault zone (which includes the Lytle Creek, San Bernardino, and Loma Linda faults) has a probable Mw of 6.5 to 7.5 (SCDEC, 2022b, SDCEC, 2022c). The effect of seismic shaking on future structures and land development projects within the City may be mitigated by adhering to adopted building codes. The California Building Code (CBC) regulates the design and construction of foundations, building frames, retaining walls, excavations, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions. 11 The Holocene is the geological epoch that began 11,700 years before present, as defined by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (http://www.stratigraphy.org). The current SMGB regulations states that the Holocene epoch is “...about the last 11,000 years” (CCR, Title 14, Division 2, Section 3601 (a)). However, while the SMGB definition has been essentially unchanged since 1974, the age of the Holocene epoch has since been refined through geological studies and is currently recognized as starting about 11,700 years ago (CGS 2018, p. 6). ❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.7-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 The project would be constructed in accordance with the applicable 2019 California Building Code (CBC) issued by the California Building Standards Commission and used throughout the state (California Code of Regulations, Title 24). The CBC provides minimum standards to protect property and for public welfare by regulating the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the strength of ground motion with specified probability of occurring at the site. Although the project site is susceptible to occasional moderate/high ground shaking from seismically active fault zones in the Southern California region, design and construction in accordance with the CBC would address issues related to potential seismic ground shaking at the site. For these reasons, impacts from strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant and mitigation is not proposed. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact General types of ground failures that might occur as a consequence of severe ground shaking typically include landslides, ground subsidence, ground lurching and shallow ground rupture. The probability of occurrence of each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from the faults, topography, subsoils and relatively shallow groundwater tables (approximately 50 feet or less below ground surface), in addition to other factors. Liquefaction typically occurs when saturated or partially saturated soils behave like a liquid, as a result of losses in strength and stiffness in response to an applied stress caused by ground shaking or other sudden change in stress conditions. The project site is not in a zone of required investigation for liquefaction. A groundwater monitoring well operated by the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring System (CASGEM) is located less than 0.2-mile south of the project site. The most recent groundwater measurement recorded at this wall was 615 feet below ground surface (bgs), recorded on March 1, 2022. The historic high groundwater level at this monitoring well was measured at 589.7 feet bgs on May 15, 2012 (CASGEM, 2022) Based on publicly available data, the project site is not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction. Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, including the CBC, would minimize hazards from potential seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, that could be exacerbated by project development. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not proposed. iv) Landslides? No Impact Landslides occur when the stability of the slope changes from a stable to an unstable condition. A change in the stability of a slope can be caused by a number of factors, acting together or alone. Natural causes of landslides include groundwater (pore water) pressure acting to destabilize the slope, loss of vegetative structure, erosion of the toe of a slope by rivers or ocean waves, weakening ❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.7-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 of a slope through saturation by snow melt or heavy rains, earthquakes adding loads to a barely stable slope, earthquake-caused liquefaction destabilizing slopes, and volcanic eruptions. Topography within the project site is relatively flat with slope of less than 2 percent. The existing surface elevation at the proposed project site ranges from approximately 1,367 feet to 1,396 feet above mean sea level. Surface topography is generally flat to slightly sloping with the highest elevations in the northern portion of the site and the lowest surface elevations across the southern portions of the site (Google Earth, 2022). Seismically induced landslides and other slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after earthquakes; however, the project site relatively flat with very low onsite gradients, and the project site and project vicinity do not contain steep slopes or hills. Therefore, the potential for development of the project or being impacted by seismically induced landslide hazard is very low. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not proposed. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact The soil mapped on the project site is Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes (TvC; see Figure 4.7-3 and Table 4.7-1). Table 4.7-1 USDA SOILS MAPPED ON THE PROJECT SITE Soil Name (Map Unit Designation) K Factor (Whole Soil) Wind Erodibility Group Plasticity Index Expansion Potential Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes (TvC) 0.10 2 0.0 Very Low Source: USDA, Soil Survey, May 2022. Under current conditions, most of the project site consists of exposed soil. Ground-disturbing construction activities such as grading and excavation would remove the vegetation layer and increase the potential for erosion by water and wind. Erosion factor K (refer to Table 4.7-1) indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. K Factor is estimated based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter, and on soil structure and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69 (median = 0.35). Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water (Soil Survey Staff, 2022, p. 22). The soil unit, Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, mapped on the project site has a K factor of 0.10, which indicates that these soils have a low susceptibility to sheet and rill erosion by water (Soil Survey Staff, 2022, p, 26). ❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.7-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.7-3 PROJECT SITE - SOIL MAP ❖ SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.7-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 A wind erodibility group (WEG) consists of soils that have similar properties affecting their susceptibility to wind erosion in cultivated areas. The soils assigned to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the least susceptible (Soil Survey Staff, 2022, p. 32). All of the proposed project site has been mapped as containing TvC, which has a WEG rating of 2, indicating that this soil has a low susceptibility to wind erosion. Construction The project site would be most susceptible to erosion during the construction phase, when soil is exposed, and before landscaped areas have been installed. To minimize the potential for water and wind erosion, the project would adopt construction best management practices (BMPs) in accordance with the Construction General Permit, 2009-009-DWQ, as amended. The project would also be required to implement site-specific construction stormwater BMPs designed to avoid or minimize wind- and water erosion, as described in the required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) (refer to Section 4.10 of this document). Operation As designed, the project would be developed with a mix of impervious surfaces such as concrete and pavement and grass/landscaped areas, including landscaping along the site boundary. This combination of impervious surfaces and landscaped areas would reduce the potential of the project for soil erosion to a negligible level during project operations. With the implementation of soil erosion and sedimentation BMPs during the construction phase and the proposed combination of impervious and landscaped surfaces during the operational phase, the project would have less than significant impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil and mitigation is not proposed. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant Impact The proposed project is located on four mapped geologic units (Bortugno and Spittler, 1986): • Young Alluvial-Fan Deposits of Lytle Creek (Qyfl; Holocene and late Pleistocene). These deposits are unconsolidated, gray, cobbly, and boulder alluvium of the Lytle Creek alluvial fan; the northern portion of this unit is more cobbly and boulder than the southern extent (Morton, 2003). • Older Fan Deposits (Qof). are moderately dissected fan deposits of sand and gravel. • Bedrock: Puente Formation (Mpe). The Puente Formation is comprised of marine siltstone, sandstone, and shale; with minor conglomerate and salicaceous shale. Calcareous concretions are common in the upper part of this formation. • Bedrock: Cretaceous Quartz Diorite (Kqd). Quartz diorite is medium-grained plutonic rock presenting in outcrop, a color of varying shades of gray which distinguishes it in field from ❖ SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.7-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 other intrusive rocks. Characterized by abundant dark inclusions (Bortugno and Spittler, 1986, USGS, 2022). Impacts related to liquefaction and landslides are discussed above in Section 4.7 a). Furthermore, as described in previous responses, the site possesses low probability of landslides and liquefaction. Additionally, the project would be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code, which is designed to assure safe construction and include building foundation requirements appropriate to site-specific conditions. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is the downslope movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The downslope movement is due to gravity and earthquake shaking combined. Lateral spreading of the ground surface during a seismic event usually occurs along the weak shear zones within a liquefiable soil layer and has been observed to generally take place toward a free face (i.e., retaining wall, slope, or channel) and to lesser extent on ground surfaces with a very gentle slope. For the reasons discussed in Section 4.7 a) above, the potential for lateral spread on the project site would be less than significant. Collapsible Soils Collapsible soils can be broadly classified as soils that is susceptible to a large and sudden reduction in volume upon wetting. Collapsible soils include, but are not limited to, undocumented fill, and natural collapsible soil, such as alluvium and colluvium (Day, 2000, pp. A-14 - A-15). The project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the CBC, which requires soil tests be performed on sites where collapsible soils may occur (CBSC, 2019, § 1803.1.1) and would include building foundation requirements appropriate to site-specific conditions. Project development would not exacerbate hazards arising from collapsible soils. Subsidence The major cause of ground subsidence is the excessive withdrawal of groundwater. Soils with high silt or clay content are particularly susceptible to subsidence. The project site is within an area of subsidence due to groundwater pumping mapped by the USGS (USGS, 2022). In addition to groundwater extraction, dry and partially saturated sediments that are not susceptible to liquefaction may be susceptible to dynamic consolidation and local ground subsidence. This consolidation or subsidence occurs in loose, cohesionless sediments as the empty spaces are filled due to intense seismic shaking. The project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the CBC. In addition to the requirements of CBC § 1803.1.1, the CBC also provides the appropriate building design criteria needed to protect the structural integrity of structures and infrastructure against subsidence and soil settlement. The Preliminary Soil Investigation required in CBC § 1803.1.1 would include site-specific soil testing to determine the presence of subsidence hazards and the potential for soil subsidence. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in compliance with the 2019 California Building Code, which provides building criteria to protect a project against collapsible soils and subsidence. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation would not be required. ❖ SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.7-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact Expansive soils shrink and swell with changes in soil moisture. Soil moisture may change from landscape irrigation, rainfall, and utility leakage. The expansion index of a soil can be determined by that soils’ plasticity index, which is one of the standard Atterberg limits used to indicate the plasticity characteristics of a soil. It is the range of water content in which a soil exhibits the characteristics of a plastic solid. The plastic limit is the water content that corresponds to an arbitrary limit between the plastic and semisolid states of a soil (Soil Survey Staff, 2022, p. 37). As shown in Table 4.7-1, the plasticity index of the soil mapped on the project site has a plasticity index of 0.0 percent; this rating correlates to an expansion index of Very Low (Day, 2000, p. 12.6). The project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the CBC, which requires soil tests be performed on sites where expansive soils may occur (CBSC, 2019, § 1803.5.3) and includes building foundation requirements appropriate to site-specific conditions, such as expansive soils. However, the soil mapped on the project site has an expansion potential of Very Low; the proposed project would be designed and constructed in compliance with the 2019 California Building Code, which provides building criteria to project a project against expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not proposed. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact The project site would connect to the City of Fontana’s existing sewer system; therefore, the project would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. For this reason, no impacts associated with septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems would occur. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The project site boundary is underlain by the Young Alluvial Fan Deposits, unit 5 (Qyf5) (Morton and Matti, 2001) from “the Lytle Creek that emanates from the San Gabriel Mountains to the north.” This deposit consists of slightly dissected surfaces and stage S7 (Dark Surface) soils. It is found in the northeast part of the Devore, Calif. USGS quadrangle between East Kimbark and Ames Canyons and dates to the Holocene (11,650 years before present [ybp] to the present time) (Morton and Matti, 2001). A paleontology records search by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County dated June 19, 2022, yielded records of 5 fossil localities in the project region listed below in Table 4.7-1. ❖ SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.7-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Table 4.7-2 PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS Locality Number Location Formation Taxa Depth LACM VP 4619 Wineville Ave, Eastvale, CA Unknown Formation (Pleistocene) Mammoth (Mammuthus) 100 feet feet below ground surface LACM VP 7811 W of Orchard Park, Chino Valley Unknown formation (eolian, tan silt; Pleistocene) Whip snake (Masticophis) 9-11 feet below ground surface LACM VP 7268, 7271 Sundance Condominiums, S of Los Serranos Golf Course Unknown (Pleistocene) Horse (Equus) Unknown LACM VP 1207 Hill on east side of sewage disposal plant; 1 mile N- NW of Corona Unknown formation (Pleistocene) Bovidae Unknown LACM VP 4540 Junction of Jackrabbit Trail & Gilman Springs Road; San Jacinto Valley Unnamed Formation (Pleistocene, gravel pit) Horse Family (Equidae) Unknown Source: Los Angeles County Natural History Museum, 2022 Any substantial excavations below the uppermost layers should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any specimens without impeding development. Grading and excavation activities associated with development of the project would cause new subsurface disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources. In the event of an unexpected discovery, implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 would ensure paleontological resources or unique geologic features are not significantly affected. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1 Before the beginning of project construction, the project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to remain on-call for the duration of project ground disturbance activities. If paleontological resources are uncovered during project construction, the contractor shall halt construction activities in the immediate area and notify the City. The on-call paleontologist shall be notified and afforded the necessary time and funds to recover and analyze the finds; and curate the find(s) with an accredited repository for paleontological resources. Subsequently, the monitor shall remain onsite for the duration of the ground disturbance to ensure the protection of any other resources that are found during construction on the project site. Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of MM GEO-1, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. ❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.8-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X 4.8.1 Background Information on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Life on earth depends on energy coming from the sun. About half the light reaching Earth's atmosphere passes through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and then radiated upward in the form of infrared heat. About 90% of this heat is then absorbed by carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG) and radiated back toward the surface, which is warmed to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (NASA, 2018). Human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century, the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2. This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon in the fuel with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of GHGs (NASA, 2018). GHGs are defined under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) as CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).12 Associated with each GHG species is a “global warming potential” (GWP), which is a value used to compare the abilities of different GHGs to trap heat in the atmosphere. GWPs are based on the heat-absorbing ability of each gas relative to that of CO2, as well as the decay rate of each gas (the amount removed from the atmosphere over a given number of years). The GWPs of CH4 and N2O are 25 and 298, respectively (GMI, 2019). “Carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e) emissions are calculated by weighting each GHG compound’s emissions by its GWP and then summing the products. HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 would not be emitted in significant amounts by the Sierra Project sources, so they are not discussed further. California is responsible for approximately two percent of the world’s CO2 emissions (CEC, 2006a). The California Energy Commission (CEC) estimates that California is the second largest emitter of GHG emissions in the United States. According to the California Air Resources Board (ARB), in 2019, GHG emissions from statewide emitting activities were 418.2 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent 12 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.pdf. ❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.8-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 (MMTCO2e), 7.2 MMTCO2e lower than 2018 levels and almost 13 MMTCO2e below the 2020 GHG Limit of 431 MMTCO2e. Since the peak level in 2004, California’s GHG emissions have generally followed a decreasing trend. In 2016, statewide GHG emissions dropped below the 2020 GHG Limit and have remained below the limit since that time (ARB, 2021). Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas consisting of molecules made up of two oxygen atoms and one carbon atom. CO2 is produced when an organic carbon compound (such as wood) or fossilized organic matter (such as coal, oil, or natural gas) is burned in the presence of oxygen. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid-1700s, industrial activities have increased in scale and distribution. Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations were stable at a range of 275 to 285 ppm (IPCC, 2007a). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research Laboratory indicates that the global concentration of CO2 was 413.67 parts per million (ppm) in March 2020 (ESRL, 2020). These concentrations of CO2 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. Methane (CH4). Methane is a colorless, odorless non-toxic gas consisting of molecules made up of four hydrogen atoms and one carbon atom. CH4 is combustible, and is the main constituent of natural gas, a fossil fuel. CH4 is released when organic matter decomposes in low oxygen environments. Natural sources include wetlands, swamps and marshes, termites, and oceans. Anthropogenic sources include the mining of fossil fuels and transportation of natural gas, digestive processes in ruminant animals such as cattle, rice paddies, and the buried waste in landfills. Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of CH4. Other anthropogenic sources include fossil-fuel combustion and biomass burning. Nitrous Oxide (N2O). Nitrous oxide is a colorless, non-flammable gas with a sweetish odor, commonly known as “laughing gas,” and sometimes used as an anesthetic. N2O is naturally produced in the oceans and in rainforests (USEPA, 2019b). Manmade sources of N2O include the use of fertilizers in agriculture, nylon and nitric acid production, cars with catalytic converters and the burning of organic matter. Concentrations of N2O also began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution. 4.8.2 Regulatory Setting GHGs are regulated at the national, state, and air basin level; each agency has a different degree of control. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulates at the national level; the California Air Resources Board (ARB) regulates at the state level; and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulates at the air basin level in the Sierra Avenue Project area. 4.8.2.1 Federal Regulations The USEPA collects several types of GHG emissions data. These data help policy makers, businesses, and the USEPA track GHG emissions trends and identify opportunities for reducing emissions and increasing efficiency. The USEPA has been maintaining a national inventory of GHG emissions since 1990 and in 2009 established mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from large GHG emissions sources. EPA is also getting GHG reductions through partnerships and initiatives; evaluating policy options, costs, and benefits; advancing the science; partnering internationally and with states, localities, and tribes; and helping communities adapt. ❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.8-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.8.2.2 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards In May 2010, the USEPA finalized the first-ever national GHG emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) finalized Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (USEPA, 2021a). The 2010 CAFE standards were for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles. In April 2020, NHTSA and USEPA amended the CAFE and GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and established new less stringent standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026 (USEPS, 2021b). Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule On September 27, 2019, the USEPA and the NHTSA published the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program (ARB, 2020a), revoked California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandates in California. The loss of the ZEV sales requirements will likely result in additional gasoline-fueled vehicles being sold in the State and criteria emissions increasing. On April 30, 2020, USEPA and NHTSA issued the Final SAFE Rule (ARB, 2020b), which relaxed the federal GHG emissions and CAFE standards resulting in the probable increase of CO2 emissions. This regulation was repealed on December 21, 2021 by the Biden administration (NHTSA, 2021). 4.8.2.3 State Regulations Executive Order S 3-05 On June 1, 2005, the governor issued EO S 3-05, which set the following GHG emission reduction targets: • By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; • By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels. To meet these targets, the Climate Action Team (CAT)13 prepared a report to the Governor in 2006 that contained recommendations and strategies to help ensure that the targets in EO S-3-05 are met. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) In 2006, the California State Legislature enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHG emissions in California. GHGs, as defined under AB 32, include CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. AB 32 required that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The ARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of GHGs that cause global warming. AB 32 also required that by January 1, 2008, the ARB determine what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990, and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit, so it may be applied to the 2020 benchmark. The ARB approved a 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e), on December 13 The Climate Action Team (CAT) members are state agency secretaries and the heads of agencies, boards, and departments, led by the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). They coordinate statewide efforts to implement global warming emission reduction programs and the state's Climate Adaptation Strategy. ❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.8-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 6, 2007, in its Staff Report. Therefore, in 2020, emissions in California were required to be at or below 427 MMTCO2e. Under the “business as usual or (BAU)” scenario established in 2008, statewide emissions were increasing at a rate of approximately one percent per year, as noted below. It was estimated that the 2020 estimated BAU of 596 MMTCO2e would have required a 28% reduction to reach the 1990 level of 427 MMTCO2e. Climate Change Scoping Plan The Scoping Plan released by the ARB in 2008 (ARB, 2008) outlined the state’s strategy to achieve the AB 32 goals. This Scoping Plan, developed by ARB in coordination with the CAT, proposed a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. It was adopted by the ARB at its December 2008 meeting. According to the Scoping Plan, the 2020 target of 427 MMTCO2e requires the reduction of 169 MMTCO2e, or approximately 28.3%, from the state’s projected 2020 BAU emissions level of 596 MMTCO2e. In August 2011, the Scoping Plan was re approved by the Board and includes the Final Supplement to the Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document (ARB, 2011). This document includes expanded analysis of project alternatives and updates the 2020 emission projections by considering updated economic forecasts. The updated 2020 BAU estimate of 507 MMTCO2e determined that only a 16% reduction below the estimated new BAU levels would be necessary to return to 1990 levels by 2020. The 2011 Scoping Plan expands the list of nine Early Action Measures into a list of 39 Recommended Actions contained in Appendices C and E of the Plan. In May 2014, ARB developed, in collaboration with the CAT, the First Update to California’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (Update) (ARB, 2014), which showed that California was on track to meet the near term 2020 GHG limit and was well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32. In accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the ARB has mostly transitioned to the use of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)’s 100-year GWP (IPCC, 2007b) in its climate change programs. ARB recalculated the 1990 GHG emissions level with the AR4 GWPs to be 431 MMTCO2e; therefore the 2020 GHG emissions limit established in response to AB 32 is now slightly higher than the 427 MMTCO2e in the initial Scoping Plan. In November 2017, ARB published the 2017 Scoping Plan (ARB, 2017b) which builds upon the former Scoping Plan and Update by outlining priorities and recommendations for the state to achieve its target of a 40% reduction in GHGs by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. The major elements of the framework proposed are enhancement of the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; a Mobile Source Strategy, Sustainable Freight Action Plan, Short Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, Sustainable Communities Strategies, and a Post 2020 Cap and Trade Program; a 20% reduction in GHG emissions from the refinery sector; and an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan. In May, 2022, ARB released its draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update for public review (ARB, 2022). The 2022 Scoping Plan, once final, will be a major milestone, laying out how the fifth largest economy in the world can get to carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier (Ibid., p. 16). ❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.8-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Renewables Portfolio Standard (Scoping Action E 3) The California Energy Commission estimates that in 2000 about 12% of California’s retail electric load was met with renewable resources. Renewable energy includes (but is not limited to) wind, solar, geothermal, small hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas. California’s current RPS is intended to increase that share to 33% by 2020. Increased use of renewables will decrease California’s reliance on fossil fuels, thus reducing emissions of GHGs from the electricity sector. Most recently, Governor Brown signed into legislation Senate Bill (SB) 350 in October 2015, which requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50% of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030. Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) Senate Bill (SB) 375 passed the Senate on August 30, 2008, and was signed by the Governor on September 30, 2008. Per SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions and contributes approximately 45 percent of the GHG emissions in California, with automobiles and light trucks alone contributing almost 30 percent. SB 375 indicates that GHGs from automobiles and light trucks can be reduced by new vehicle technology. However, significant reductions from changed land use patterns and improved transportation also are necessary. SB 375 states, “Without improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375 does the following: (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, (2) aligns planning for transportation and housing, and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies. Executive Order B-30-15 On April 29, 2015, the Governor issued EO B-30-15 which added an interim target of GHG emissions reductions to help ensure the State meets its 80 percent reduction by 2050, as set in EO S-3-05. The interim target is reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent by 2030. It also directs State agencies to update the Scoping Plan, update Adaptation Strategy every 3 years, and take climate change into account in their planning and investment strategies. Additionally, it requires the State’s Five-Year Infrastructure Plan will take current and future climate change impacts into account in all infrastructure projects. Title 24 Although not originally intended to reduce GHGs, California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. The 2016 standards have been published and became effective July 1, 2017. The requirement for when the 2008 standards must be followed is dependent on when the application for the building permit is submitted. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The 2019 Standards improve upon the 2016 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. Buildings whose permit applications are dated on or after January 1, 2020, must comply with the 2019 Standards. The 2019 Standards is a major step towards meeting the Zero Net Energy goal by the year 2030 and is the last ❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.8-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 of three updates to move California towards achieving that goal. The California Energy Commission updates the standards every three years.14 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) In the process of fulfilling its mandate to reduce local air pollution, the SCAQMD has promoted a few programs to combat climate change, e.g., energy conservation, low-carbon fuel technologies, renewable energy, VMT reduction programs, and market incentive programs. Air Quality-Related Energy Policy In 2011, the SCAQMD Board adopted an Air Quality-Related Energy Policy (SCAQMD, 2011) that integrates air quality, energy, and climate change issues in a coordinated and consolidated manner. The Energy Policy presents policies to guide and coordinate SCAQMD efforts and actions to support the policies. Local Regulations San Bernardino Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan The San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (Reduction Plan) includes the collective results of all local efforts to reduce GHG emissions consistent with statewide GHG targets expressed in Senate Bill (SB) 32, the “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” and SB 375. The Reduction Plan establishes a baseline GHG inventory, emissions forecast and specific GHG reduction measures for the City of Fontana. The baseline can be used as reference for all future GHG analyses and planning. (County of San Bernardino, 2021, p. 1-1, 1-3). The state has set goals for reducing GHG emissions by 2020, 2030, and 2045 through AB 32, SB 32, SB-100, EO-B-55-18. The State passed an executive order (EO-B-55-18), which mandates statewide net carbon neutrality by 2045. In the interim, the state has also provided a target of 40 percent below 2020 levels by 2030. The County has identified this target as a 40 percent below 2020 emission levels by 2030. The 2030 target will put the County on a path toward the state’s long-term goal to achieve zero net carbon emissions by 2045 (LSA Associates, Inc., p. 22). As shown in Table 4.8-1, in 2030, San Bernardino County would need to reduce its emissions to 1,754,098 MTCO2e to meet the GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 2020 levels. Table 4.8-1 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GHG REDUCTION TARGETS FOR COUNTYWIDE EMISSIONS Strategy Target 2020 Target 15% below 2007 baseline levels 2020 Emissions Goal (MTCO2e) 5,315,000 2030 Target 40% below 2020 BAU levels 2030 Emissions Goal (MTCO2e) 1,754,098 Source: San Bernardino County GHG Reduction Plan Update, (LSA Associates, Inc., 2021, p.22) MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 14 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. California Energy Commission., Became effective January 1, 2020. ❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.8-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Table 4.8-2 shows 2016 and future GHG emissions from sources in Fontana. Primary sources of GHG emissions in the city are onroad transportation (55%), building energy (34%), and waste (8%). Emissions are projected to increase by 15% from 2016 to 2030 and by 31% from 2016 to 2045 due to economic and population growth. In 2016, Fontana had per capita emissions of 5.4 MTCO2e, which are lower than the region's average per capita emissions of 7.5 MTCO2e (ICF International and LSA, 2021, p. 3-25). Table 4.8-2 FONTANA 2016 COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY (MTCO2e) Sector 2016 Inventory 2030 Forecast 2045 Forecast MTCO2e Percent MTCO2e Percent MTCO2e Percent Residential Natural Gas 86,355 8% 107,599 8% 130,362 9% Non-Residential Natural Gas 68,268 6% 81,745 6% 96,186 6% Light-Medium Duty Vehicles 480,465 42% 518,076 40% 560,186 38% Heavy-Duty Vehicles 136,258 12% 170,497 13% 200,951 14% Off-Road Equipment 23,220 2% 32,595 3% 48,700 3% Agriculture 1,016 <1% 572 <1% 309 <1% Residential Electricity 96,888 9% 113,518 9% 131,643 9% Non-Residential Electricity 134,422 12% 155,516 12% 178,072 12% Solid Waste Management 86,844 8% 101,750 8% 117,932 8% Wastewater Treatment 6,610 1% 7,744 1% 8,981 1% Water Transport, Distribution, and Treatment 10,581 1% 11,893 1% 13,792 1% Total Emissions 1,130,927 100% 1,301,505 100% 1,487,115 100% MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Source: ICF International and LSA, 2021, p. 3-25. GHG Thresholds To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Board adopted an Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans (SCAQMD, 2008). The Interim Guidance uses a tiered approach to determining significance. Although this Interim Guidance was developed primarily to apply to stationary source industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency under CEQA, in absence of more directly applicable policy, the SCAQMD’s Interim Guidance is often used as general guidance by local agencies to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change. ❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.8-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.8.3 Impact Thresholds The following thresholds of significance are based on criteria in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. A project has the potential to create a significant environmental impact if it would: • Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or • Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHG. 4.8.4 Impact Analysis 4.8.4.1 Methodology Short term construction GHG emissions and long term operational GHG emissions were assessed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 (CAPCOA, 2021). This analysis focused upon emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O only. HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 would be emitted in negligible quantities by the Sierra Avenue project, so they are not discussed further. a) Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than Significant Impact California has enacted several pieces of legislation that relate to GHG emissions and climate change, much of which set aggressive goals for GHG reductions within the state. Per Senate Bill 97, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, which address the specific obligations of public agencies when analyzing GHG emissions under CEQA to determine a project’s effects on the environment. However, neither a threshold of significance nor any specific mitigations are included or provided in these CEQA Guideline amendments. GHG Significance Threshold The City of Fontana does not have an adopted threshold of significance for GHG emissions, but for CEQA purposes, it has discretion to select an appropriate significance criterion, based on substantial evidence. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, the SCAQMD formed a GHG California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Significance Threshold Working Group, which developed a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions where SCAQMD is not the lead agency (SCAQMD, 2008). Although SCAQMD never adopted a threshold, the approach developed by the Working Group, which includes a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year, is supported by substantial evidence (as discussed further below), and the City has selected this value as a significance criterion. The 3,000-MTCO2e-per-year threshold is based on a 90% emission “capture” rate methodology. Prior to the development of the proposed threshold described above, the 90% emissions capture approach was one of the options suggested by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in its CEQA & Climate Change white paper (2008). A 90% emission capture rate means that unmitigated GHG emissions from the top 90 percent of all GHG-producing projects within a geographic area – the SCAB in this instance – would be subject to a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts from GHG emissions, while the bottom 10 percent of all GHG-producing ❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.8-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 projects would be excluded from detailed analysis. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90% emission capture rate is appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change because medium and large projects will be required to implement measures to reduce GHG emissions, while small projects, which are generally infill development projects that are not the focus of the State’s GHG reduction targets, are allowed to proceed. Further, a 90% emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial proportion of future development projects and demonstrate that cumulative emissions reductions are being achieved while setting it high enough to exclude small projects that will, in aggregate, contribute approximate 1% of projected statewide GHG emissions in the Year 2050 (SCAQMD, 2008, p. 4). In developing the threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year, SCAQMD researched a database of projects kept by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). That database contained 798 projects, 87 of which were removed because they were very large and/or outliers that would skew emissions values too high, leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90th-percentile capture rate. The SCAQMD analysis of the 711 projects within the sample population combined commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects. It should be noted that the sample of projects included warehouses and other light industrial land uses but did not include industrial processes (i.e., oil refineries, heavy manufacturing, electric generating stations, mining operations, etc.). Emissions from each of these projects were calculated by the SCAQMD to provide a consistent method of emissions calculations across the sample population and from projects within the sample population. In calculating the emissions, the SCAQMD analysis determined that the 90th percentile ranged between 2,983 to 3,143 MTCO2e per year. The SCAQMD set its significance threshold at the low end of the range when rounded to the nearest hundred tons of emissions (i.e., 3,000 MTCO2e per year) to define small projects that are considered less than significant and do not need to provide further analysis. The City understands that the 3,000-MTCO2e-per-year threshold for residential/commercial uses was proposed by the SCAQMD a decade ago and was never formally adopted; however, no permanent, superseding policy or threshold has since been adopted. The 3,000-MTCO2e-per-year threshold was developed and recommended by the SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (2008) and subsequent Working Group meetings (the latest of which occurred in 2010). The SCAQMD has not withdrawn its support of the proposed threshold and all documentation supporting the threshold remains on the SCAQMD website on a page that provides guidance to CEQA practitioners for air quality analysis (and where all SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional and local criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants also are listed). Further, as stated by the SCAQMD, this threshold “uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal [80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050] as the basis for deriving the screening level” and, thus, remains valid for use in 2022 (SCAQMD, 2008, pp. 3- 4). Lastly, this threshold has been used for hundreds, if not thousands, of GHG analyses performed for projects located within the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction. Thus, for purposes of analysis in this initial study, if Project-related GHG emissions do not exceed the 3,000-MTCO2e-per-year threshold, then Project-related GHG emissions would clearly have a less- than-significant impact pursuant to Threshold “a.” On the other hand, if Project-related GHG emissions exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year, the Project would be considered a substantial source of GHG emissions. ❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.8-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Construction GHG Emissions Construction is an episodic, temporary source of GHG emissions. Emissions are generally associated with the operation of construction equipment and the disposal of construction waste. To be consistent with the guidance from the SCAQMD for calculating criteria pollutants from construction activities, only GHG emissions from onsite construction activities and offsite hauling and construction worker commuting are considered as project generated. As explained by the CAPCOA in its 2008 white paper (CAPCOA, 2008), the information needed to characterize GHG emissions from manufacture, transport, and end of life of construction materials would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level. CEQA does not require an evaluation of speculative impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15145). Therefore, the construction analysis does not consider such GHG emissions, but does consider non speculative onsite construction activities, and offsite hauling, and construction worker trips. All GHG emissions are identified on an annual basis. Estimated criteria pollutant emissions from the Sierra Avenue Project’s onsite and offsite project construction activities were calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4.8-3. The project construction is expected to begin around January 2023 and would last approximately twelve months, ending about January 2024. The increase in GHG emissions from the project construction activities would be 370 MTCO2e,. Consistent with SCAQMD recommendations (SCAQMD, 2008, p. 3-10) and to ensure that construction emissions are assessed in a quantitative sense, construction GHG emissions have been amortized over a 30-year period. The amortized value, 12.3 MTCO2e, has been added to the Sierra Avenue project’s annual operational GHG emissions. (See below.) Modeling results are in Appendix B. Table 4.8-3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS Year/Phase Annual Emissions (MT/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 2023 363.47 0.077 0.0044 366.70 2024 2.97 0.00014 0.00002 2.98 Total 366.44 0.07714 0.00442 369.68 Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022). Operational GHG Emissions For a reasonable maximum emissions case, it was assumed that GHG emissions from the Sierra Avenue Project site are currently zero. Operational GHG emissions calculated by CalEEMod are shown in Table 4.8-4. Total annual unmitigated emissions from the Sierra Avenue Project would be 1,006 MTCO2e per year. Energy production and mobile sources account for about 95% of annual operational emissions and about 94% of total annual emissions. ❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.8-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Table 4.8-4 PROJECT OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS Emissions Source Estimated Project Generated CO2e Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) Area Sources 1.6 Energy Demand (Electricity & Natural Gas) 144.64 Mobile (Motor Vehicles) 796.90 Solid Waste Generation 21.28 Water Demand 29.56 Construction Emissionsa 12.3 Total 1,006 a Total construction GHG emissions were amortized over 30 years and added to those resulting from the operation of the project. Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022). Therefore, under the first significance criterion, GHG emissions would be less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG? Less than Significant Impact The City of Fontana, through its partnership with San Bernardino County, has identified measures that it can take to reduce GHG emissions from City operations and from development in its jurisdiction. As set forth in the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, the City of Fontana selected a goal to reduce its community GHG emissions to a level that is 46% below its 2008 GHG emissions level by 2030. The city will meet and exceed this goal subject to reduction measures that are technologically feasible and cost-effective through a combination of state (~75%) and local (~25%) efforts (County of San Bernardino County, 2021, p. 3-67). Another approach to identifying potential conflict with GHG reduction plans, policies, or regulations is to examine General Plan provisions that prescribe or enable GHG emissions control. The EIR for the General Plan Update (City of Fontana, 2018, Table 5.6-7) lists policies in the General Plan Update that reduce GHG emissions and help to quantify emissions reductions. However, the policies prescribe actions to be taken by the City, and not measures to be implemented by a project proponent. Nevertheless, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the GHG emission reduction policies. Furthermore, the EIR determined that implementation of the updated general plan will result in significantly lower GHG emissions from Fontana than would continuation of the 2003 General Plan (City of Fontana, 2018, Table 5.6-6). As demonstrated in Section 4.11, the proposed project would have no impacts in relation to consistency with local land use plans, policies, ❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.8-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 or regulations. Therefore, the project would not hinder the GHG emission reductions of the General Plan Update. Finally, as noted in Section 3.3.1, energy-efficient features, including preparation for solar, insulated and glazed windows and low-E coating on windows, would be incorporated into building design to comply with the provisions of the California Green Building Code, Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations, 2019 edition. These will help reduce GHG emissions. ❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.9-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? X f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X The analysis for this section refers to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) by AEI Consultants dated July 30, 2021 (Refer to Appendix F2). The Phase I ESA report presents information conducted from a site reconnaissance of the project area, historical developments of the project site, and a comprehensive database search to determine if the project site contains potentially Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs), or Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs). ❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.9-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The Phase I ESA did not identify RECs, CRECs, or HRECs on the project site. However, the Phase I ESA did identify Other Environmental Considerations (OECs) that warranted discussion and recommendations. The OECs on the project site include potential impacts due to former on-site development (pre-dating regulatory oversight) and septic systems, wells, tanks, hazardous materials, petroleum products, historical agricultural use of the site, and various mounds of what appeared to be fill material/soil on the southern edge of the property (AEI Consultants, 2021 pp. 6-7). Based on a review of historical sources (Historicaerials.com, 2022), the project site was previously developed with a commercial building from at least 1955 to circa 1982. Historical aerial photographs indicate the building was located at the southeast corner of the site, at the intersection of Sierra and Ramona Avenues. Historical city directories identify use of the building as a neighborhood market from at least 1955 to 1975. City building records indicate that by 1979 the building was unoccupied, dilapidated and eventually condemned. By 1985, the building had been removed. Due to the age of the previous buildings and uses, the site could have had possible fueling operations, a septic system, and/or a well. AEI recommended a geophysical survey be conducted to confirm possible fueling operations associated with the historical on-site development and use. Additional OECs include the potential Lead-based paint (LBP) remaining in soil from previous structures and the unknown nature of mounds of fill material/soil on the southern edge of the site (AEI Consultants, 2021 pp. 6-7). AEI also reported that the project site was historically used for agricultural purposes and there is a potential that agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, used on site have impacted the property. AEI recommended soil sampling to be conducted prior to any redevelopment of the site to determine if it has been significantly impacted in connection with the historical agricultural use for the protection of the construction workers and future occupants of the site (AEI Consultants, 2021 p. 7). Construction Common Construction Hazards Project construction would involve transport, storage, and use of chemical agents, solvents, paints, and other hazardous materials commonly associated with construction activities. Chemical transport, storage, and use would comply with: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); California hazardous waste control law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Hazardous Waste Control); California Division of Safety and Health (DOSH); South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD); and San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division (HMD) requirements. The construction contractor would maintain equipment and supplies onsite for containing and cleaning up small spills of hazardous materials, and in the event of a release of hazardous materials of quantity and/or toxicity that onsite workers could not safely contain and clean up, would notify the HMD immediately.15 Therefore, compliance with applicable laws and regulations during project 15 The San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division (HMD) is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for most of San Bernardino County including the City of Fontana; the Certified Unified Program ❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.9-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 construction would reduce the potential for accidental releases of hazardous materials, and potential impacts from common construction hazards impacts would be less than significant. Underground Storage Tanks and Petroleum Products Due to the age of the previous buildings and uses, the site could have had possible fueling operations, a septic system, and/or a well. Construction activities at the site could disturb unknown underground fuel tanks, septic systems, or wells, and thus cause a spill or soil contamination that could create a hazard to construction workers and future occupants of the site. However, implementation of MM HAZ-1, a geophysical survey, would confirm the presence or absence of these concerns. If any tanks, septic systems, or wells are identified during the survey, implementation of HAZ-2 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Lead in Soil Due to the age of the previous buildings onsite, lead may be present in the soils, and thus lead- contaminated soils and lead dust may be disturbed during ground-disturbing activities during construction. However, with implementation of MM HAZ-3 and HAZ-4 regarding soil testing and handling as described below, potential impacts resulting from the presence of LBP and lead- contaminated soils would be less than significant. Agricultural Chemical Residues As described above, there is a potential for agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers to be present in the soil from the previous agricultural uses. Soils containing these chemicals may be disturbed during construction activities thus creating a hazard to construction workers and future occupants of the site. However, with implementation of MM HAZ-3 and HAZ-4 regarding soil testing and handling as described below, potential impacts resulting from the presence of agricultural chemicals would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-1 Geophysical Survey. Due to the age of the previous buildings and uses on the site, a geophysical survey shall be conducted, by a qualified Environmental Professional (as defined in § 312.10 of 40 CFR Part 312), prior to ground-disturbing activities, to determine the presence or absence of previous fueling operations, underground storage tanks (USTs), a septic system, or wells. The results of this survey shall be included in a report, which shall be provided to the City of Fontana for review. MM HAZ-2 Removal/Closure Plan. If the geophysical survey results in the identification of an Underground Storage Tank, septic system, or a well from past use of the site, a Removal/Closure Plan shall be prepared by a qualified Environmental Professional (as defined in § 312.10 of 40 CFR Part 312) according to San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and their UST Program. The Removal/Closure Plan shall be provided to the City of Fontana and CUPA for approval prior to construction activities. coordinates and makes consistent enforcement of several state and federal regulations governing hazardous materials. (SBCFD, 2021) ❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.9-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 MM HAZ-3 Soil Sampling/Testing. Due to the potential presence of LBP and agricultural or petroleum chemicals in the soils on the project site and the unknown nature of mounds of fill material/soil on the southern edge of the site, soil sampling and testing shall be conducted by a qualified Environmental Professional (as defined in § 312.10 of 40 CFR Part 312) prior to ground-disturbing activities, to determine the presence or absence of LBP and agricultural or petroleum chemicals in the soil samples. The results of the soil sampling and testing shall be included in a report, which shall be provided to the City of Fontana for review. MM HAZ-4 Soil Management Plan. If soil sampling and testing result in the presence of lead or hazardous chemicals, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared. Prior to the commencement of grading and excavation, the project applicant shall retain a qualified Environmental Professional (as defined in § 312.10 of 40 CFR Part 312) to prepare a SMP that complies with all applicable regulatory requirements. The SMP shall be submitted to the City of Fontana for review and approval prior to the commencement of excavation and grading activities. The following is a list of requirements for the SMP. • The SMP shall include recommendations and requirements of the California Division of Safety and Health (DOSH); South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD); and San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division (HMD). • The SMP shall require that the project applicant remove and properly dispose of impacted materials in accordance with applicable requirements of the DTSC, and the San Bernardino County Fire Department. • The SMP shall require that contaminated soils be transported from the project site by a licensed transporter and disposed of at a licensed storage/treatment facility to prevent contaminated soils from becoming airborne or otherwise released into the environment. • The SMP shall be implemented during excavation and grading activities. • A qualified environmental consultant shall be present on the project site during grading and excavation activities in the known or suspected locations of contaminated soils, and shall be on call at other times as necessary, to monitor compliance with the SMP and to actively monitor the soils and excavations for evidence of contamination. Level of Significance After Mitigation After implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4 above, potential impacts from transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the project construction phase would be less than significant. Operation The project would require the transport, storage, use, and disposal of certain chemicals typically used for cleaning and landscaping purposes, such as commercial cleansers, paints, and lubricants for ❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.9-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 maintenance and upkeep of the proposed buildings and landscaping. These materials would be stored, handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. The proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of quantities of hazardous materials that may create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Therefore, potential impacts due to hazardous materials from project operation would be less than significant. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Construction As described under threshold a) above, there is a potential for a UST, a septic system, or a well to be located at the project site. There is a potential for LBP remaining in soil from previous structures and there are unknown mounds of fill material/soil on the southern edge of the site (AEI Consultants, 2021 pp. 6-7). Furthermore, there is a potential for agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, to be present onsite. During construction and ground-disturbing activities, any potential USTs, petroleum products, LBP, or agricultural chemicals could be disturbed. which could release hazardous materials and create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. However, implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4 above would reduce these impacts to less than significant. As described above, general construction activities involve transport, storage, and use of chemical agents, solvents, paints, and other hazardous materials commonly associated with construction activities. Chemical transport, storage, and use would comply with: RCRA; Comprehensive Environmental Response, CERCLA; OSHA; California hazardous waste control law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Hazardous Waste Control); California Division of Safety and Health (DOSH); SCAQMD; and San Bernardino County Fire Department HMD requirements. The construction contractor would maintain equipment and supplies onsite for containing and cleaning up small spills of hazardous materials, and in the event of a release of hazardous materials of quantity and/or toxicity that onsite workers could not safely contain and clean up, would notify the HMD immediately.16 Therefore, compliance with applicable laws and regulations during project construction would reduce the potential for accidental releases of hazardous materials, and potential impacts from common construction hazards would be less than significant. Operation Project operation would involve the handling and storage of materials such as commercial cleansers, solvents and other janitorial or industrial-use materials, paints, and landscape fertilizers/pesticides during project operations. However, these materials would be stored, handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations and would not be stored in amounts that would create a 16 The San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division (HMD) is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for most of San Bernardino County including the City of Fontana; the Certified Unified Program coordinates and makes consistent enforcement of several state and federal regulations governing hazardous materials. (SBCFD, 2021) ❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.9-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 significant hazard to the public or the environment through accidental release. The project would have a less than significant impact in this regard. Level of Significance After Mitigation After implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4 above, the potential hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Juniper Elementary School is within 0.25 mile of the project, located less than 0.2 mile to the southwest of the site. Mango Elementary School is located at 0.25 mile to the northeast of the site. Construction During construction, the project would entail the use and handling of limited volumes of commonly used hazardous materials. Project personnel would ensure that use of hazardous materials during construction would adhere to applicable local, state, and/or federal regulations. As described under threshold a) above, there is a potential for a UST, a septic system, or a well to be located at the project site. There is a potential for LBP remaining in soil from previous structures and there are unknown mounds of fill material/soil on the southern edge of the site (AEI Consultants, 2021 pp. 6-7). Furthermore, there is a potential for agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, to be present onsite. During construction and ground-disturbing activities, any potential USTs, petroleum products, LBP, or agricultural chemicals could be disturbed. which could release hazardous materials and create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. However, implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4 above would reduce these impacts to less than significant. Operation Project operations would involve the handling and storage of small amounts of hazardous materials such as cleansers, solvents, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides. However, these materials would be stored, handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations and would not be used or stored in amounts that would pose a hazard to persons at Juniper Elementary School, and Mango Elementary School. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impacts in this regard. Level of Significance After Mitigation After implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4 above, potential impacts to existing schools within one quarter mile of the project site from hazardous emissions or hazardous would be less than significant. ❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.9-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less than Significant Impact Government Code § 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to compile and update, at least annually, lists of the following: • Hazardous waste and substances sites from the DTSC EnviroStor database. • Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites by county and fiscal year in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database. • Solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside waste management units. • SWRCB Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs), and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAOs). • Hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to § 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identified by DTSC. These lists are collectively referred to as the “Cortese List.” The project site is not included on the Cortese List. No hazardous materials sites were identified on the project site. Some sites were listed on multiple databases. The Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR, 2021) has revealed the following findings for the project site: • A review of the Envirostor list, has revealed that there are two Envirostor sites within approximately one mile of the project site. • A review of the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) list, has revealed that there are two LUST sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the project site. • A review of the Underground Storage Tank (UST) list, has revealed that there is one UST site within approximately 0.25 miles of the project site. • A review of the California Environmental Reporting System Hazardous Waste list (CERS HAZ WASTE), has revealed that there is one CERS HAZ WASTE site within approximately 0.25 miles of the project site. • A review of the California Environmental Reporting System Hazardous Waste Tanks list (CERS TANKS), has revealed that there is one CERS TANKS site within approximately 0.25 miles of the project site. • A review of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Non-Generators/No Longer Reporting list (RCRA NonGen/NLR), has revealed that there is one RCRA NonGen/NLR site within approximately 0.25 miles of the project site. • A review of the Cortese list, has revealed that there is one Cortese site within approximately 0.5 miles of the project site. ❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.9-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 • A review of the Historical Cortese list, has revealed that there is one Historical Cortese site within approximately 0.5 miles of the project site. • A review of the San Bernardino County Permit list, has revealed that there are two San Bernardino County Permit sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the project site. The Phase I ESA (refer to Appendix F2) conducted by AEI Consultants (2021), identified hazardous materials sites located within one mile of the project site. These sites are included in Table 4.9-1 below. However, none of the sites listed are considered environmental concerns for the project site (AEI Consultants, 2021). Soil sampling at the project site is required to determine if the property has been significantly impacted in connection with the historical agricultural use for the protection of the construction workers and future occupants. Table 4.9-1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES WITHIN 1.0 MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE Site Name/Address Distance and Direction from project site Additional information Middle School No. 9 Cypress/Baseline Ave 0.50 mi. NW Status: Inactive - Withdrawn School Site Investigation Status: Inactive - Withdrawn Middle School No. 9 Citrus Ave/Baseline Ave 0.99 mi. NW School Site Investigation Status: No Further Action Circle K 7980 N Sierra Ave 0.48 mi. S Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case closed Circle K Store #349 7980 Sierra St 0.48 mi. S Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case closed Arco Gas Station 7325 Sierra Ave 0.24 mi. NNE Underground Storage Tank Facility Status: Active Citations have been issued by the San Bernardino County Fire Department. Source: AEI Consultants, 2021. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact The nearest public-use airport to the project site is Ontario International Airport approximately 9.3 miles to the southwest (see Figure 4.9-1). The project site is outside of zones Ontario International Airport where land uses are regulated to minimize aviation-related hazards to persons on the ground; and outside of noise compatibility contours for the airport (Mead & Hunt, 2011). Project ❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.9-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 development would not cause airport-related hazards, or excessive noise, to persons at the project site. No impact would occur; therefore, no mitigation is required. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact Construction The City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) was adopted by the City Council in 2018. As further detailed in Section 4.17, project construction in the Sierra Avenue right-of-way next to the project site could temporarily impact street traffic. Project construction could temporarily reduce the number of lanes or temporarily close a portion of Sierra Avenue. The city requires that projects conducting construction work in City roadway rights-of-way get Traffic Control Permits approved by the City Department of Engineering. Emergency access must be maintained. Compliance with city requirements for traffic management during construction in the public ROW would ensure that the project would have a less than significant impact. Operation Project operation would not block traffic on Sierra Avenue or other local roadways. The project would provide emergency access to the proposed buildings compliant with California Fire Code Section 503. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. ❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.9-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.9-1 AIRPORTS IN THE PROJECT REGION ❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.9-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) developed Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) for State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) designation refers to either: wildland areas supporting high-to-extreme fire behavior resulting from climax fuels typified by well-developed surface fuel profiles (e.g., mature chaparral) or forested systems where crown fire is likely. Additional site elements include steep and mixed topography and climate/fire weather patterns that include seasonal extreme weather conditions of strong winds and dry fuel moistures. Burn frequency is typically high and should be evidenced by numerous historical large fires in the area. Firebrands from both short- (<200 yards) and long-range sources are often abundant. OR developed/urban areas typically with high vegetation density (>70% cover) and associated high fuel continuity, allowing for frontal flame spread over much of the area to progress impeded by only isolated non-burnable fractions. Often where tree cover is abundant, these areas look very similar to adjacent wildland areas. Developed areas may have less vegetation cover and still be in this class when in the immediate vicinity (0.25 mile) of wildland areas zoned as Very High (see above). The project site is not within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or in or near a fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) mapped by CAL FIRE within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA, that is, where cities and counties are responsible for the costs of wildfire prevention and suppression) (see Figures 4.9-2 and 4.9-3, respectively). The project site is bounded on three sides by urban development; the nearest FHSZ to the site is in LRA approximately 2.0 miles to the north. Project development would not expose people or structures to substantial hazards from wildfire, and impacts would be less than significant. ❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.9-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.9-2 FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES – STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA ❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.9-13 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.9-3 FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES – LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA ❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.10-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? X b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: X i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite; X ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; X iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or X iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? X e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? X a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less than Significant Impact The California State Water Resources Control Board requires its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to develop water quality control plans (Basin Plans) designed to preserve and ❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.10-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all Regional waters. Specifically, Basin Plans designate beneficial uses for surface waters and groundwater, set narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the State antidegradation policy, and describe implementation programs to protect all waters in the Regions (RWQCB 1995). In addition, Basin Plans incorporate by reference all applicable State and Regional Board plans and policies, and other pertinent water quality policies and regulations. The proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana (Region 8) RWQCB. As shown in Figure 10.4-1, USGS Surface Waters and Watersheds, the project site is located within the USGS Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit (HUC 8; HU Code 18070203). The project is located within the Middle Santa Ana River subwatershed, (HUC 10; HU Code: 1807020308). The Santa Ana River Watershed drains the eastern area portion of the San Gabriel Mountains spanning approximately 2,650 square miles. The Santa Ana River, which flows a distance exceeding 100 miles, discharges into the Pacific open at the City of Huntington Beach (USEPA, 2022). Under existing conditions, stormwater generated on the proposed project site generally drains southward toward Ramona Avenue, then flows to a drainage course at Sierra Avenue, eventually draining to the City storm drain system at Miller Avenue. The flow will continue in the City storm drain system and ultimately discharges to the West Fontana Channel. Development of the project has the potential to result in two types of water quality impacts: (1) short-term impacts due to construction-related discharges; and (2) long-term impacts from operation. Temporary soil disturbance would occur during project construction, due to earth-moving activities such as excavation and trenching for foundations and utilities, soil compaction and moving, cut and fill activities, and grading. Disturbed soils are susceptible to high rates of erosion from wind and rain, resulting in sediment transport via stormwater runoff from the project area. Erosion and sedimentation affect water quality of receiving waters through interference with photosynthesis, oxygen exchange, and respiration, growth, and reproduction of aquatic species. Runoff from construction sites may include sediments and contaminants such as oils, fuels, paints, and solvents. Additionally, other pollutants such as nutrients, trace metals, and hydrocarbons can attach to sediment and be carried by stormwater into storm drains which discharge eventually to the Pacific Ocean. Spills and mishandling of construction materials and waste may also potentially leave the project site and negatively impact water quality. The use of construction equipment and machinery may potentially result in contamination from petroleum products, hydraulic fluids, and heavy metals. Contamination from building preparation materials such as paints and solvents, and landscaping materials such as fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides may also potentially degrade water quality during project construction. Trash and demolition debris may also be carried into storm drains and discharged into receiving waters. ❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.10-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.10-1 USGS SURFACE WATERS AND WATERSHEDS ❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.10-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Construction Pollutants Control The project proponent is required by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to obtain coverage under a General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, as authorized by § 402 CWA, NPDES for projects which will disturb one or more acres of soil during construction). The Construction General Permit requires potential dischargers of pollutants into WOUS to prepare a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which establishes enforceable limits on discharges, requires effluent monitoring, designates reporting requirements, and requires construction BMPs to reduce or eliminate point and non-point source discharges of pollutants. Additionally, BMPs must be maintained, inspected before and after each precipitation event, and repaired or replaced as necessary. Because the project is required by the SWRCB to comply with all applicable conditions of Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, potential violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during project construction would be less than significant. Operational Pollutant Controls The San Bernardino County NPDES Permit (NPDES No. CAS618036) and Waste Discharge Requirements Area Wide Urban Storm Water Runoff Management Program regulates, through Order No. R8 2010 0036, the discharge of pollutants into WOUS through stormwater and urban runoff conveyance systems, including flood control facilities. These conveyance systems are commonly referred to as municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), or storm drains. In this context, the NPDES Permit is also referred to as an MS4 Permit. Pursuant to the MS4 Permit, Principal Permittees (i.e., the San Bernardino County Flood Control District) and Co Permittees (the City of Fontana is a Co Permittee) must regulate discharges of pollutants in urban runoff from man-made sources into storm water conveyance systems within their jurisdiction. New development and redevelopment can significantly increase pollutant loads in stormwater and urban runoff, because increased population density results in proportionately higher levels of vehicle emissions, vehicle maintenance wastes, municipal sewage wastes, household hazardous wastes, fertilizers, pet waste, trash, and other pollutants (RWQCB, 2010). The San Bernardino County MS4 Permit requires new development and significant redevelopment projects to incorporate post construction low impact development BMPs into project design to comply with the local Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce or eliminate the quantity, and improve the quality of, stormwater being discharged from the project site. A preliminary WQMP (Allard Engineering, 2022a; for details, refer to the grading and WQMP included in Appendix I of this document) has been prepared for the proposed project site and is included herein as Appendix I. The MS4 and the associated WQMP require the implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) features to ensure that most stormwater runoff is treated and retained onsite. The project WQMP includes structural BMPs, such as stenciling and signage for the storm drain system; design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction; use efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control; and finish grade of landscaped areas at a minimum of one to two inches below top of curb, sidewalk, or pavement. Additionally, the proposed project would include LIDs such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing infiltration capacity, and preserving the existing drainage patterns to ❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.10-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 mitigate the impacts of runoff and stormwater pollution as close to the source as possible. These facilities are highly effective at removing water pollutants such as sediment, nutrients, trash, metals, bacteria, oil and grease, and organic compounds while reducing the volume and intensity of stormwater flow leaving a site (Allard Engineering, 2022a, 2022b). The WQMP may also include non-structural source control BMPs including BMP maintenance, local water quality ordinances, spill contingency plan, litter/debris control program, employee training, catch basin inspection program, vacuum sweeping of private streets and parking lots, and complying with all applicable NPDES permits (Allard Engineering, 2022a). With implementation of construction and operational BMPs, potential impacts to water quality would be less than significant and mitigation is not proposed. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than Significant Impact The project site is in the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin ID 8-002), within the Chino subbasin (Subbasin ID 8-002.01). The Basin covers approximately 240 square miles and is bounded on the east by the Rialto-Colton fault; on the southeast by the contact with impermeable rocks forming the Jurupa Mountains and low connecting divides. On the south, the subbasin is bounded by contact with impermeable rocks of the Puente Hills and by the Chino fault. On the northwest, the subbasin is bound by the San Jose fault; and on the north by impermeable rocks of the San Gabriel Mountains and by the Cucamonga fault The surface of the subbasin is drained by San Antonio Creek and Cucamonga Creek southward to meet the Santa Ana River. Average annual precipitation is approximately 17 inches, and typically ranges from 13 to 29 inches across the surface of the subbasin (Koehler 1983; DWR, 2003; Google Earth, 2022). The proposed project is within the service area of the Chino Basin Water Conservation District (CBWCD). The water supply for the CBWCD service area is from a variety of sources, but the majority of the supply consists of groundwater from the Chino Basin. Water from other basins including the Cucamonga, Rialto, Lytle Creek, Colton, and the Six Basins are also utilized to provide water to this district’s service areas. (CBWCD, 2022). The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or result in a substantial net deficit in the aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table. The project would have a less than significant impact in this regard and mitigation is not required. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite; Less Than Significant Impact The project site is relatively flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 1,367 to 1,396 feet above mean sea level (amsl) [Google Earth, 2022]. There is no evidence of ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial streams or rivers occur in the BSA. As detailed in Section 4.10 a), the project owner ❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.10-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 would be required to develop a SWPPP by a certified qualified SWPPP developer. The required SWPPP would be project specific and would prescribe site specific stormwater BMPs which would be intended to minimize or avoid having soil leave the project site, through either stormwater or wind, and thus minimize or avoid soil erosion onsite and siltation in receiving waters. With implementation of a project specific SWPPP and proper maintenance and replacement of required stormwater BMPs (as necessary), potential impacts resulting in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite would be minimized or avoided, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is proposed. Construction As described in Section 4.10 a), temporary soil disturbance would occur during project construction, due to earth-moving activities such as excavation and trenching for foundations and utilities, soil compaction and moving, cut and fill activities, and grading. Disturbed soils are susceptible to high rates of erosion from wind and rain, resulting in sediment transport via stormwater runoff from the project area. Implementation of the required SWPPP and JRMP BMPs, including installation, maintenance, and replacement of BMPs, as discussed in Section 4.10 a) would minimize or avoid potential impacts resulting from on- or offsite erosion and siltation to a level that is less than significant. Operation As detailed in Section 4.10 a), the LID BMPs proposed as part of project design would minimize or avoid on- or offsite erosion and siltation by a combination of maintaining drainage patterns, installation of landscaping, and installation of LID BMPs which would prevent erosion and prevent siltation-laden stormwater from leaving the site. Applicable regulations (e.g., the MS4 permit, and installation of LID BMPs, including site design, infiltration and pre-treatment BMPs, etc.), would limit pollutant discharges from development of the project. The project’s adherence to existing requirements would reduce erosion and siltation during operation; therefore, impacts resulting from operation of the project would be less than significant. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact The Preliminary Hydrology Report determined that the proposed drainage design for this project meets the applicable standards and requirements of the Santa Margarita Region. The drainage plan proposed in the Preliminary WQMP is consistent with the historical drainage patterns for the proposed project site. The LID BMPs proposed by the Preliminary WQMP would mitigate the post- construction increase in peak flow of runoff from the site for the 2-, 5-, and 10-year storm events (Allard Engineering, 2022a, 2022b). ❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.10-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 As discussed in the project’s preliminary WQMP (Allard Engineering, 2022a), the project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. As detailed in the proposed project’s WQMP and in Section 4.10 a) above, the proposed project would incorporate operational LID BMPs in compliance with City of Fontana SUSMP permit requirements. The project proposes installation of an on-site drainage system consisting of swales, ribbon gutter, storm drains, grate inlets with filter insert spreading throughout the Drainage Management Areas (DMAs). Onsite runoff will drain to the proposed onsite drainage system in DMAs and the runoff will convey to the proposed 9 Stormtech Infiltration Chamber System (Chamber 1 through 9) for low flow infiltration in addition to retention and infiltration of water volume generated in developed conditions in excess of the of the 90% water volume generates in existing conditions for larger (100-year 24 hour) storm event. When the onsite infiltration/retention chamber-1 through 9 reaches its capacity, the runoff will overflow the chamber system and will drain on surface within its respective DMAs and then drain to private street right of way and finally drain out of the site and discharges at Ramona Avenue. Runoff will follow the exiting drainage course at Sierra Avenue, eventually draining to the City Storm Drain System at Miller Avenue. The flow will continue in City Storm Drain System and finally discharge to the West Fontana Channel. (Allard Engineering, 2022a) The MS4 and the project WQMP would require the implementation of water quality features to ensure that runoff is treated prior to discharge into native soils (infiltration), storm drains or other regional conveyance facilities, as described above. Therefore, upon adherence to existing state water quality requirements, including MS4 requirements, the proposed project would minimize or avoid causing a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would: (1) result in flooding on- or offsite; (2) would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (3) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is proposed. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact The project site is located on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for San Bernardino County, California, and Incorporated Areas (Map Number 06071C7915H, effective August 27, 2008); the site is located in Flood Hazard Zone X, defined on this FIRM as Areas of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2020a). The areas of minimal flood hazard, such as Zone X, are outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and higher than the elevation of the 0.2- percent-annual-chance flood areas. The floodplain (i.e., flood hazard zone) nearest to the project site is the 100-year floodplain associated with East Etiwanda Creek (FEMA, 2020b; USEPA, 2022). The project site is located outside the nearest floodplain and the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur, and mitigation is not required. ❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.10-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact Seven dams or reservoirs are within a 5-mile radius of the project site: Jurupa Basin, Hickory Basin, San Sevaine Basin #5, Cactus Basin #3, Etiwanda Debris Basin, and Declez Retention Basin. The project would not be located within the dam breach inundation areas of the dams or reservoirs (DWR, 2022) and would not be at risk of flood hazards due to dam breaches. As discussed previously, the project site is located outside the 500-year floodplain and therefore would not be at risk of inundation by flood hazards. The tsunami inundation area nearest to the project site is the City of Huntington Beach, located approximately 42-mile southwest of the project site (Google Earth, 2022; CEMA, CGS, and USC, 2009), and therefore the project would not be at risk of inundation by tsunami. A seiche is an oscillating wave, formed by earthquakes or winds, in an enclosed or partially enclosed waterbody. The nearest waterbodies to the project site in which a seiche could form are Lake Arrowhead and Big Bear Lake. The project site is not within the dam breach inundation areas mapped for these waterbodies (DWR, 2022), and the project would not be at risk of inundation by seiche. The proposed project would not be at risk of inundation by flood hazards, tsunami, or seiche, and would therefore not be at risk of release of pollutants due to inundation. No impact would occur, and mitigation is not required. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? No Impact The nearest water well (State Well Number 01S05W06J001S) is located approximately 0.16 miles south of the project site. This inactive well is designated for residential use and is drilled to a depth of 884 feet (CASGEM 2022). As discussed in Section 4.10 a), the proposed project would comply with the Construction General Permit and the San Bernardino County NPDES Permit requirements by developing and implementing a site-specific SWPPP and construction stormwater BMPs throughout the construction phase. The proposed project would also comply with the MS4 Permit by incorporating LID BMPs into project design, which would avoid or minimize the amount and type of pollutants leaving the project, entering receiving waters, and impacting water quality and beneficial uses defined for these waters by the Basin Plan (RWQCB, 2016). In addition, the LID BMPs would allow stormwater infiltration into the local aquifer, similar to existing conditions and minimize or avoid impacts to groundwater quality and beneficial uses of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin (RWQCB, 1995). The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. No impact would occur, and mitigation is not required. ❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.11-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.11 Land Use and Planning Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact The project site is surrounded by: mostly vacant land to the north and west; single-family residences to the east and south; single-family residences to the east across Sierra Avenue; and multi-family residential to the south. The site is vacant and is not used for access between surrounding residential areas. Project development would not physically divide an established community, and no impact would occur. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Multi Family Residential (R-MF) and Multi- Family High Residential (R-MFH) (City of Fontana, 2022) (refer to Figure 4.11-1 below). The project site is zoned Multiple Family Residential (R-3) and Multi-Family High Residential (R-5) (City of Fontana, 2022) (see Figures 4.11-2 and 4.11-3 below). A proposed General Plan Amendment would change the land use designation to Multi-Family Medium/High Residential (R-MFMH) and a proposed Zone Change would be to zone the property Multi-Family Medium/High Residential (R-4). The proposed project would conform with the changed General Plan and zoning designations for the project site. A consistency analysis of the proposed project respecting relevant Fontana General Plan Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element goals and policies is provided below in Table 4.11-1. No adverse impact would occur. ❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.11-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Table 4.11-1 CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS: PROPOSED PROJECT COMPARED TO RELEVANT CITY OF FONTANA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE, ZONING, AND URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high quality of life and economic prosperity. Policy 2.2: Locate multi-family development in mixed-use centers, preferably where there is nearby access to retail, services, and public transportation. Consistent: The project site is on the northern edge of an area of mixed land uses in the Walkable Mixed Use and Downtown Corridors (WMXU-1) area to the immediate south. Policy2.3: Promote interconnected neighborhoods with appropriate transitions between lower- intensity and higher-intensity land uses. Consistent: The proposed multifamily uses would buffer single-family uses to the east from existing and future residential uses to the north and west. Goal 7: Public and private development meets high standards of design. Policy 7.1: Support high-quality development in design standards and in land use decisions Consistent: The project proposes high-quality design standards and materials. Sources: Goals and Policies: Stantec et al, 2018a; pp. 15.34, 15.35, and 15.40. ❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.11-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.11-1 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION ❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.11-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.11-2 ZONING DESIGNATION ❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.12-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.12 Mineral Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? and b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact The project site is mapped Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2) by the California Geological Survey (CGS), as shown on Figure 4.12-1, meaning that geologic data indicate that significant Portland cement concrete (PCC)-grade aggregate resources are present (CGS, 2008a). The project site is mapped in Mineral Resource Sector A-8, in a portion of the Sector that has been lost to land uses incompatible with mining (CGS, 2008b). A mineral resource sector is an area currently permitted for mining and where land uses are compatible with mining. Mineral reserves are aggregate that has been determined to be acceptable for commercial use, are in properties owned or leased by aggregate producing companies, and for which permits have been issued allowing mining and processing of the material. Mineral resources include reserves and all of the potentially usable aggregate materials that may be mined in the future, but for which no permit allowing mining has been issued, or for which marketability has not yet been established (CGS, 2008b, p. 5). The portions of Mineral Resource Sector A-8 remaining compatible with mining span 71 acres and contain approximately 20 million tons of aggregate resources (CGS, 2008b, p. 29). The portion of Sector A-8 consisting of land uses still compatible with mining are east of Juniper Avenue over 0.6 mile east of the project site (CGS, 2008c). The nearest mine to the project site mapped by the Division of Mines Reclamation (DMR) is a Robertson’s Ready Mix location at 2601 Alder Avenue in the City of Rialto approximately 1.8 miles to the northeast (DMR, 2022). The only mine mapped by DMR within the City of Fontana is the Old Henshaw Quarry on the southeast City boundary; the mine is closed and formerly produced decomposed granite and fill dirt (DMR, 2022). No mineral resources in the city of Fontana are ❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.12-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 identified in the City’s General Plan (Stantec et.al, 2018b). The nearest oil or gas well to the project site is a plugged well approximately 1.8 miles to the southwest (DOGGR, 2022; see Figure 4.12-2). The project site is surrounded by residential uses incompatible with mining to the north, south and west, and to the east opposite Sierra Avenue. Thus, any aggregate onsite is unavailable for mining. Project development would not cause a loss of availability of known mineral resources valuable to the region, and no impact would occur. ❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.12-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.12-1 DESIGNATED MINERAL RESOURCE ZONE ❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖ XXXX/Project Name Page 4.12-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2020 Figure 4.12-2 OIL AND GAS WELLS ❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.13-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.13 Noise Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X 4.13.1 Characteristics of Sound Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in hertz or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The decibel (dB) scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale is used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against upper and lower frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. The scale is based on a reference pressure level of 20 micro pascals (zero dBA). The scale ranges from zero (for the average least perceptible sound) to about 130 (for the average human pain level). 4.13.2 Noise Measurement Scales Several rating scales have been developed to analyze adverse effects of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people depends largely upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows: • Leq, the equivalent noise level, is an average of sound level over a defined time period (such as 1 minute, 15 minutes, 1 hour or 24 hours). Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. • L90 is a noise level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time at a given location; it is often used as a measure of “background” noise. ❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.13-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 • Lmax is the root mean square (RMS) maximum noise level during the measurement interval. This measurement is calculated by taking the RMS of all peak noise levels within the sampling interval. Lmax is distinct from the peak noise level, which only includes the single highest measurement within a measurement interval. • CNEL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level, is a 24-hour average Leq with a 4.77-dBA “penalty” added to noise during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and a 10-dBA penalty added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime (Hendriks, 2013). The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60-dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a calculation of 66.7 dBA CNEL. • Ldn, the day-night average noise, is a 24-hour average Leq with an additional 10-dBA “penalty” added to noise that occurs between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The Ldn metric yields values within 1 dBA of the CNEL metric. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment. 4.13.3 Existing Noise The City of Fontana 2015-2035 General Plan Noise and Safety Element (Stantec, 2018a, p. 11-9) defines “noise-sensitive” uses in areas of 24-hour-per-day of exposure as residential uses, hospitals, rest homes, long-term care facilities, and mental care facilities. Sensitive receivers for shorter-term exposures are defined as schools, libraries, places of worship, and passive recreation uses. The nearest sensitive receivers in the project vicinity are shown in Table 4.13-1. Figure 4.13-1 shows the locations of the sensitive receivers. Table 4.13-1 SENSITIVE RECEIVERS IN PROJECT AREA ID Name Type Address Feet from Sitea 1 First Faith World Ministries Religious 16850 San Jacinto Avenue 50 2 Single-family Residence Residential 7556 Sierra Avenue 84 3 Ar-Rahman Islamic Center Religious 7641 Sierra Avenue 435 4 Multi-family Residence Residential 16839 Ramona Avenue 111 5 Juniper Elementary School Institutional 16768 Ramona Avenue 573 6 Single-family Residence Residential 16841 San Jacinto Avenue 33 aDistance from receiver property line to project site boundary. Freeway traffic (passenger vehicles and trucks) and traffic on heavily traveled surface streets are the largest contributors to ambient noise levels. City roadways that generate the most traffic noise include the major north-south trending Sierra Avenue, due to its higher traffic volumes and vehicle speeds. On May 19, 2022, UltraSystems obtained 15-minute ambient noise level samples at six locations in the general area of the project. Sampling locations are shown in Figure 4.13-2 (see Appendix J). Measurements were made between 8:50 a.m. and 2:07 p.m. As shown in Table 4.13-2, average short-term ambient noise levels (Leq) ranged from 51.4 to 71.9 dBA Leq. The 71.9-dBA noise level was along Sierra Avenue, behind a single-family house. All monitored noise levels were within the range considered typical for the nearby land uses. ❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.13-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.13-1 SENSITIVE RECEIVERS NEAR THE PROJECT SITE ❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.13-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Figure 4.13-2 AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS ❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.13-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Table 4.13-2 AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS Point Data Set Sampling Time Address Sound Level (dBA) Notes Leq Lmax L90 1 S001 0850-0905 16850 San Jacinto Avenue 55.3 66.9 44.5 In front of First Faith World Ministries, north of project site 2 S002 0943-0958 7556 Sierra Avenue 71.9 86.3 54.6 Behind Sleepy Creek Avenue, east of the project site 3 S003 1049-1104 7641 Sierra Avenue 68.2 81.5 53.4 In front of Ar- Rahman Islamic Center, southeast of the project site 4 S004 1137-1152 16839 Ramona Avenue 51.4 69.7 43.4 In front of Sierra Fountains apartments, south of the project site 5 S006 1352-1407 16768 Ramona Avenue 56.0 71.0 50.1 In front of Juniper Elementary School, southwest of the project site 6 S005 1239-1254 16841 San Jacinto Avenue 55.1 68.5 46.1 In front of a single- family residence east of project site Source: UltraSystems, 2022. 4.13.4 Regulatory Setting State of California The most current guidelines prepared by the state noise officer are contained in Appendix D of the General Plan Guidelines issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in 2017 (OPR, 2017). These guidelines establish four categories for judging the severity of noise intrusion on specified land uses: • Normally Acceptable: Is generally acceptable, with no mitigation necessary. • Conditionally Acceptable: May require some mitigation, as established through a noise study. • Normally Unacceptable: Requires substantial mitigation. • Clearly Unacceptable: Probably cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The types of land uses addressed by the state standards, and the acceptable noise categories for each, are presented in Table 4.13-3. There is some overlap between categories, which indicates that some judgment is required in determining the applicability of the numbers in a given situation. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations requires performing acoustical studies before constructing dwelling units in areas that exceed 60 dBA Ldn. Given the ambient sampling results shown in Table 4.13-2 and the calculations described in Section 4.13.6, the siting would be ❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.13-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 conditionally acceptable. In addition, the California Noise Insulation Standards identify an interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for new multi-family residential units. Local governments frequently extend this requirement to single-family housing. Table 4.13-3 CALIFORNIA LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE SOURCES Land Use Category Noise Exposure (dBA, CNEL) 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential – Low-Density Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes Residential – Multiple Family Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotels Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply system or air conditioning will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the ❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.13-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 City of Fontana General Plan Noise and Safety Element The City of Fontana General Plan EIR Noise and Safety Element (Stantec, 2018a) has the following goals, policies and actions that apply to proposed project: Goal 1: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent planning through 2035 (Stantec, 2018a, p.11.12). Policies • New sensitive land uses shall be prohibited in incompatible areas. • Where sensitive uses are to be placed along transportation routes, mitigation shall be provided to ensure compliance with state-mandated noise levels. • Noise spillover or encroachment from commercial, industrial and educational land uses shall be minimized into adjoining residential neighborhoods or noise-sensitive uses. Actions A. The following uses shall be considered noise-sensitive and discouraged in areas in excess of 65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): Residential Uses; Hospitals; Rest Homes; Long Term Care Facilities; and Mental Care Facilities. B. The following uses shall be considered noise-sensitive and discouraged in areas in excess of 65 [dBA] Leq (12) (Equivalent Continuous Sound Level): Schools; Libraries; Places of Worship; and Passive Recreation Uses. C. The State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines shall be followed with respect to acoustical study requirements. Goal 2: The City of Fontana provides a diverse and efficiently operated ground transportation system that generates the minimum feasible noise on its residents through 2035 (Stantec, 2018a, p.11.13). Actions A. On-road trucking activities shall continue to be regulated in the City to ensure noise impacts are minimized, including the implementation of truck-routes based on traffic studies. B. Development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses shall provide appropriate mitigation measures. noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: OPR, 2017. ❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.13-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Goal 3: The City of Fontana’s residents are protected from the negative effects of “spillover” noise (Stantec, 2018a, p.11.13). Policy • Residential land uses and areas identified as noise-sensitive shall be protected from excessive noise from non-transportation sources including industrial, commercial, and residential activities and equipment. Actions A. Projects located in commercial areas shall not exceed stationary-source noise standards at the property line of proximate residential or commercial uses. B. Industrial uses shall not exceed commercial or residential stationary source noise standards at the most proximate land uses. C. Non-transportation noise shall be considered in land use planning decisions. D. Construction shall be performed as quietly as feasible when performed in proximity to residential or other noise sensitive land uses. City of Fontana Municipal Code The City of Fontana’s Municipal Code (City of Fontana, 2021) contains several provisions potentially related to construction and operation of the proposed project. Prohibited noises enumerated in Chapter 18 (Nuisances), Article II. - Noise include: • Construction or repairing of buildings or structures. The erection (including excavating), demolition, alteration or repair of any building or structure other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on 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.17 17 Fontana Municipal Code § 18-63(b)(7). ❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.13-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 • 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.18 • 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.19 • Piledrivers, hammers, etc. The operation between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any piledriver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric hoist or other appliance, the use of which is attended by loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive noise.20 City of Fontana Standard Conditions of Approval The construction contractor shall use the following source controls at all times: a. Construction shall be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and Holidays unless it is approved by the building inspector for cases that are considered urgently necessary as defined in Section 18-63(7) of the Municipal Code. b. For all noise-producing equipment, use types and models that have the lowest horsepower and the lowest noise generating potential practical for their intended use. c. The construction contractor will ensure that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, is properly operating (tuned-up) and lubricated, and that mufflers are working adequately. d. Have only necessary equipment onsite. 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: f. Install portable noise barriers, including solid structures and noise blankets, between the active noise sources and the nearest noise receivers. g. Temporarily enclose localized and stationary noise sources. Store and maintain equipment, building materials, and waste materials as far as practical from as many sensitive receivers as practical. 18 Fontana Municipal Code § 18-63(b)(8). 19 Fontana Municipal Code § 18-63(b)(11). 20 Fontana Municipal Code § 18-63(b)(10). ❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.13-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.13.5 Significance Thresholds The City of Fontana has not published explicit thresholds for use in determining significance of noise impacts under CEQA. In keeping with standard practice, two criteria were used for judging noise impacts. First, noise levels generated by the proposed project must comply with all relevant federal, state, and local standards and regulations. Noise impacts on the surrounding community are limited by local noise ordinances, which are implemented through investigations in response to nuisance complaints. It is assumed that all existing applicable regulations for the construction and operation of the proposed project would be enforced. In addition, the proposed project should not produce noise levels that are incompatible with adjacent noise sensitive land uses. The second measure of impact used in this analysis is a significant increase in noise levels above existing ambient noise levels as a result of the introduction of a new noise source. An increase in noise level due to a new noise source has a potential to adversely impact people. The proposed project would have a significant noise impact if it would do any of the following: • Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards recommended in the City of Fontana General Plan Noise Element. • Include construction activities in or within 500 feet of residential areas between 6:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day, without a permit. • Generate construction noise exceeding 80 dBA Leq (FTA, 2018, p. 179). • Contribute, with other local construction projects, to a significant cumulative noise impact. • Increase operational exposures at sensitive receivers (mainly because of an increase in traffic flow) by 5 dBA CNEL or more. 4.13.6 Impact Analysis a) Would the project result in generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact Noise impacts associated with housing projects include short-term and long-term impacts. Construction activities, especially heavy equipment operation, would create noise effects on and adjacent to the construction site. Long-term noise impacts include project-generated onsite and offsite operational noise sources. Onsite (stationary) noise sources from the apartments would include operation of mechanical equipment such as air conditioners, landscape and building maintenance. Offsite noise would be attributable to project-induced traffic, which would cause an incremental increase in noise levels within and near the project vicinity. Short-Term Construction Noise impacts from construction activities are a function of the noise generated by the operation of construction equipment and on road delivery and worker commuter vehicles, the location of ❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.13-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 equipment, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Using calculation methods published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA, 2018), UltraSystems estimated the average hourly exposures at several sensitive receivers near the project site. The distances used for the calculation were measured from the residence to the approximate center of activity of each construction phase, since that would be the average location of construction equipment most of the time. For the purpose of this analysis, it was estimated that the construction of the proposed project would begin in January 2023 and end in January 2024. The types and numbers of pieces of equipment anticipated in each phase of construction and development were estimated by running the CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0, and having the model generate land use-based default values. The CalEEMod equipment default values are based on a construction survey performed by the SCAQMD (BREEZE Software [CAPCOA, 2022]). Table 4.13-4 lists the equipment expected to be used. For each equipment type, the table shows an average noise emission level (in dB at 50 feet, unless otherwise specified) and a “usage factor,” which is an estimated fraction of operating time that the equipment would be producing noise at the stated level. Equipment use was matched to phases of the construction schedule. Table 4.13-4 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CHARACTERISTICS Table 4.13-5 summarizes the results of the construction noise analysis. As described previously, the distances used for the calculation were measured from the residence to the approximate center of activity (not boundary to boundary) of each construction phase, since that would be the average location of construction equipment most of the time. For all sensitive receivers, the greatest exposures would occur during building construction. The highest total short-term noise exposure (ambient plus construction-related) would be 75.1 dBA Leq, at residences on Sierra Avenue. (About The distances in this table don’t match what is in the table above. 48% of this would be due to the existing background.) For all sensitive receiver, total short-term exposures would be less than 80 dBA Leq. Short-term impacts at sensitive receivers would be less than significant.. Construction Phase Equipment Type Number of Pieces Maximum Sound Level (dBA @ 50 feet) Usage Factor Composite Noise (dBA @ 50 feet) Grading Graders 1 85 0.41 85.44 Off-Highway Trucks 1 75 0.4 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 79 0.4 Scrapers 2 88 0.14 Utilities Installation Off-Highway Trucks 1 75 0.4 82.30 Skid Steer Loaders 1 80 0.4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 85 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 83 0.08 85.94 Forklifts 3 67 0.3 Generators Sets 1 73 0.5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 85 0.37 Welders 1 74 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 85 0.41 81.13 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 81 0.48 77.81 Source: FTA, 2018 ❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.13-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Table 4.13-5 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE EXPOSURES AT NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEIVER Sensitive Receiver Distance (Feet)a 1-Hour Leq (dBA) Existing Projectedb Change 16850 San Jacinto Avenue 431 55.3 67.5 12.2 7556 Sierra Avenue 241 71.9 75.1 3.2 7641 Sierra Avenue 719 68.2 68.6c 0.4 16839 Ramona Avenue 403 51.4 63.1c 11.7 16768 Ramona Avenue 793 56.0 57.6c 1.6 16841 San Jacinto Avenue 352 55.1 69.2 14.1 Source: UltraSystems, 2022. a The distances used for the calculation were measured from the residence to the approximate center of activity of each construction phase, since that would be the average location of construction equipment most of the time. b Existing plus construction-related. c Noise attenuation by intervening buildings taken into account. Operational Noise Onsite Onsite noise sources from the condominium homes would include operation of air conditioners, parking lot activities, and truck deliveries and departures. Noise levels from these sources are generally lower than from the traffic on streets bordering the project site. Furthermore, § 18-63 of the City of Fontana Development Code limits onsite noise impacts of the operation of any noise- creating blower or power fan or any internal combustion engine other than from the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on a weekday and the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on a Saturday, the operation of which causes noise due to the explosion of operating gases or fluids, unless the noise from such blower or fan is muffled and such engine is equipped with a muffler device sufficient to deaden such noise. The operational noise levels would be within both the City’s daytime and nighttime residential noise standards of 70 dBA and 65 dBA, respectively. Therefore, operational noise would be less than significant. Mobile Sources The principal noise source in the project area is traffic on local streets. The project may contribute to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity due to project-generated vehicle traffic on neighborhood roadways and at intersections. A noise impact would occur if the project contributes to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels affecting sensitive receivers along roadways that would carry project-generated traffic. Access to the project site would be available via the eastern portion of the project site along Sierra Avenue. As a worst case, it is assumed that all project traffic will travel on Sierra Avenue immediately south of Baseline Avenue. According to the City of Fontana General Plan, the average daily traffic (ADT) on Sierra Avenue south of Baseline Avenue is 22,300 (Stantec, 2018a, Exhibit 9.5). The CalEEMod analysis forecasts that the project will generate a maximum of 757 daily vehicle trips (actual vehicles). It would thus increase traffic by about 3.4%. Given the logarithmic nature of the decibel, traffic volume needs to be doubled in order for the noise level to increase by 3 dBA, the minimum level perceived by the average human ear (ICF Jones & Stokes, 2009). A doubling is equivalent to a 100% increase. Because the maximum increase in traffic at any intersection is far below 100%, the increase in roadway noise experienced at sensitive receivers would not be ❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.13-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 perceptible to the human ear. Therefore, roadway noise associated with project operation would not expose a land use to noise levels that are considered incompatible with or in excess of adopted standards, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Vibration can result from a source (e.g., subway operations, vehicles, machinery equipment, etc.) that causes the adjacent ground to move, thereby creating vibration waves that propagate through the soil to the foundations of nearby buildings. This effect is referred to as groundborne vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root-mean- square (RMS) velocity is usually used to describe vibration levels. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration level, while RMS is defined as the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the level. PPV is typically used for evaluating potential building damage, while RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) is typically more suitable for evaluating human response (FTA, 2018, pp. 110-111). The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 VdB. The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for most people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings (FTA, 2018, p. 120). For this analysis the significance threshold for PPV was set to 0.12 inch per second, which has been associated with “buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage” (FTA, 2018, p. 186). The human significant annoyance threshold was set to 80 VdB, following the FTA’s recommendations for “infrequent events” (FTA, 2018, p. 126). Infrequent events are defined as occurring fewer than 30 times per day (FTA, 2018, p. 125). Since equipment must operate over a large area, it is unlikely that it would be at the property line near any given sensitive receiver more than 30 times per day. Construction Vibration Construction activities for the project have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. The operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that propagate though the ground and diminishes in intensity with distance from the source. Vibration impacts can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage of buildings at the highest levels. The construction activities associated with the project could have an adverse impact on both sensitive structures (i.e., building damage) and populations (i.e., annoyance). The construction vibration analysis used formulas published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (FTA, 2018, p. 185). For a standard reference distance of 25 feet, peak particle velocity is found from: PPV = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 ❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.13-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 where PPVref = Reference source vibration at 25 feet D = Distance from source to receiver The vibration level (VdB) for a standard reference distance of 25 feet is found from: VdB = Lvref – 30 log(D/25) where Lvref = Reference source vibration level at 25 feet D = Distance from source to receiver The FTA has published standard vibration levels for construction equipment operations, at a distance of 25 feet (FTA, 2018, p. 185). Construction-related vibration was estimated for two situations: (1) construction equipment operating at the project boundary and near the closest residence and (2) loaded trucks traveling in the traffic lane nearest residences on the north side of San Jacinto Avenue. The distances are 68 feet and 71 feet respectively.21 The calculated vibration levels expressed in VdB and PPV for selected types of construction equipment at distances of 25, 68 and 71 feet are shown in Table 4.13-6. As shown in Table 4.13-6, the vibration level of offroad construction equipment at the nearest sensitive receiver is at most 0.030 inch per second, which is less than the FTA damage threshold of 0.12 inch per second PPV for fragile historic buildings, and 74 VdB, which is less than the FTA threshold for human annoyance of 80 VdB. For loaded trucks, the vibration levels would be 0.024 inch per second PPV and 72 VdB. Construction vibration impacts would therefore be less than significant. 21 While the receiver points for the noise calculations were in exterior areas near the residences, the vibration receiver points were assumed to be in the approximate centers of the structures. ❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.13-13 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Table 4.13-6 VIBRATION LEVELS OF TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec) Vibration Decibels at 25 feet (VdB) PPV at 68 feet (in/sec) Vibration Decibels at 68 feet (VdB) PPV at 71 feet (in/sec) Vibration Decibels at 71 feet (VdB) Loaded trucks 0.076 86 0.024 72 Small bulldozer 0.003 58 0.001 45 Large bulldozer 0.089 87 0.030 74 Sources: FTA, 2018 and UltraSystems. Operational Vibration The project involves the operation of residential uses and would not involve the use of stationary equipment that would result in high vibration levels, which are more typical for large manufacturing and industrial projects. Groundborne vibrations at the project site and immediate vicinity currently result from heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks and transit buses) on the nearby local roadways, and the project would not result in a substantive increase of these heavy-duty vehicles on the public roadways. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with operation of the project would be less than significant. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact The closest active public airport is the Ontario International Airport, located approximately 9.3 miles southwest of the project site. The project site is located outside of the airport’s influence area boundary and noise contours. (See Section 4.9.) Therefore, no impact related to the exposure of people residing or working in the proposed project area to excessive airport-related noise levels is anticipated. ❖ SECTION 4.14 – POPULATION AND HOUSING ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.14-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.14 Population and Housing Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than Significant Impact Existing and forecasted demographic data for the City of Fontana for 2021 and 2045 are shown below in Table 4.14-1. The population in the city is forecast to increase approximately 34% and the number of households 47%, and employment is forecast to increase 29% during that period (CDF, 2021; SCAG, 2020; USCB, 2022). The estimated total number of housing units in the city in 2021 was 55,909, consisting of 44,676 (80% of total) single-family detached, 1,337 (2%) single-family attached, 8,348 (15%) multifamily, and 1,548 (3%) mobile homes (CDF, 2021). The proposed project would induce direct population growth with construction of 19 residential buildings with a total of 93 two- and three-bedroom units. Table 4.14-1 CITY OF FONTANA DEMOGRAPHIC FORECAST 2021 2045 Difference (2045 – 2020) Percent Difference (2045 – 2020) Population 213,944 286,700 72,756 34.0% Households1 53,073 77,800 24,727 46.6% Employment 58,173 75,100 16,927 29.1% 1 A household is equivalent to an occupied housing unit Sources: CDF, 2021; SCAG, 2020; US Census Bureau, 2021 The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has established a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (2021 RHNA) for the City of Fontana for the period 2021 to 2029, as enumerated in Table 4.14-2 below. Note that the total RHNA for Fontana for the 2021-2029 period is 17,519 units (2,190 per year average over eight years), which is a considerably faster increase than the 24,727 households forecast to be added over the 24-year period 2021-2045 (1,030 average per year). ❖ SECTION 4.14 – POPULATION AND HOUSING ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.14-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Table 4.14-2 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT, CITY OF FONTANA, 2021-2029 Income Category Percent of Riverside County Median Income Units Very Low Income <50 5,109 Low Income 50-80 2,950 Moderate Income 80-120 3,035 Above Moderate Income >120 6,425 Total Not applicable 17,519 Sources: SCAG 2021a; SCAG 2021b The proposed project, consisting of 13 two-bedroom flat units and 80 three-bedroom townhome units, is estimated to house 374 persons based on the average household size in the city of Fontana of 4.02 persons in 2021 (CDF, 2021). An adverse population and housing impact is one exceeding the regional forecast for the relevant jurisdiction. The estimated project occupancy at project completion, 374 residents, is approximately 0.5% of the forecast population increase of 72,756 persons in the City of Fontana between 2021 and 2045. The proposed 93 residential units would be approximately 0.4% of the forecast increase of 24,727 households during the same period.22 Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact No housing exists onsite and no one currently resides on the project site. Therefore, the project would not displace any housing or people and the project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No impact would occur. 22 Growth in households between 2021 and 2045 is used because no forecast of housing units in Fontana in 2045 is available. A household is an occupied housing unit. In Fontana in 2021 the occupancy rate was approximately 95% (that is, 53,073 households out of 55,909 housing units). ❖ SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.15-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.15 Public Services Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X a) Fire protection? Less than Significant Impact The Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the City of Fontana through the San Bernardino County Fire Department. There are seven fire stations in the FFPD. The nearest existing fire station to the project site is San Bernardino County Fire Station 78 (R.J. Keen Fire Station) at 7110 Citrus Avenue, approximately 1.0 mile to the northwest. Station 78 has daily staffing of five and is equipped with one medic engine and one squad vehicle (City of Fontana, 2022). Project development is expected to generate a small increase in calls for fire protection and emergency medical service. The project would pay fire facilities fees required by the City of Fontana. Fire Facilities Fees are $360 (for 2-bedroom units) to $380 (for 3-bedroom units) (City of Fontana, 2021). The project includes 13 two-bedroom and 80 three-bedroom units. Project operation would also increase property tax and sales tax revenues to the City, some of which may be allocated to FFPD. These fees would go towards any additional services or facilities needed due to implementation of the project. Therefore, project impacts on fire services would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b) Police protection? Less than Significant Impact The Fontana Police Department (FPD) provides police protection to the City. The FPD station is at 17005 Upland Avenue, about 1.0 mile south of the project site. FPD consists of Divisions which include Administrative Services, Field Services and Special Operations such as Field Evidence Unit, Fugitive Apprehension Team, Inland Valley Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT), Investigations ❖ SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.15-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Unit, K-9 Unit, Patrol Unit, Air Support, Communications Center, Personnel & Training, Property Unit, Records Unit, Animal Services Team, Community Outreach and Public Engagement (COPE), Explorer Program, Fontana Leadership Intervention Program, Multiple Enforcement Team, Press Information Office, Traffic Unit, Community Outreach And Support Team (C.O.A.S.T.), Homeless Outreach Support Team (H.O.S.T.), Social Work Action Group (S.W.A.G.) (FPD, 2022). FPD target response time is 3:52 for Priority 1 calls (Emergency calls like subject not breathing, shots fired, and other immediate risk to life/safety) (City of Fontana, 2021c). New multi-family housing developments undergoing development review in Fontana must participate in the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program. Through this program, the Department provides recommendations for improving the safety of the developments using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design strategies (City of Fontana, 2022h). FPD operations are funded mostly through the general fund (City of Fontana, 2021c, p 385). The City of Fontana charges multifamily residential projects a development impact fee of $461 per two- bedroom unit and $486 per three-bedroom unit (City of Fontana, 2021) to mitigate any impact on police services. The project would pay development impact fees required by the City of Fontana. Therefore, project impacts on police services would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. c) Schools? Less than Significant Impact The project site is in the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD), which spans most of the City of Fontana. FUSD operates 30 elementary schools (K-5), seven middle schools (6-8), five high schools, two alternative education schools, one adult/community education program, one online academy, 27 preschools, one Head Start site and two infant/toddler sites (FUSD, 2022). Districtwide enrollment as of September 2021 was 36,368 (FUSD, 2022). The project site is located within the boundaries of the three schools described below in Table 4.15-1. Table 4.15-1 SCHOOLS SERVING THE PROJECT SITE School Grade Levels Address Enrollment 2020-2021 school year Classrooms Capacity (Students) Remaining Capacity Juniper Elementary School K-5 7655 Juniper Avenue 511 42 590 79 Wayne Ruble Middle School 6-8 6821 Oleander Avenue 1,310 54 1,458 148 A.B. Miller High School 9-12 6762 Juniper Avenue 2,218 113 3,051 833 Sources: FUSD, 2022; CDE, 2022; US News & World Report, 2022. With 93 units, the project is estimated to generate 45 students, as shown below in Table 4.15-2. After accounting for project student generation, estimated remaining capacity is 79 students at ❖ SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.15-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Juniper Elementary School, 148 students at Ruble Middle School, and 735 students at A.B. Miller High School (refer to Table 4.15-3 below). Table 4.15-2 ESTIMATED PROJECT STUDENT GENERATION School Level Student Generation Factor per Household1 Total Student Generation Elementary (K-5) 0.1684 16 Middle (6-8) 0.0851 8 High (9-12) 0.1210 11 Total Not applicable 45 Project student generation is estimated based on the proposed 119 multifamily housing units, as the proposed senior housing units are not expected to generate students. 1 Source: Noorigian, 2021 Table 4.15-3 PROJECT IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS’ CAPACITIES School Enrollment, 2020-2021 school year Capacity (Students) Remaining Capacity Enrollment plus project student generation Remaining Capacity after Project Student Generation Juniper Elementary School 511 590 79 527 63 Wayne Ruble Middle School 1,310 1,458 148 1,318 140 A.B. Miller High School 2,218 3,051 833 2,229 822 Sources: FUSD, 2022; CDE, 2022; US News & World Report, 2022. Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), which passed in 1998, provides a comprehensive school facility financing and reform program, and enabled a statewide bond issue to be placed on the ballot. The provisions of SB 50 allow the state to offer funding to school districts to acquire school sites, construct new school facilities, and modernize existing school facilities. SB 50 also establishes a process for determining the amount of fees developers may be charged to mitigate the impact of development on school facilities resulting from increased enrollment. Under this legislation, a school district could charge fees above the statutory cap only under specified conditions, and then only up to the amount of funds that the district would be eligible to receive from the state. According to Section 65996 of the California Government Code, development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation.” FUSD charges developer fees for multifamily residential units of $4.08 per square foot of assessable space, as authorized by California Education Code Section 65996. Project impacts on school facilities would be less than significant after payment of developer fees for schools. No mitigation is required. d) Parks? Less than Significant Impact ❖ SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.15-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Recreational services in the city of Fontana are provided by the City’s Department of Facilities and Parks, which maintains over 40 parks, sports facilities, and community centers (City of Fontana, 2020). The City’s Park acreage standard is five acres of public park land per 1,000 residents. The City currently has approximately 1,359 acres total in parks and land for public use. The city’s population in 2022 was estimated at 212,809 (CDF, 2022). Thus, the city has 6.39 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which is above the city’s standard of 5.0 acres. Project development would add a maximum of 625 residents to the city, which would increase the City’s population from the 2022 estimate of 212,809 up to 213,434. The ratio of parkland to population after project development would be 6.37 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, minimally less than the current ratio. The project proposes recreational facilities for residents including a two-story clubhouse with indoor gym, an outdoor pool & spa, six barbecues, two game rooms, and a children's playground/tot lot. Project recreational facilities would reduce project-generated demands on existing city park facilities. In addition, the proposed project would pay development impact fees required by the city, some of which would be allocated to park facilities and the community center. Project impacts on park facilities would be less than significant after payment of applicable development impact fees, and no mitigation is required. e) Other Public Facilities? Less Than Significant Impact Library Library services in the city are provided by the San Bernardino County Library System, which is comprised of 32 branch libraries. Within the city of Fontana, there are three libraries: the Fontana Lewis Library and Technology Center located at 8437 Sierra Avenue; the Summit Branch Library located at 15551 Summit Avenue; and the Kaiser High School Library located at 11155 Almond Avenue (San Bernardino County Public Library, 2022). Lewis Library and Technology Center is located approximately 1.25 miles south of the project site. Demand for libraries is generated by the populations in the libraries’ service areas. Project development, which would add a maximum of 625 residents to the service area population, would marginally increase use of and demands for collection items at the Lewis Library and Technology Center. City Library impact fees are $97 per two-bedroom unit and $102 per three- bedroom unit (City of Fontana, 2022). The project would pay any development impact fees required by the city for the library; project impacts on library facilities and services are expected to be less than significant. Hospitals The nearest hospital to the project site is Kaiser Permanente at 9961 Sierra Ave, Fontana CA 92335, 3.0 miles south of the project site. Kaiser Permanente is a 314-bed facility that includes a 51-bed emergency department (Kaiser Permanente, 2013). Project development is estimated to add a maximum of 625 residents to the City. Adequate hospital facilities are present in the project region for project residents, and project development would not require construction of new or expanded hospitals. Impacts would be less than significant. ❖ SECTION 4.16 - RECREATION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.16-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.16 Recreation Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact As discussed in Section 4.15, the FDCS provides the recreation programs and maintains city parks. The FDCS operates and maintains over 40 parks, sports facilities, and community centers (City of Fontana, 2022). The City of Fontana General Plan sets forth several categories of parks, including neighborhood parks, with a service radius of 0.5 mile and community parks, with a service radius of 1.5 miles (City of Fontana, 2018c p. 7.11). Existing parks within one mile of the project site are: • Bill Martin Park, 7792 Juniper Avenue (0.4 miles southwest from project). Facilities include ball fields, barbecue areas, basketball, picnic shelters, picnic tables, playground, restrooms, snack bar and tennis courts. • Northgate Park, 7800 Celeste Avenue (0.7 miles southwest from project). Small community park with basketball court, playground, picnic tables and restrooms. Demand for parks is generated by the population in the parks’ service areas. The project involves development of a multi-family development containing 93 residential units; at buildout the project is estimated to house to house 374 persons based on the average household size in the city of Fontana of 4.02 persons in 2021 (CDF, 2021). Thus, project development would create a demand for 1.87 acres of parkland based on the City’s five acres per 1,000 residents standard. The project would include 17,321 square feet of usable open space. However, the proposed open space onsite would not be parkland open to the public and thus is not considered to reduce project-generated demand for parkland. ❖ SECTION 4.16 - RECREATION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.16-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 The city charges development impact fees for park facilities; the fee for multi-family units of three or more bedrooms is $6,819 per unit (City of Fontana, 2022). Project impacts on parkland and park facilities would be less than significant after payment of development impact fees for park facilities. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant Impact The project includes public and private open space, as well as its own recreational amenities. Project development may require future development of park facilities financed in part by project development impact fees. The sites of such potential future parks are currently unknown, and thus any attempt at assessing impacts of such development would be speculative. Such development would be subject to separate CEQA review. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant. ❖ SECTION 4.17 - TRANSPORTATION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.17-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.17 Transportation Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? X b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X The following analysis is based on the Sierra at Ramona Residential Development Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis conducted by RK Engineering Group, Inc. dated June 2, 2022, for the proposed project (RK Engineering, 2022) (refer to Appendix I). The trip generation assessment estimates the combination of existing and future vehicular trips from the project site based on the implementation of the proposed project. The trip generation estimates are based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant Impact Sierra Avenue is a five-lane north-south roadway designated a Major Highway; and Ramona Avenue and San Jacinto Avenue are two-lane east-west roadways designated as Local Streets in the General Plan (Fontana Forward, 2017). The intersection of Sierra Avenue and San Jacinto Avenue is controlled by a traffic light, with the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Ramona Avenue being controlled by a stop sign on Ramona Avenue. Sidewalks are present near the project site on the west side of Sierra Avenue; sidewalks are absent on the east side of Sierra Avenue, and on both sides of San Jacinto and Ramona Avenues. The nearest proposed bicycle facilities to the project site mapped in the City’s General Plan are striped (Class II) bicycle lanes on Sierra Avenue. There are no existing bicycle facilities near the project site (Fontana Forward, 2017). Fontana is served by Omnitrans with ten bus routes in the City; the nearest transit route to the project site is Route 82, which travels along Sierra Avenue with a stop at San Jacinto Avenue. Omnitrans Route 67 also travels along Sierra Avenue on its way to the Fontana Metrolink Station but makes no stops along Sierra Avenue (Fontana Forward, 2017). ❖ SECTION 4.17 - TRANSPORTATION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.17-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Applicable Plans, Ordinances, and Policies Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from the State Highway Account and other funding sources. The proposed project development is not a transportation project and would not conflict with the STIP. San Bernadino County Congestion Management Program The San Bernadino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) defines a network of state highways and arterials, level of service standards and related procedures, a process for mitigation of the impacts of new development on the transportation system, and technical justification for the approach. The project would not conflict with the San Bernadino County Congestion Management Plan. City of Fontana General Plan - Circulation Element (Community Mobility and Circulation) The City’s Circulation Element has several goals and policies that apply to the proposed project. Refer to Table 4.17-1 below which lists the applicable policies and how the proposed project would comply. Table 4.17-1 PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF FONTANA GENERAL PLAN POLICIES REGARDING MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION General Plan Element Project Compliance Goal #3: Local transit within the City of Fontana is a viable choice for residents, easily accessible and serving destinations throughout the City. Policy #1: Maximize the accessibility, safety, convenience, and appeal of transit service and transit stops. The project is composed of 93 single-family homes in a location that has direct access to an Omnitrans bus system stop on San Jacinto Avenue and Sierra Avenue and is 1.5 miles to the Fontana Metrolink Station accessible by Omnitrans Route 67. Goal #4: The neighborhood streets of Fontana maintain a residential character and support a range of transportation options. Policy #1: Balance neighborhood traffic circulation needs with the goal of creating walkable and bike- friendly neighborhoods. The public right of way improvements accompanying the development of the neighborhood along Sierra Avenue will help facilitate the creation of the proposed bicycle facilities along Sierra Avenue. Circulation Element: Goal #7: The City of Fontana participates in shaping regional transportation policies to reduce traffic congestion, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Policy #2: Coordinate with regional agencies and Caltrans to participate in regional efforts to maintain transportation infrastructure in Fontana. The project will increase the usage of the Omnitrans bus stop location at San Jacinto Avenue and Sierra Avenue increasing the overall demand for public transportation and associated infrastructure. In addition to improvements that facilitate the creation of the proposed bicycle facilities along Sierra Avenue. ❖ SECTION 4.17 - TRANSPORTATION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.17-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 General Plan Element Project Compliance Source: Fontana Forward, Chapter 9 Community Mobility and Circulation. p. 9.5 – p.9.6) As detailed above, the project would not conflict with any applicable policies from the city’s General Plan addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact in this regard. City of Fontana Municipal Code The City of Fontana Municipal Code has a set of transportation management requirements for development projects within the city. The requirements apply to commercial and mixed-use projects and thus do not apply to the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. Impacts would be less than significant. (Fontana Code, 2022) Project Trip Generation Although the project is forecast to generate slightly more than 50 peak hour trips during the PM peak hour only; however, no off-site intersections (i.e., Sierra Avenue/San Jacinto Avenue or Juniper Avenue/San Jacinto Avenue) are expected to experience an increase of more than 50 peak hour trips. The proposed project driveway along San Jacinto Avenue is the only location that is forecast to generate more than 50 peak hour trips (PM peak hour only). However, this driveway is located along a minor roadway with low traffic volumes. Therefore, the level of service at this driveway is expected to operate at acceptable levels of service. As such, a focused traffic analysis is not expected to be required and no further traffic analysis was recommended. (RK Engineering, 2022) Table 4.17-2 ITE TRIP GENERATION RATE1 Land Use Units2 ITE Code Weekdays AM PM Daily In Out Total In Out Total Single-Family Attached Housing DU 215 0.15 0.33 0.48 0.32 0.25 0.57 7.20 1Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021), (RK Engineering, 2022) Table 4.17-3 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION1 Land Use (ITE Code) Quantity Units2 Weekdays AM PM Daily In Out Total In Out Total Single-Family Attached Housing 93 DU 14 31 45 30 23 53 670 1Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021), (RK Engineering, 2022) As shown in Table 4.17-3, based on the ITE trip generation rates, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 670 daily trips with 45 trips in the AM peak hour and 53 trips in the PM peak hour. ❖ SECTION 4.17 - TRANSPORTATION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.17-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) The Fontana’s TIA Guidelines state that “Projects not screened through the following steps should complete VMT analysis and forecasting through the SBTAM model to determine if they have a significant VMT impact”. Screening Assessment The City of Fontana has identified four (4) types of screening that are to be applied to screen certain categories of projects that have been determined not to have a significant VMT impact from project- level assessment. These screening steps are summarized below: • Step 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening, • Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening, • Step 3: Low Project Type Screening, and, • Step 4: Project net daily trips less than 500 ADT. The project is considered to be in a low VMT area (Step 2) being the project TAZ VMT per service population does not exceed 15% below the baseline County of San Bernardino VMT per service population. After utilizing the online SBCTA VMT Screening Tool, it has been determined that the proposed project site is located within a Low-VMT Area. The project TAZ baseline VMT per service population is 26.0, which is 20.26% less than the County’s baseline VMT per service population of 32.7. (RK Engineering, 2022) The project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT under CEQA. Therefore, no further VMT analysis is required. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) pertains to the use of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a method of determining the significance of transportation impacts. The VMT analysis is presented above in Section 4.17. satisfies requirements under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b). As described above, after utilizing the online SBCTA VMT Screening Tool, it has been determined that the project site is located within a Low-VMT Area. The project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT under CEQA. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact The proposed project would not alter the surrounding roadways. Vehicular access to the project would be provided by two gated entries from San Jacinto Avenue and Ramona Avenue. The intersections of the two proposed driveways would be perpendicular to the roadways and would not cause hazards due to a geometric design feature. The project’s circulation system, including driveways and parking areas, would be designed to meet the development standards of the city and ❖ SECTION 4.17 - TRANSPORTATION ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.17-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 would not result in uses or design features that would create traffic hazards. Therefore, impacts regarding increases in hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses would be less than significant. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impacts Construction Project construction could involve the temporary closure of a segment or an entire segment of the roadway. Any plans for construction activity in the roadway right-of-way would require an encroachment permit from the City of Fontana. The City Public Works/Engineering Department would review any encroachment permit applications to ensure that such construction did not impede emergency response to the project site or nearby properties; and did not create traffic hazards. Compliance with any conditions set forth in an encroachment permit is a condition of the permit. Impacts would be less than significant after City review and after project conformance with conditions set forth in any encroachment permit. Operation The project would comply with applicable city regulations, such as the requirement to comply with the city’s fire code to provide adequate emergency access, as well as the California Building Standards Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Fontana would review project site plans, including the location of all buildings, fences, access driveways, and other features that may affect emergency access. The site design includes access and fire lanes that would accommodate emergency ingress and egress by fire trucks, police units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles. All onsite access and sight-distance requirements would be in accordance with all applicable design requirements. The city’s review process and compliance with applicable regulations and standards would ensure that adequate emergency access would be provided. Therefore, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access and there would be less than significant impacts. ❖ SECTION 4.18 - TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.18-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k)? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined to be a significant resource to a California Native American tribe pursuant to the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1(c)? X Information from UltraSystems’ Phase I Interim Cultural Resources Inventory, dated July 6, 2022 for the proposed project (refer to Appendix D) is included in the analysis below. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k)? No Impact A traditional cultural site within a half-mile buffer of the project boundary is documented in the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search. No resources as defined by Public Resources Code § 21074 have been identified (refer to Attachment C: “Native American Heritage Commission Records Search and Native American Contacts” in Appendix D to this IS/MND). Additionally, the project site has not been recommended for historic designation for prehistoric and tribal cultural resources (TCRs). No specific tribal resources have been identified by local tribes responding to inquiries for the Cultural Resources Inventory. No prehistoric archaeological resources were observed during the archaeological field survey conducted June 14, 2022 by Stephen O’Neil, M.A., RPA as part of the cultural resources investigation (Section 4.3, Appendix D). The results of the pedestrian assessment indicate that it is unlikely that prehistoric or historic resources will be adversely affected by construction of the project. The cultural resource study findings at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) (the local California Historic Resources Information System facility) were received May 11, 2022. No prehistoric resources have been recorded within the project boundary, and the one prior survey that included the project site was conducted to locate and record historic resources only, none of which were observed within the project boundary.(Refer to Appendix D). ❖ SECTION 4.18 - TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.18-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 No tribal cultural resources onsite are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k). Therefore, the project would have no impact in this regard. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined to be a significant resource to a California Native American tribe pursuant to the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1(c)? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) requires meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on potential impacts on TCRs, as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21074. TCRs are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either eligible or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register of historical resources (CNRA, 2007). As part of the AB 52 process, Native American tribes must submit a written request to the lead agency to be notified of projects within their traditionally and culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must provide written, formal notification to those tribes within 14 days of deciding to undertake a project. The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receiving this notification if they want to engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving the tribe’s request. Consultation concludes when either (1) the parties agree to mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource, or (2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes mutual agreement cannot be reached. In addition, the City contacted Native American tribes pursuant to the provisions of Senate Bill 18. Government Code § 65352.3(a) requires consultation with Native Americans on General Plan proposals for the purposes of preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described in PRC § 5097.5 and § 5091.993 that are located within the City’s jurisdiction. The SB 18 process requires that the City make an attempt to contact tribal groups for the purpose of opening consultations between the City and tribal governments. Following legislation guidelines, tribes have 90 days to request a consultation with us (PRC § 21080.3.a(s)). The City has received a written correspondence from the listed tribal governments requesting to be notified of all Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) projects within the City of Fontana. The City of Fontana (the lead agency) initiated AB 52 and SB 18 outreach to local tribes for the Sierra Avenue project. The City Planning Department prepared and sent letters to the several tribes on their list below for AB 52 and SB 18 contact, informing them of the project (C. Session-Goins, personal communications, July 5, 2022). The letters were sent via certified mail to: • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation • Gabrielino /Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Gabrielino / Tongva Nation • Gabrielino -Tongva Tribe • Morongo Band of Mission Indians • Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuman Reservation • San Manuel Band of Mission Indians • Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians • Serrano Nation of Mission Indians • Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians ❖ SECTION 4.18 - TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.18-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 • Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council A traditional site was documented in the Native American Heritage Commission’s SLF search. However, there has been no response to date to inquiries to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the tribe recommended by the NAHC to contact, regarding this traditional site. No resources as defined by PRC § 21074 have been identified (refer to Attachment C: “Native American Heritage Commission Records Search and Native American Contacts” in Appendix D to this IS/MND). Additionally, the project site has not been recommended for historic designation for prehistoric and TCRs. No specific tribal resources have been identified. No prehistoric or archaeological resources were observed during the field survey, and none have been previously recorded within the half-mile buffer zone according to the results of a records search from the SCCC. Land at the project site has remained relatively undisturbed due to use for orchards into the late 20th century, and the immediate area has been a mix of rural farms and broadly spaced residences since the turn of the last century through the 20th century. No human remains have been previously identified or recorded onsite. Therefore, while the potential for subsurface prehistoric cultural deposits is considered to be low, the relatively undisturbed nature of the land in a region known to have been used for natural resource gathering by the local Tongva tribe (see Section 2.2.2 in Appendix D) suggests the potential for the presence of cultural material. The letters were sent July 13, 2022 by Jenny Espinoza, Secretary of the City of Fontana Planning Department, conveying that the recipient has 30 days from the receipt of the letter to request AB 52 consultation regarding the project, and 90 days from receipt of the letter to request SB 18 consultation. Of the several tribes that were contacted by the City, the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, and the Yuhaaviatam of the San Manuel Nation (YSMN) responded requested consultation. In a letter and email sent on July 19, 2022 to Cecily Session-Goins, Associate Planner with the City of Fontana, Brandy Salas, Admin Specialist for the Gabrielino – Kizh Nation requested consultation and a meeting with the City has been scheduled for September 29, 2022. Emails from the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the Quechan Tribe, declined consultation. In an email dated August 19, 2022 also to Session-Goins, Ryan Nordesss, Cultural Resource Analyst for the YSMN stated: “The proposed project area exists within Serrano ancestral territory and, therefore, is of interest to the Tribe. However, due to the nature and location of the proposed project, and given the CRM Department’s present state of knowledge, YSMN does not have any concerns with the project’s implementation, as planned, at this time. As a result, YSMN requests that the following language be made a part of the project/permit/plan conditions.” The provided language is incorporated as three Cultural Resource mitigation measures (see Section 4.5 above), and three TCR mitigation measures below. Upon receipt of information upon completion of AB 52 and SB 18 consultation with the Gabrielino- Kizh Nation following the scheduled September 29, 2022 meeting, this section will be updated. ❖ SECTION 4.18 - TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.18-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Mitigation Measures MM TCR-1: The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed in CR-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site. MM TCR-2: Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the project. Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of MM TCR-1 and MM TCR 2, potential project impacts on TCRs would be less than significant. ❖ SECTION 4.19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.19-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of whi1ch could cause significant environmental effects? X b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? X c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? X d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? X e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact As discussed in Section 3.0, the proposed project would require offsite improvements including sewer, domestic water, fire water, irrigation, and dry utilities connections to existing utility infrastructure in the Sierra Avenue project. All overhead utilities will be undergrounded. Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance – The Fontana Water Company (FWC) operates and maintains sewers in parts of Fontana including the project site vicinity. Municipal wastewater ❖ SECTION 4.19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.19-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 treatment services are provided by Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), which serves approximately 875,000 people over 242 square miles in Western San Bernardino County. Wastewater from Fontana Water Company’s service area is treated outside of the service area. IEUA’s Regional Water Recycling Plant 4 (RP 4) is located near the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and 6th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and treats local wastewater generated by the City of Fontana. RP-4 treats an average flow of 10 MGD of wastewater and was expanded to a capacity of 14 MGD in 2009. The project proposes offsite sewer improvements to connect the sewer lines from the project site to the existing sewer network in Ramona Avenue. All sewer line sizes and connections are subject to review by the city. Wastewater generation is estimated as 100 percent of indoor water use. The FWC, which provides water to portions of the City of Fontana including the project site, used a default indoor water use rate of 55 gallons per person per day, or gallons per capita day (gpcd) in determining its 2020 water use target.23 The project at completion is estimated to house a maximum of 375 persons. Thus, project operation is estimated to generate a maximum of 20,075 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. The project applicant will work with the City’s Public Works Department for necessary approvals and ensure compliance with applicable requirements. Sufficient wastewater treatment capacity is available in the region for project wastewater generation, and project development would not require construction of a new or expanded wastewater treatment facility. Impacts would be less than significant. Domestic Water – As detailed in Threshold 4.19 b) below, the project site is in the FWC service area. There are existing 6-inch mains on San Jacinto Avenue and Ramona Avenue that can serve water to the project site. Water supplies for the Fontana Service Area consist of imported water from Lytle Creek surface flow, and from wells in the Lytle Basin, Rialto Basin, Chino Basin, and another groundwater basin known as No Man's Land. (FWC, 2022). As analyzed in Threshold 4.19 b), the project would result in a nominal increase in water demand compared to existing conditions and therefore the project would have a less than significant impact regarding domestic water supplies. Fire Water – Final design of water facilities will be determined based on the approved Fire Department plan to assess whether the existing mains are adequately sized to provide the needed fire flow. As analyzed in Threshold 4.19 b), the project would result in a nominal increase in water demand compared to existing conditions and therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact regarding fire water supplies. Stormwater - The project would include installation of downspouts and area drains that would collect runoff and convey it to existing storm drains. Master storm drain (I-10 north) requires a fee of $20,388 per acre; flood control (San Sevaine Channel) requires a fee of $4,405 per acre. Impacts regarding stormwater would be less than significant. Refer to Section 4.10 of this document for a discussion of the proposed project impacts regarding hydrology and water quality. Electric Power: Electric power for the City of Fontana is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) (City of Fontana, 2022). The proposed project is in a developed area, and infrastructure for providing electric power to the area is well established. SCE typically utilizes existing utility corridors to reduce environmental impacts and has energy-efficiency programs to reduce energy usage and maintain reliable service throughout the year (Southern California Edison, 2018, p. 45). Total 23 The 2020 water use target was calculated in accordance with the Water Conservation Act of 2009, SBX 7-7. ❖ SECTION 4.19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.19-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 electricity consumption in SCE’s service area is forecast to be 111,672GWh in 2022 and 122,931 GWh in 2030 (CEC, 2020, Form 1.2); one GWH is equivalent to one million kilowatt-hours. The project would be constructed in accordance with applicable Title 24 regulations and would not necessitate the construction or relocation of electric power facilities. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. Natural Gas: Natural gas is supplied to the project site by Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), which provides natural gas to the City of Fontana (City of Fontana, 2022). The proposed development would utilize natural gas for the water heaters, stoves, and dryers in the residential units. The project would not interfere with operation of existing natural gas facilities. The proposed project is in a developed area, and infrastructure for providing natural gas to the area is well established, and therefore a less than significant impact would occur. Telecommunications Facilities: Spectrum provides cable television and broadband services to the area. Other providers, including AT&T, also serve residents of the area. It is expected that facilities of one or more telecommunications providers would be extended into the project site from existing lines in adjacent roadways. The proposed project would not interfere with operation of telecommunications facilities, and therefore a less than significant impact would occur. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact Water Supplies and Demands The FWC supplies water to most of the City of Fontana, including the project site. FWC is both a water wholesaler and water retailer; it serves three retail service areas, including the Fontana Service Area. FWC’s water supply is produced from Lytle Creek surface flow, and from wells in the Lytle Basin, Rialto Basin, Chino Basin, and another groundwater basin known as No Man’s Land (FWC, 2022). Water from the California State Water Project is purchased from the IEUA and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. A portion of the water supply can be purchased from Cucamonga Valley Water District during water shortages or under emergency situations. At estimated occupancy of 374 persons, estimated project water demand would be 20,570 gallons per day, or approximately 23.0 acre-feet per year (afy), as shown below in Table 4.19-2. FWC estimates water demand in 2025 of 44,593 afy and water supply of 45,593 afy (FWC-2020-UWMP June 2020), indicating surplus supply of 1,000 afy, compared to the projected demand for the project of 23 afy. Therefore, less than significant impacts to water supplies are anticipated. ❖ SECTION 4.19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.19-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Table 4.19-2 ESTIMATED PROJECT WATER DEMAND Unit Water Demand Factor Gallons Per Day (GDP)/per person1 Residents Estimated Water Demand in gallons per day Estimated Water Demand (gallons per year) Estimated Water Demand (acre-feet per year) 352 374 20,570 7,508,050 23.0 1 352 gallons per capita per day (i.e. per person) (RMC, 2016, p. 5-6) Source: UltraSystems, 2022. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less than Significant Impact As described under Threshold 4.19a above, the project will connect to the city sewer system and no new treatment facilities or expanded entitlements will be required. There would be sufficient capacity available to meet the wastewater treatment demands of the project. The existing wastewater treatment facility could accommodate the additional wastewater estimated to be generated by the proposed project. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact in this regard and no mitigation is necessary. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact Solid Waste The city contracts with Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc., for collection and disposal of the city’s solid waste. The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill serves the City. Mid-Valley contains 498 acres with a maximum permit capacity of 101,300,000 cubic yards, over 61 million of which remain unfilled. Table 4.19-3 provides additional information about the landfill’s capacity. Table 4.19-3 LANDFILLS SERVING FONTANA Facility and Nearest City/Community Remaining Capacity, cubic yards Daily Permitted Disposal Capacity, tons Actual Daily Disposal, tons1 Residual Daily Disposal Capacity, tons Estimated Closing Date Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill 61,219,377 7,500 2,955 1,845 2045 1 Daily disposal calculated based on annual disposal tonnage assuming 300 operating days per year: that is, six days per week less certain holidays. Sources: CalRecycle. 2021a. ❖ SECTION 4.19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.19-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Construction Project construction would generate solid waste requiring disposal at local landfills. Fontana- generated solid waste is disposed of at Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, which has remaining disposal capacity of 1,845 tons per day or 673,425 tons per year. Materials generated during construction of the project would include paper, cardboard, metal, plastics, glass, concrete, lumber scraps and other materials. Section 4.408 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) requires that at least 65% of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from residential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Project construction would include recycling and/or salvaging at least 65% of construction and demolition waste in accordance with the 2019 CALGreen. Sufficient disposal capacity would remain at the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill for solid waste generated by project construction. Impacts would be less than significant. Operation Multifamily residential units in California generate an average of approximately four pounds of solid waste per day, according to data collected by CalRecycle. Thus, the proposed 93 residential units are estimated to generate 372 pounds of solid waste per day or 68 tons per year, as shown below in Table 4.19-4. As noted earlier, the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill has remaining disposal capacity of 1,845 tons per day or 673,425 tons per year. Estimated project operational solid waste disposal of 68 tons per year is approximately 0.01 percent of remaining disposal capacity at Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. Sufficient landfill capacity is available in the region for estimated project solid waste generation, and project impacts on solid waste disposal capacity would be less than significant. Table 4.19-4 ESTIMATED PROJECT-GENERATED SOLID WASTE Land Use Generation Rate* Approximate Waste (pounds/year) Approximate Waste (tons/year) Multifamily Residential 4 pounds per dwelling unit per day 135,780 68 *(CalRecycle, 2022). e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact In 1989, the California Legislature enacted the California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), in an effort to address solid waste problems and capacities in a comprehensive manner. The law required each city and county to divert 50% of its waste from landfills by the year 2000. The city developed a SRRE in 1997 that aims at recycling, composting, special waste disposal, and education and public information programs. The San Bernardino Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (SBCIWMP) outlines the goals, policies, and programs the County and its cities would implement to create an integrated and ❖ SECTION 4.19 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.19-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 cost-effective waste management system that complies with the provisions of AB 939 and its diversion mandates. The Infrastructure and Green Systems Element of the City of Fontana General Plan outlines programs to reduce, recycle and properly divert solid waste from sanitary landfills (Stantec, 2018a, p. 10.8). Solid waste generated by the project would be collected by Burrtec Waste Industries, the designated waste hauler, and transported offsite to transfer facilities and landfills for reuse, recycling and/or disposal, as appropriate (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.12-20). Burrtec delivers solid waste to the Mid-Valley Landfill, which operates under a permit from San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, Solid Waste Management Division which requires regular reporting and monitors compliance. Burrtec is implementing Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383), Short Lived Climate Pollutants, in collaboration with the City. The collection program implemented by Burrtec is considered to be the foundational pillar in achieving the organic waste reduction targets established by SB 1383. SB 1383 requires recycling containers to be blue, organics containers green, food waste containers brown, and refuse containers to be either gray or black (Burrtec, 2022). Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341; Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increases the statewide waste diversion goal to 75% by 2020, and mandates recycling for commercial and multi-family residential land uses. The project would include storage areas for recyclable materials in accordance with AB 341. Assembly Bill 1826 (AB 1826; California Public Resources Code Sections 42649.8 et seq.) requires recycling of organic matter by businesses, and multifamily residences of five of more units, generating such wastes in amounts over certain thresholds. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste. Multifamily residences are not required to have a food waste diversion program. The project would include recycling of organic wastes as required for multifamily residences under AB 1826. The proposed project would comply with applicable local, state and federal solid waste disposal standards; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. ❖ SECTION 4.20 - WILDFIRE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.20-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.20 Wildfire If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? X c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? X d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? X a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact As shown in Figure 4.9-2 in Section 4.9 of this IS/MND, the project site is not located in a State Responsibility Area (SRA) (i.e., where the State is responsible for the costs of wildfire prevention and suppression). The nearest SRA to the project site is in the City of Rancho Cucamonga approximately 3.7 miles to the northwest (CAL FIRE, 2021). In addition, the project site is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), (i.e., where cities or counties are responsible for the costs of wildfire prevention and suppression). The nearest VHFHSZ in LRA to the project site is about 2.0 miles to the north in the City of Fontana (see Figure 4.9-3; CAL FIRE, 2021). Therefore, the proposed project would not “substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan” and as such would have no 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 ❖ SECTION 4.20 - WILDFIRE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.20-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact As indicated under item a) above the project site is not located in or near a SRA or a VHFHSZ within a LRA. Therefore, the proposed project would not, "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” and as such would have no impact. c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact As indicated under item a) above the project site is not located in or near a SRA or a VHFHSZs within a LRA. Therefore, the proposed project would not, "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” and as such would have no impact. d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact As indicated under item a) above the project site is not located in or near a SRA or a VHFHSZs within a LRA. Therefore, the proposed project would not, "expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes” and as such would have no impact. ❖ SECTION 4.21 - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.21-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance Would the project have: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X a) Would the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Section 4.4 of this document addresses impacts on biological resources. The project site is located in an urbanized setting and provides low habitat value and low occurrence potential for special- status plant and wildlife species identified in the BSA. Based on a literature review and query from publicly available databases (hereafter, wildlife inventory; USFWS 2022a, 2022b, CNDDB 2022a) for reported occurrences within a ten-mile radius of the project site, there were 12 listed and 38 sensitive wildlife species identified by one of the following means: reported in the wildlife inventory; ❖ SECTION 4.21 - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.21-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 recognized as occurring based on survey observations and knowledge of the area; or observed during other surveys. Of those 50 total species, one listed and 19 sensitive wildlife species were determined to have at least a low potential to occur. One species in the wildlife inventory, southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi) SSC, was determined to have a moderate potential to occur in the project site; however, this species was not observed during the surveys. It is anticipated that construction of the project will have less than a significant impact on this special-status wildlife species. There were five listed and 26 sensitive plant species identified as occurring based on survey observations or knowledge of the area; or observed during other surveys within a ten-mile radius. Of those 31 total plant species, two listed and three sensitive plant species were determined to have a low potential to occur. The project site lacks suitable habitat, or is outside the elevation or geographic range of the majority of special-status plant species documented in the plant inventory. No special- status plant species were observed during the surveys, including the special-status plant species determined to have a low potential to occur. Considering that none of the five special-status plant species determined to have a low potential to occur within the BSA were observed, it is anticipated that construction of the project will have less than a significant impact on special-status plant species within the BSA. The BSA contains large trees that could potentially provide foraging, nesting, and cover habitats to potentially support bird species (year-round residents, seasonal residents, and migrants). A majority of the birds observed during the field surveys and those birds that could potentially breed within the BSA are protected by the MBTA and Fish and Game Code § 3503, § 3503.5, and § 3513. With the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1, the project would have a less than significant impact on bird species addressed under the MBTA. No additional mitigation is proposed for other wildlife species because the majority of the species in the wildlife inventory were determined to only have a low potential to occur, and no special-status wildlife or signs thereof were observed in the BSA, Section 4.5 of this document addresses potential impacts on Cultural Resources. The project would be built on vacant land. Based on the SCCIC cultural resources records search, it was determined that no cultural resources have been previously recorded within the project site boundary, or APE. Within the 0.5-mile radius of the APE of the project boundary there have been six previously recorded historic-era cultural resources (Table 4.1-1 in Appendix D). The pedestrian field survey undertaken for this project was negative for prehistoric resources, but did observe two possible historic irrigation features consisting of a concrete box and a concrete vertical pipe. Because neither of the two observed features meet the criteria required to qualify as a significant historic resource, there would be no substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5, and therefore the project would have no impact in this regard. The result of the pedestrian survey was negative for both prehistoric and historic sites and isolates on the project site except for the two unidentified concrete structures along Sierra Avenue and San Jacinto Avenue. Based on the results of the records search and tribal consultation it is unlikely that cultural resources or tribal resources would be adversely affected by construction of the project. No human remains have been previously identified or recorded onsite. It is unlikely that undisturbed unique archaeological resources exist on the project site. However, grading activities associated with development of the project would cause new subsurface disturbance and could potentially result in the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources. Mitigation measures CUL 1 and CUL 2 are recommended to reduce potential impacts on archeological resources and human remains to a less than significant level. ❖ SECTION 4.21 - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.21-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Section 4.7 of this document addresses potential impacts on Paleontological Resources. The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) completed a search of its paleontology records for the project region on June 19, 2022. The LACM did not identify any fossil localities on the project site; but identified five fossil localities in the project region. Excavations or grading may encounter fossil remains. Any substantial excavations below the uppermost layers should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any specimens. This impact would be potentially significant. However, with implementation of MM GEO-1, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. Section 4.18 of this document addresses potential impacts on Tribal Cultural Resources. Tribal cultural resources could be buried in site soils. Project site grading and project construction could damage such resources. With implementation of MM TCR-1, potential project impacts on TCRs would be less than significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM TCR-2 and MM TCR- 3 above, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to human remains and associated funerary objects. b) Would the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than Significant Impact The proposed project would be consistent with regional plans and programs that address environmental factors such as air quality, water quality, and other applicable regulations that have been adopted by public agencies with jurisdiction over the project for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Sections 4.3 and 4.13 of this Initial Study address potential impacts related to Air Quality and Noise, respectively. As detailed in Section 4.3, air quality impacts associated with project construction and operation would be less than significant and do not warrant mitigation. As detailed in Section 4.13, construction and operational noise impacts associated with the project site were found to be less than significant and do not warrant mitigation. The project would create employment opportunities (both during the construction and operational phases); employees from the local workforce would be hired during both the construction and operational phases of the project. The project is not of the scope or scale to induce people to move from outside of the project area to work at the proposed project. The proposed project would induce direct population growth with construction of 15 residential buildings with a total of 93 units. The proposed 93 residential units would be approximately 0.4% of the forecast increase of 24,727 households during the same period.24 Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 24 Growth in households between 2021 and 2045 is used because no forecast of housing units in Fontana in 2045 is available. A household is an occupied housing unit. In Fontana in 2021 the occupancy rate was approximately 95% (that is, 53,073 households out of 55,909 housing units). ❖ SECTION 4.21 - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 4.21-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 c) Would the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Construction lighting impacts on surrounding residences and their residents were determined to be significant without mitigation. Implementation of mitigation measure AES-1 would reduce this impact to less than significant. As discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, construction activities at the site could disturb unknown underground fuel tanks, septic systems, or wells, and thus cause a spill or soil contamination that could create a hazard to construction workers and future occupants of the site. However, implementation of MM HAZ-1, a geophysical survey, would confirm the presence or absence of these concerns. If any tanks, septic systems, or wells are identified during the survey, implementation of HAZ-2 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Due to the age of the previous buildings onsite, lead may be present in the soils, and thus lead-contaminated soils and lead dust may be disturbed during ground-disturbing activities during construction. However, with implementation of MM HAZ-3 and HAZ-4, potential impacts resulting from the presence of LBP and lead-contaminated soils would be less than significant. There is also a potential for agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers to be present in the soil from the previous agricultural uses. Soils containing these chemicals may be disturbed during construction activities thus creating a hazard to construction workers and future occupants of the site. However, with implementation of MM HAZ-3 and HAZ-4 regarding soil testing and handling potential impacts resulting from the presence of agricultural chemicals would be less than significant. Tribal cultural resources could be buried in site soils. Project site grading and project construction could damage such resources. Implementation of mitigation measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 would reduce these impacts to less than significant. As discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.20 of this document, after the implementation of mitigation measures, potential adverse environmental effects were found to be less than significant on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur. ❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 5-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 5.0 REFERENCES AEI Consultants. 2021. Phase I Environmental Assessment for 7578 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, California 92336. 4.7-11 Prepared for S & K Investments, LLC. July 30, 2021. Alexandrowicz, J. Steven, Anne Q. Duffield-Stoll, Jeanette A. McKenna, Susan R. Alexandrowicz, Arthur A. Kuhner, and Eric Scott, 1992. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Investigations Within the North Fontana Infrastructure Area, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Archaeological Consulting Services. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Allard Engineering. 2022a. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for 7578 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, California WQMP No. 22-000032. June 15, 2022. Allard Engineering. 2022b. Preliminary Drainage Report for 7578 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, California. March 24, 2022 Alta Planning and Design and City of Fontana, 2017. City of Fontana Active Transportation Plan (ATP). Accessed online at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/27009/ATP- Final-Report, accessed on May 14, 2022. ARB, 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: a framework for change. California Air Resources Board. December 2008. ARB, 2011. Final Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document. California Air Resources Board. August 19, 2011. ARB, 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, Building on the Framework. California Air Resources Board. May 2014. ARB, 2017a. Letter from ARB (Richard Corey) to USEPA (Alexis Strauss) regarding submittal of South Coast 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. California Air Resources Board. March 10, 2017. ARB, 2017b. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. California Air Resources Board. November 2017. URL: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. ARB, 2020. State Area Designations. California Air Resources Board. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area- designations. Accessed May 27, 2022. ARB, 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019. Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA. July 28, p. 2. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_0 0-19.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2022. ARB, 2022. Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA. May 10. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/2022-draft-sp.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2022. ❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 5-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 ARB, 2022. iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics. California Air Resources Board. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam. Accessed 18 May 2022. ARB, 2022. EMFAC (Emission Factor 2021 v1.0.2 webtool). California Air Resources Board. Accessed online at: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions- inventory/9c58d8e2272c09ba5e63b138e60b1bddee9e5f51, on September 9, 2022. AT&T, 2022. Tower Locations, Accessed online at https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?ie=UTF&msa=0&mid=1_qQaL6OE7Yg94UAiqC 3aLhw4gJ8&ll=34.050578256513354%2C-117.17692818594045&z=11 on May 27, 2022. Bortugno, E.J., and T.E. Spittler, comp. 1986 (revised 1998). Geologic Map of the San Bernardino Quadrangle, California. Scale 1:250,000. California Division of Mines and Geology. Available at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rgm/maps. Downloaded on July 1, 2022. BREEZE Software, 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model. User’s Guide, Version 2020.4.0. Prepared for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts. May 2022. Bryant, W.A., compiler, 2017, Fault number 515, unnamed fault near Fontana, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, https://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults, accessed on July 1, 2022.Burrtec, 2022. SB 1383 Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Program. Accessed online at: https://www.burrtec.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/SB_1383_Section_1_- _Program_Overview.pdf, on June 30, 2022. CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association), 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0. Prepared for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts. May 2022. California Department of Conservation (DOC), 2005. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Yorba Linda 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino Counties, California. Quaternary Geologic Map of the Yorba Linda 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, California. Modified from Yerkes (1972; north half) and Tan and others (1984; south half). California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2009. Technical Noise Supplement. Division of Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, California (November), http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/tens_complete.pdf. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Division of Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, California (September). http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013A.pdf. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2022. Public Airports. Accessed online at: https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/6a152cc396434c989adb89fb3132bc41_0, on March 25, 2022. CGS (Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey). 2008a. Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino ❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 5-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Production-Consumption Region, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Special Report 206, Plate 1. Accessed online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_206/SR206_Plate1.pdf, on March 22, 2022. CGS (Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey). 2008b. Update of Mineral Land Classification for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production-Consumption Region, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Accessed online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_206/SR_206_Text.pdf, on March 22, 2022. CGS (Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey). 2008c. Updated Aggregate Resource Sector Map for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production-Consumption Region, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Special report 206, Plate 2. Accessed online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_206/SR206_Plate2.pdf, on March 22, 2022. CGS (Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey). 2018. Earthquake Fault Zones: a Guide For Government Agencies, Property Owners / Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California (Special Publication 42). Available at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/publications/sp42. Downloaded on September 10, 2018. CalRecycle, 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Accessed online at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, accessed on March 24, 2022. CalRecycle, 2021a. SWIS Facility Detail: Mid- Valley Sanitary Landfill. Accessed online at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662, on March 30, 2022. CASGEM (California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring System). 2022. Well data for Well Number 48052. Available at https://water.ca.gov/programs/groundwater- management/groundwater-elevation-monitoring--casgem. Accessed on July 1, 2022. CDFW. 2022b. CDFW California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Life History Accounts and Range Maps. Available at https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range. Accessed on March 20, 2022. CDFW. 2022c. CDFW BIOS. Natural Areas Small – California Essential Habitat Connectivity (CEHC) [ds1073]. Available at https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/. Accessed on March 22, 2022. CGS, 2022b. Tsunami Maps. Accessed online at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps , accessed on March 6, 2022. Chico, T. and Koizumi, J., 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, California. June 2003. Revised July 2008. Accessed online at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized- significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed on May 27, 2022. ❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 5-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 City of Fontana. 1993. Code of Ordinances. Chapter 28, Article III. Available at: https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH28V E_ARTIIIPRHESISPTR City of Fontana, 2013. Available at CPTED Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/7417/CPTED- Guidelines?bidId= on May 31, 2022 City of Fontana, 2017. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. June 2017. Approved and adopted August 14, 2018. CC Resolution No. 2018-072. Accessed online at: at https://fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan, on May 31, 2022. City of Fontana, 2021. Comprehensive Fee Schedule (p. 114 of 278) https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/19039/2021-2022-User-Fee- Report?bidId=, on April 20,2022. City of Fontana, 2021a. General Plan Land Use Map. Accessed online at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General-Plan-Land-Use-Map-3- 2-2021?bidId=, on March 16, 2022. City of Fontana, 2021a. Municipal Code. Accessed online at: https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH18N U, on June 6, 2022. City of Fontana, 2021b. Zoning Map. Accessed online at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/30623/Zoning-District-Map-3-2- 21?bidId=, on March 16, 2022. City of Fontana, 2021c. Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Years 2021/2022-2022/2023. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/36088/FY21-22-and-FY22- 23-Adopted-Operating-Budget-PDF, on May 18, 2022 City of Fontana. 2021d. Crime Statistics. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/34727/February-2021-Crime- Statistics, on April 4, 2022. City of Fontana, 2022. Trash and Recycling Services. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/541/Trash-and-Recycling-Services, on March 24, 2022. City of Fontana. 2022a. Facilities & Parks. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/156/Facilities-Parks, on April 4, 2022. City of Fontana, 2022c. Utilities. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/3032/Utilities, on March 17, 2022. City of Fontana. 2022d. Stations and Equipment. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/639/Stations-Equipment, on June 6, 2022. ❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 5-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 City of Fontana. 2022e. Nearest Fire Station. Accessed online at: https://fontanaca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5fe8e97ef3ee4c9 1aa49942467b9acf2, on May 18, 2022 City of Fontana, 2022f. Police Department. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/2808/Contact-Us, on May 19, 2022. City of Fontana, 2022g. Demographics. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/761/Business- Resources, on May 19, 2022. City of Fontana, 2022h. Police Department Crime-Free Multi-Housing. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/313/Crime-Free-Multi-Housing, on May 31, 2022. City of Fontana, 2022i. Development Fees. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2271/Development-Impact- Fees?bidId= on June 1, 2022 County of San Bernardino et al., 2011. San Bernardino County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan. September. Accessed online at: http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GreenhouseGas/FinalGHGFull.pdf, on May 20, 2022. Day, Robert W. 2000. Geotechnical Engineer’s Portable Handbook. McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, New York. Department of General Services (DGS). 2019. California Building Standards Code. Accessed online at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes Digalert.com. 2022. Utilities contact lookup. Accessed online at: https://newtinb.digalert.org/direct/, on March 24, 2022. Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR). 2022. Mines Online. Accessed online at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html, on March 22, 2022. DOC, 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed online at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed in March 21,2022. DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2003. Bulletin 118: California’s Groundwater, Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin (Groundwater Basin Number 8-002). Accessed online at: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118, on March 9, 2022. DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2022. Division of Safety of Dams, California Dam Breach Inundation Maps. Available at https://fmds.water.ca.gov/maps/damim/. Accessed on March 11, 2022.FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 2020a. Glossary: Flood Zones Available at: https://www.fema.gov/glossary/flood-zones Accessed on March 20, 2022. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 2022. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette. Accessed online at: ❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 5-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 https://msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/mscprintb_gpserver/ j74905341ae004e8da56ae710bd530bb8/scratch/FIRMETTE_5eabecb3-4de9-4777-abd8- 2ccad6aeb587.pdf, on July 1, 2022. FPD (Fontana Police Department), 2022. Accessed online at https://www.fontana.org/3073/Welcome-to-the-Fontana-Police-Department, accessed on June 6, 2022. FTA, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Accessed online at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report- no-0123_0.pdf , on June 6, 2022. FUSD (Fontana Unified School District), 2015. Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan (January 2015). Accessed online at: https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Shared/master_plans/Facilities. pdf, on May 31, 2022 FUSD (Fontana Unified School District), 2022a. Developer Fee Justification Study for Residential & Commercial/Industrial Development June 22, 2022 (Public Review May 18, 2022 through June 22, 2022). Accessed online at, https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/4/Fontana%20Unified %20Developer%20Fee%20Justification%20Study%202022.pdf, on May 27, 2022. FUSD (Fontana Unified School District), 2022b. Developer fees. Accessed online at https://www.fusd.net/Page/639, accessed on April 5, 2022. FUSD (Fontana Unified School District), 2022c. Kathy Binks Elementary School 2020-2021 School Accountability Report Card (January 2022). Accessed online at, https://www.axiomanalytix.com/SARC/_SupportFiles/SARCIndexPDFs/3667710011342 3_20-21_1.pdf on May 27, 2022. FUSD (Fontana Unified School District), 2022d. Wayne Ruble Middle School 2020-2021 School Accountability Report Card (January 2022). Accessed online at https://www.axiomanalytix.com/SARC/_SupportFiles/SARCIndexPDFs/3667710010250 9_20-21_1.pdf on May 31, 2022 FUSD (Fontana Unified School District), 2022e. A B Miller High School 2020-2021 School Accountability Report Card (January 2022). Accessed online at https://www.axiomanalytix.com/SARC/_SupportFiles/SARCIndexPDFs/3667710363055 5_20-21_1.pdf on May 31, 2022 Geological Society of America (GSA). 2018. Geologic Time Scale. Accessed online at: https://www.geosociety.org/documents/gsa/timescale/timescl.pdf, on May 26, 2022. Google Earth Pro V 7.3.2.5491 (March 5, 2022). City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California, U.S.A. 34.°07’57.12”N-117°27’08.31”W. Eye alt 4765 ft. Available at https://earth.google.com/web/ . Accessed on March 5, 2022. ❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 5-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Google Earth Pro. Version 7.3.4.8642 (May 12, 2022). Sierra Townhomes Project Site, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. 34.116659° -117.436462°. Eye altitude 4,357 feet. Imagery date November 9, 2020. ©Google 2022. Accessed on July 1, 2022. Hendriks, R., Rymer, B., Buehler, D., And Andrews, J., 2013. Technical Supplement to the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Division of Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, CA. Available at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Nongame Heritage Program, California Department of Fish & Game, Sacramento, Calif. 156 pp. ICF International and LSA, 2021. San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan – Appendices. Final. March. Accessed online at: https://www.gosbcta.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/09/San_Bernardino_Regional_GHG_Reduction_Plan_Appendices_ Mar_2021.pdf, on May 20, 2022. ICF Jones & Stokes, 2009. Technical Noise Supplement. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes, Sacramento, California for California Department of Transportation, Division of Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, California. June 6, 2022. LSA Associates, Inc., 2021. San Bernardino County Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update. June 2021. LSA Project No. SBE2002. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 21, 2021. Accessed online at: http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/LUS/GreenhouseGas/GHG_2021/GHG%20Reduction %20Plan%20Update-Greenhouse%20Gas%20Reduction%20Plan%20Update%20- %20Adopted%209-21-2021.pdf, on May 20, 2022. Mead & Hunt, 2011a. Compatibility Policy Map: Airport Influence Area. Accessed online at https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-1.pdf, on June 1, 2022. Mead & Hunt, 2011b. Compatibility Policy Map: Safety Zones. Accessed online at: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-2.pdf, , on April 28, 2022. Morton, D.M. 2003. Preliminary geologic map of the Fontana 7.5' quadrangle, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California [map]. Scale 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2003-418. Available at https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_61860.htm. Downloaded on July 1, 2022. OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research), 2017. General Plan Guidelines: 2017 Update. Accessed online at http://opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html , accessed on June 6, 2022. RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board). 1995. 1995 Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Region 8). updated in February 2008, June 2011, and February 2016. Accessed online at: ❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 5-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/, on June 5, 2022. RWQCB (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board). 1995. Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan), with amendments effective 2016. Available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/.. San Bernardino County Public Library, 2022. Locations. Accessed online at: http://www.sbclib.org/LibraryLocations.aspx, on May 20, 2022. San Bernardino County Public Library, 2022. Locations. Accessed online at: http://www.sbclib.org/LibraryLocations.aspx, on May 20, 2022. Sawyer et al., J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, CA. 1300 pp. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, J.M. Evens, 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, CA. SCAQMD, 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, CA. November. SCAQMD, 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. South Coast Air Quality Management District. October 2008. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)- ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf. SCAQMD, 2010. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15. September 28, 2010. South Coast Air Quality Management Board. September 28, 2010. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)- ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15- minutes.pdf). SCAQMD, 2011. Final AQMD Air Quality-Related Energy Policy. September 9, 2011. Internet URL: http://www.aqmd.gov/nav/about/policies/aqmd-air-quality-related-energy-policy. Accessed March 2020. SCAQMD, 2017a. Letter from Wayne Nastri, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California re: Submittal of 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. SCAQMD, 2017b. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. South Coast Air Quality Management District. March 2017. SCAQMD, 2018. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October 2008. Internet URL: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)- ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed December 2018. SCAQMD, 2019. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Revision: April, 2019. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- ❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 5-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed May 2020. SCAQMD, 2022. Site Survey Report for Fontana. May 19. Accessed online at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-monitoring- network-plan/aaqmnp-fontana.pdf?sfvrsn=11. Accessed on June 7, 2022. Schooldigger, 2022. Accessed online at https://www.schooldigger.com/go/CA/search.aspx, on April 17, 2022. SCDEC (Southern California Earthquake Data Center). 2022a. Earthquake Information: Glossary. Available at https://scedc.caltech.edu/earthquake/glossary.html. Accessed on July 1, 2022. SCDEC (Southern California Earthquake Data Center). 2022b. Sierra Madre Fault Zone. Available at https://scedc.caltech.edu/index.html. Accessed on July 1, 2022. SCDEC (Southern California Earthquake Data Center). 2022c. San Jacinto Fault Zone. Available at https://scedc.caltech.edu/index.html. Accessed on July 1, 2022. Shuford, W.D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. SoCalGas (Southern California Gas Company), 2020. Natural Gas Transmission. Accessed online at: https://www.socalgas.com/stay-safe/pipeline-and-storage-safety/natural-gas- transmission on May 27, 2022. Soil Survey Staff. 2022. Custom Soil Resource Report for San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California: 7175 Allard_S&K Investments, Sierra Townhomes IS-MND. Available at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Downloaded on May 5, 2022. Stantec et al, 2018a. Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015 – 2035. Adopted on November 13, 2018. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015--- 2035, on May 31, 2022. Stantec, 2018b. Draft General Plan EIR. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact- Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update on May 31, 2022. Stantec. 2018c. Fontana General Plan Update Background Report. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26739/Appendix-One---Background- Report, on April 8, 2022. SWRCB (California State Water Resources Control Board). 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Adopted April 2, 2019, revised April 6, 2021. Available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/wrapp.html. ❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 5-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 USDA NRCS (United State Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service) 2022a. Web Soil Survey. Available at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed on March 21, 2022. USDA NRCS (United State Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service). 2022b. State Hydric Soils List. Available at: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316619.html Accessed March 20, 2022. USEPA, 2011. Air Quality Guide for Nitrogen Dioxide. Office of Air and Radiation. EPA-456/F-11-003. URL: https://www3.epa.gov/airnow/no2.pdf. USEPA, 2020f. Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants. Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R-20/012. April. URL: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=348522 USEPA, 2021a. Nonattainment Areas for the 2015 Ozone Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=d37c4a84a023422e8a2 4272dd8875f56. Accessed May 27, 2022. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022. WATERS GeoViewer. Available at https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer. Accessed on March 9, 2022. USEPA, 2022a. 8-Hour Ozone (2015) Nonattainment Area State/Area/County Report: Green Book. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Current Data as of April 30, 2022. [https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/jncs.html#CA]. Accessed 18 May 2022. USEPA, 2022b. PM-10 (1987) Maintenance Area (Redesignated from Nonattainment) State/Area/County Report: Green Book. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Current [https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/pmcs.html#CA]. Data as of April 30, 2022. Accessed 18 May 2022. USEPA, 2022c. PM-2.5 (2012) Designated Area State/Area/County Report: Green Book. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Current Data as of April 30, 2022. [https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/kbcs.html#CA]. Accessed 18 May 2022. USEPA, 2022d. Carbon Monoxide (1971) Maintenance Area (Redesignated from Nonattainment) State/Area/County Report: Green Book. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Current [https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/cmcs.html#CA]. Data as of April 30, 2022. Accessed 18 May 2022. USEPA, 2022e. Nitrogen Dioxide (1971) Maintenance Area (Redesignated from Nonattainment) State/Area/County Report.: Green Book. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Current [https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/nmcs.html]. Data as of April 30, 2022. Accessed 18 May 2022. ❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 5-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. 2022b. Official Species List: Consultation Code: 2022-0021300. Carlsbad, California. March 17, 2022. USFWS. 2022c. USFWS ECOS: Environmental Conservation Online System Species Reports. Available at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species-reports. Accessed on March 20, 2022. USFWS. 2022d. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) website, National Wetlands Mapper. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed on March 6, 2022. USFWS. 2022e. USFWS Critical Habitat Portal: http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/. Latest database search conducted on March 10, 2022. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2022a. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Available at https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html. Accessed on July 5, 2022. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2022b. National Geological Map Database. Available at https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/Refsmry/sumry_4793.html. Accessed on July 5, 2022. West Yost, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. San Gabriel Valley Water Company – Fontana Division. Final Report, June 2021. Accessed online at: https://www.fontanawater.com/wp- content/uploads/2021/10/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf, on May 20, 2022. White House, 2017. Executive Order 13783, "Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” 82 FR 16093. March 31, 2017. WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). 2021. 1981-2010 Monthly Climate Summary. Fontana Kaiser, California (Coop Station 043120). Retrieved from: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3120. Accessed on May 10, 2022. WRCC, 2022. Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries, Western Regional Climate Center. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html Accessed on May 2022 Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. I-III. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. Updated September, 2000. Available at https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and- Range. ❖ SECTION 6.0 – LIST OF PREPARERS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 6-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 6.1 CEQA Lead Agency Cecily Session-Goins, Associate Planner City of Fontana 8353 Sierra Ave Fontana, CA 92335 Phone Number: (909) 350-6723 Email Address: CSGoins@fontana.org 6.2 Project Applicant David Spiegel, President Spiegel Development, Inc. 23289 Ventura Boulevard Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Phone: (818) 404-1443 6.3 Civil Engineering Bobby Allard, Principal - Allard Engineering Ray Allard, Principal - Allard Engineering 6.4 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. 6.4.1 Environmental Planning Team Betsy Lindsay, MURP, ENV SP, Project Director Robert Reicher, MBA, BS, Senior Project Manager 6.4.2 Technical Team Amir Ayati, B.S., Staff Scientist Steve Borjeson, B.A., Senior Planner Billye Breckenridge, B.A., ENV SP, Assistant Project Manager/GIS Manager Allison Carver, B.S., Senior Biologist Stephen Chesterman, BEng, Principal GIS Consulting Megan Doukakis, M.A., Archaeological Technician Gulben Kaplan, M.S., GIS Analyst Swarnalatha Kumaresan, M.S., BEng, Environmental Engineer Audrey McNamara, B.A., Staff Biologist Brandie Metcalf, M.S., M.A., Senior Marketing Specialist Michael Milroy, M.S., Senior Planner Stephen O’Neil, M.A., RPA, Cultural Resources Manager Michael Rogozen, D. Env, Senior Principal Engineer Bhavik Shah, BEng, Environmental Engineer ❖ SECTION 6.0 – LIST OF PREPARERS ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 6-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Isha Shah, M.S., Staff Engineer/Scientist Andrew Soto, B.A., Word Processing/Technical Editing Matthew Sutton, M.S., B.A., ISA, Staff Biologist 6.5 Traffic Engineering Brian Estrada, Principal, AICP – RK Engineering ❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 7-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with § 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and § 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires all state and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs whenever approval of a project relies upon a MND or an EIR. The MMRP ensures implementation of the measures being imposed to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental impacts identified through the use of monitoring and reporting. Monitoring is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight; reporting generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision-making body or authorized staff person. It is the intent of the MMRP to: (1) provide a framework for document implementation of the required mitigation; (2) identify monitoring/reporting responsibility; (3) provide a record of the monitoring/reporting; and (4) ensure compliance with those MM that are within the responsibility of the City and/or Applicant to implement. The following table lists impacts, mitigation measures adopted by the City of Fontana in connection with approval of the proposed project, level of significance after mitigation, responsible and monitoring parties, and the project phase in which the measures are to be implemented. Only those environmental topics for which mitigation is required are listed in this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 7-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 Table 7.0-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TOPICAL AREA IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE PARTY MONITORING ACTION 1. ENFORCEMEN T AGENCY 2. MONITORING AGENCY 3. MONITORING PHASE 4.1 Aesthetics Threshold 4.1 d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? MM AES-1 During project construction the project applicant shall place construction staging areas as far away as possible from adjacent residences so as to minimize, to the maximum extent possible, any potential lighting impacts to nearby residences. The lighting used during project construction shall consist of the minimum amount of light necessary for safety and security on the project site. Project Applicant Field Verification 1. City of Fontana 2. City of Fontana 3. During Construction 4.4 Biological Resources Threshold 4.4 a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? MM BIO-1: Pre-Construction Breeding Bird Survey • To maintain compliance with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, and to avoid impacts or take of migratory non-game breeding birds, their nests, young, and eggs, the following measures shall be implemented. The measures below will help to reduce direct and indirect impacts caused by construction on migratory non-game breeding birds to less than significant levels. • Project activities that will remove or disturb potential nest sites, such as open ground, trees, shrubs, grasses, or burrows, during the breeding season would be a potential significant impact if migratory non-game breeding birds are present. Project activities that will remove or disturb potential nest sites shall be scheduled outside the breeding bird season to avoid potential direct impacts on migratory non-game breeding birds protected by the MBTA and Fish and Game Code. The breeding bird nesting season is typically from February 15 through September 15, but can vary slightly from year to year, usually depending on weather conditions. Removing all physical features that could potentially serve as nest sites will also help to prevent birds from nesting within the project site during the breeding season and during construction activities. Project Applicant and Qualified Biologist Field Verification 1. City of Fontana 2. City of Fontana 3. Before Construction ❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 7-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 • If project activities cannot be avoided during February 15 through September 15, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction breeding bird survey for breeding birds and active nests or potential nesting sites within the limits of project disturbance. The survey shall be conducted at least seven days prior to the onset of scheduled activities, such as mobilization and staging. It shall end no more than three days prior to vegetation, substrate, and structure removal and/or disturbance. • If no breeding birds, active nests, or other special-status species such as burrowing owl are observed during the pre-construction survey or they are observed and will not be impacted, project activities may begin and no further mitigation shall be required. • If a breeding bird territory, active bird nest, or other special-status species is observed during the pre-construction survey and will potentially be impacted, the site shall be mapped on engineering drawings and a no activity buffer zone shall be marked (fencing, stakes, flagging, orange snow fencing, etc.) a minimum of 100 feet in all directions or 500 feet in all directions for listed bird species and all raptors. The biologist shall determine the appropriate buffer size based on the type of activities planned near the nest and the type of bird that created the nest. Some bird species are more tolerant than others of noise and activities occurring near their nest. This no-activity buffer zone shall not be disturbed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is inactive, the young have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the parents, the young have left the area, or the young will no longer be impacted by project activities. Periodic monitoring by a biologist shall be performed to determine when nesting is complete. Once the nesting cycle has finished, project activities may begin within the buffer zone. • If listed bird species are observed within the project site during the pre- construction survey, the biologist shall immediately map the area and notify the appropriate resource agency to determine suitable protection measures and/or mitigation measures and to determine if additional surveys or focused protocol surveys are necessary. Project activities may begin within the area only when concurrence is received from the appropriate resource agency. • Birds or their active nests shall not be disturbed, captured, handled or moved. Active nests cannot be removed or disturbed; however, nests can be removed or disturbed if determined inactive by a qualified biologist. 4.5 Cultural Resources Threshold 4.5 b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an MM CUL 1 In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior’s Professional Standards for Archaeology shall be hired to assess the find and afforded the necessary time to recover, analyze, and curate the find(s). Work on the other portions of the project Qualified Archaeologist and Project Contractor Field Verification 1. City of Fontana Planning Department 2. City of Fontana Planning Department ❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 7-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5. outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. The qualified archaeologist shall recommend the extent of archaeological monitoring necessary to ensure the protection of any other resources that may be in the area. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A L) form and filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center. Construction activities may continue on other parts of the project site while 3. During construction activities MM CUL 2 If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly. Qualified Archaeologist and Project Contractor Field Verification 1. City of Fontana Planning Department 2. City of Fontana Planning Department 3. During construction activities Threshold 4.5 c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. MM CUL-3 If human remains are encountered during excavations associated with this project, all work shall stop within a 60-foot radius of the discovery and the San Bernardino County Coroner shall be notified (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The Coroner shall determine whether the remains are recent human origin or older Native American ancestry. If the coroner, with the aid of the supervising archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, they shall contact the NAHC. The NAHC shall be responsible for designating the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD (either an individual or sometimes a committee) shall be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD shall make recommendations within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC. These recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (§ 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). Project Construction Contractor Field Verification 1. City of Fontana Planning Department 2. City of Fontana Planning Department 3. During project construction activities 4.7 Geology and Soils Threshold 4.7 f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or MM GEO-1 Before the beginning of project construction, the project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to remain on-call for the duration of project ground disturbance activities. If paleontological resources are uncovered during project construction, the contractor shall halt construction activities in the immediate area and notify the City. The on-call paleontologist shall be notified and afforded the Project Applicant, Qualified Paleontologist, and Monitoring, Assessment, Recovery, and Curation 1. City of Fontana Planning Department 2. City of Fontana Planning Department ❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 7-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 unique geologic feature? necessary time and funds to recover and analyze the finds; and curate the find(s) with an accredited repository for paleontological resources. Subsequently, the monitor shall remain onsite for the duration of the ground disturbance to ensure the protection of any other resources that are found during construction on the project site. Construction Contractor 3. During project construction activities 4.9 Hazards and hazardous Materials Threshold 4.9 a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? MM HAZ 1 Geophysical Survey. Due to the age of the previous buildings and uses on the site, a geophysical survey shall be conducted, by a qualified Environmental Professional (as defined in § 312.10 of 40 CFR Part 312), prior to ground-disturbing activities, to determine the presence or absence of previous fueling operations, underground storage tanks (USTs), a septic system, or wells. The results of this survey shall be included in a report, which shall be provided to the City of Fontana for review. Qualified Environmental Professional and Project Contractor Field Verification 1. City of Fontana Planning Department 2. City of Fontana Planning Department 3. Before construction activities MM HAZ-2 Removal/Closure Plan. If the geophysical survey results in the identification of an Underground Storage Tank, septic system, or a well from past use of the site, a Removal/Closure Plan shall be prepared by a qualified Environmental Professional (as defined in § 312.10 of 40 CFR Part 312) according to San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and their UST Program. The Removal/Closure Plan shall be provided to the City of Fontana and CUPA for approval prior to construction activities. Qualified Environmental Professional and Project Contractor Field Verification 1. City of Fontana Planning Department 2. City of Fontana Planning Department 3. Before construction activities MM HAZ-3 Soil Sampling/Testing. Due to the potential presence of LBP and agricultural or petroleum chemicals in the soils on the project site and the unknown nature of mounds of fill material/soil on the southern edge of the site, soil sampling and testing shall be conducted by a qualified Environmental Professional (as defined in § 312.10 of 40 CFR Part 312) prior to ground-disturbing activities, to determine the presence or absence of LBP and agricultural or petroleum chemicals in the soil samples. The results of the soil sampling and testing shall be included in a report, which shall be provided to the City of Fontana for review. Qualified Environmental Professional and Project Contractor Sampling, Testing Field Verification 1. City of Fontana Planning Department 2. City of Fontana Planning Department 3. Before construction activities MM HAZ 4 Soil Management Plan. If soil sampling and testing result in the presence of lead or hazardous chemicals, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared. Prior to the commencement of grading and excavation, the project applicant shall retain a qualified Environmental Professional (as defined in § 312.10 of 40 CFR Part 312) to prepare a SMP that complies with all applicable regulatory requirements. The SMP shall be submitted to the City of Fontana for review and approval prior to the commencement of excavation and grading activities. The following is a list of requirements for the SMP. Qualified Environmental Professional and Project Contractor Field Verification 1. City of Fontana Planning Department 2. City of Fontana Planning Department 3. Before and during ❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 7-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 • The SMP shall include recommendations and requirements of the California Division of Safety and Health (DOSH); South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD); and San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division (HMD). • The SMP shall require that the project applicant remove and properly dispose of impacted materials in accordance with applicable requirements of the DTSC, and the San Bernardino County Fire Department. • The SMP shall require that contaminated soils be transported from the project site by a licensed transporter and disposed of at a licensed storage/treatment facility to prevent contaminated soils from becoming airborne or otherwise released into the environment. • The SMP shall be implemented during excavation and grading activities. • A qualified environmental consultant shall be present on the project site during grading and excavation activities in the known or suspected locations of contaminated soils, and shall be on call at other times as necessary, to monitor compliance with the SMP and to actively monitor the soils and excavations for evidence of contamination. construction activities Threshold 4.9 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? Refer to Threshold 4.9 a) above. Qualified Environmental Professional and Project Contractor Field Verification 1. City of Fontana Planning Department 2. City of Fontana Planning Department 3. Before construction activities Threshold 4.9 c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Refer to Threshold 4.9 a) above. Qualified Environmental Professional and Project Contractor Field Verification 1. City of Fontana Planning Department 2. City of Fontana Planning Department 3. Before construction activities 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources Threshold 4.18 b) Would the project cause a substantial MM TCR-1 The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed in CR-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era Qualified Tribal Resources Specialist Field Verification 1. City of Fontana Planning Department ❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖ 7175/Sierra Avenue Project Page 7-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2022 adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined to be a significant resource to a California Native American tribe pursuant to the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1(c)? cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site. and Project Contractor 2. City of Fontana Planning Department 3. During construction activities MM TCR-2 Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the project. Qualified Tribal Resources Specialist and Project Contractor Recovery, Curation, Documentation . 1. City of Fontana Planning Department 2. City of Fontana Planning Department 3. During and after construction activities